Environmental Impact Statement 

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the 

North Anna ESP Site

Final Report

Main Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of New Reactors

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

NUREG-1811, Vol. 1
 NUREG-1811, Vol. 1

Environmental Impact 

Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at

the North Anna ESP Site

Final Report

Main Report

Manuscript Completed: November 2006

Date Published: December 2006

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
December 2006 iii NUREG-1811, Volume I

Abstract

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application |

submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

LLC (Dominion), for an early site permit (ESP). The proposed action requested in Dominion’s

application is for the NRC to (1) approve a site within the existing North Anna Power Station

(NAPS) boundaries as suitable for the construction and operation of one or more new nuclear

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

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

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

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

In its application, Dominion proposed a plan for redressing the environmental effects of certain

site preparation and preliminary construction activities; that is, those activities allowed by

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.10(e)(1), performed by an ESP holder

under 10 CFR 52.25. In accordance with the site redress plan, the site would be redressed if

the NRC issues the requested ESP (containing the site redress plan), the ESP holder performs

these site preparation and preliminary construction activities, the ESP is not referenced in an

application for a construction permit or combined license, and no alternative use is found for the |

site.

This EIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts

of constructing and operating two nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site or at alternative

sites, mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts, and public

comments on both the staff’s Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS (SDEIS). It also |

includes the staff’s recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action.

As part of the NRC review of the application, the NRC solicited comments from the public on the

Draft EIS, which was issued in December 2004, and the SDEIS, which was issued in July 2006

in response to changes proposed by Dominion in Revision 6 of its Environmental Report. 

These changes involved adopting a different cooling approach for the proposed new Unit 3 and

increasing the maximum power output for both of the proposed new units (i.e., Units 3 and 4). 

Volume II of this document sets forth all public comments received concerning the Draft EIS and

the SDEIS and the NRC staff’s responses to these comments, organized by subject matter. 

The comment letters on the Draft EIS are in the NRC’s document management system

(ADAMS) under accession number ML0514720560. Comment letters on the SDEIS are under |

accession number ML063060459. ADAMS can be accessed through the NRC’s website at |

www.nrc.gov. Where appropriate, changes were made to the Draft EIS and SDEIS and are

identified by change bars in the margins of this Final EIS.
NUREG-1811, Volume I iv December 2006

The staff’s recommendation to the Commission related to its environmental review of the

proposed action is that the ESP should be issued. This recommendation is based on (1) the

Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Dominion; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal,

and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s consideration of public

comments on both the Draft EIS and the SDEIS; and (5) the assessments summarized in this

Final EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and in the EIS. In

addition, in making its recommendation, the staff has concluded that the alternative sites

| considered are not obviously superior to the proposed site. Finally, the staff concludes that the

site preparation and preliminary construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would

not result in any significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed.
December 2006 v NUREG-1811, Volume I

Contents

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

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

Abbreviations/Acronyms .................................................... xxvii

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

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.1.2 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.1.3 ESP Application and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

1.6 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

1.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

2.3.1 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

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

2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

2.3.1.3 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
NUREG-1811, Volume I vi December 2006

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

2.3.1.5 Severe Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

2.3.1.6 Meteorological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

2.3.2 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17

2.4 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2.5 Radiological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2.6 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2.6.1 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.6.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

2.6.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

2.6.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.6.2.1 Surface Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

2.6.3 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2.6.3.1 Surface Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

2.6.3.2 Groundwater Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.6.3.3 Thermal Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2.6.3.4 Chemical Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.7 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

2.7.1.1 Biological Communities of the North Anna Site . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

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

2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

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

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

2.7.2.2 Biological Communities of the WHTF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

2.7.2.3 Biological Communities of the North Anna River . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41
December 2006 vii NUREG-1811, Volume I

2.7.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44

2.7.2.5 Aquatic Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46

2.8 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

2.8.1 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47

2.8.1.1 Transient Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50

2.8.1.2 Migrant Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52

2.8.2 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52

2.8.2.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52

2.8.2.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59

2.8.2.3 Property Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61

2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63

2.8.2.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-64

2.8.2.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-68

2.8.2.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-71

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-72

2.9.1 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-72

2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . 2-74

2.9.3 Native American Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-75

2.10 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-76

2.11 Related Federal Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-79

2.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-80

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

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

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

3.2.1 Plant Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.2.2 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
NUREG-1811, Volume I viii December 2006

3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

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

3.3 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17

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

4.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

4.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

4.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4.5.1.3 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4.5.1.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
December 2006 ix NUREG-1811, Volume I

4.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

4.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.5.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

4.5.3.3 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

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

4.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

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

4.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33

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

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

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

4.8.2 Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

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

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

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

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

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

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

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

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

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction 

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

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

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

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

5.0 Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

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

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
NUREG-1811, Volume I x December 2006

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

5.3 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

5.4 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

5.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

5.4.1.1 Cooling Tower Impacts on Terrestrial Ecological Resources . . 5-13

5.4.1.2 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.4.1.3 Avian Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.4.1.4 Shoreline and Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.4.1.5 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.4.1.6 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

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

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

5.4.2.3 Entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

5.4.2.4 Aquatic Thermal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26

5.4.2.5 Striped Bass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28

5.4.2.6 Downstream Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

5.4.2.7 Shoreline Erosion and Other Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33

5.4.2.8 Summary of Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34

5.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35

5.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35

5.4.3.2 Aquatic Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37

5.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37

5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37

5.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-38
December 2006 xi NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

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

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

5.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-42

5.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-42

5.5.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-43

5.5.3.3 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44

5.5.3.4 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-46

5.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-48

5.5.3.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-49

5.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

5.7 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-52

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

5.8.1 Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

5.8.2 Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-56

5.8.3 Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-56

5.8.4 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57

5.8.5 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57

5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-58

5.9 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-58

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-58

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

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-59

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-62

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-62

5.9.3.2 Population Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public . . 5-66

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-66

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-67
NUREG-1811, Volume I xii December 2006

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-67

5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-68

 5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-68

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-70

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-70

5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-72

5.10.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-77

5.10.2.1 Air Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-79

5.10.2.2 Surface Water Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-88

5.10.2.3 Groundwater Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-89

5.10.2.4 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-89

5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-90

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation . . . . . . . . . 5-90

5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-91

5.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-95

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

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

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

6.1.1.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

6.1.1.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14

6.1.1.8 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.1.1.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16
December 2006 xiii NUREG-1811, Volume I

6.1.2.2 Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination and

Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.1.2.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24

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

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

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30

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

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

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-38

6.2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-41

6.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.7 Nonradiological Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7

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

7.9 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

7.10 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

7.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
NUREG-1811, Volume I xiv December 2006

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

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

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

8.2.1 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8.2.2 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Wet Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

8.2.3 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Dry Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

8.3 Alternative Sites, Region of Interest, and Selection and Evaluation Process . . . . 8-5

8.3.1 Dominion’s Region of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

8.3.2 Dominion’s Alternative Site Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

8.3.3 NRC’s Evaluation of Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

8.3.4 Greenfield and Brownfield Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

8.4 Generic Issues Consistent Among Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

8.4.1 Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

8.4.2 Nonadiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

8.4.2.1 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14

8.4.2.2 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14

8.4.3 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15

8.4.3.1 Radiation Doses and Health Impacts to Members of

the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15

8.4.3.2 Occupational Doses to Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15

8.4.3.3 Impacts to Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16

8.4.4 Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16

8.5 Evaluation of Surry Power Station Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17

8.5.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

8.5.2 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24

8.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24

8.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
December 2006 xv NUREG-1811, Volume I

8.5.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

8.5.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

8.5.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

8.5.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

8.5.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

8.5.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

8.6 Evaluation of the Portsmouth Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

8.6.1 Land Use including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

8.6.2 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

8.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

8.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

8.6.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources,

 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

8.6.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49

8.6.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

8.6.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

8.6.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-58

8.6.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-59

8.7 Evaluation of the Savannah River Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-59

8.7.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-62

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

8.7.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-65

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

8.7.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

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

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

8.7.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-70

8.7.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-70

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

8.7.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-79

8.8 Summaries of Alternative Site Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-80

8.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-82
NUREG-1811, Volume I xvi December 2006

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

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

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

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

9.2.2 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

9.3 Obviously Superior Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

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

9.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10

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

10.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4

10.2 Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposal is

Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5

10.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

10.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the

Human Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

10.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10

10.6 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11

10.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11

Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement Related to Dominion

Nuclear North Anna, LLC's Application for an Early Site Permit at the North

Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B – Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Appendix C – Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related to

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC's Application for an Early Site Permit

(ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

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

Appendix E – Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Volume II) E-1

Appendix F – Key Correspondence (Volume II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G – Environmental Impacts of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Appendix H – Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Appendix I – ESP Site Characteristics and Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Appendix J – Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, Permit Conditions, Commitments,

Assumptions, and Unresolved Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

Appendix K – Staff’s Independent Review of Water Budget and Water Temperature 

Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1

Appendix L – Authorizations and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-1
December 2006 xvii NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figures

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

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

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

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

2-5 Lake Anna, the WHTF, and the Rivers and Creeks in the Vicinity of NAPS . . . . . . 2-34

2-6 North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Minority Populations 

(crosshatched areas) Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna 

ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-78

2-7 North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Low Income Populations 

(crosshatched areas) Within and 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna 

ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-79

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

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

3-2 Conceptual Closed Loop Cooling Water Diagram for Unit 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3-3 Location of Transmission Lines for North Anna Power Station, 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16

4-1 Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

4-2 Schematic View of Pump Intake for the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

5-1 North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Minority Populations 

(Crosshatched Areas) Within 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP Site . . 5-53

5-2 North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Low Income Populations

(Crosshatched Areas) Within 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP Site . . 5-54

5-3 Exposure Pathways to Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60

5-4 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-68

6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

8-1 Surry Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19

8-2 Surry Power Station Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

8-3 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41

8-4 Potential New Nuclear Station Site at Portsmouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

8-5 Savannah River Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-61

8-6 Potential New Nuclear Station Site within the DOE Savannah River Site . . . . . . . . 8-63
NUREG-1811, Volume I xviii December 2006

Tables

2-1 Land Use in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

2-2 Terrestrial Species Known or Likely to Occur in Counties Adjacent to or

Downstream from the Lake Anna Reservoir (Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania,

Caroline, and Hanover Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2-3 Fish Reported from Lake Anna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

2-4 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species

Known or Likely to Occur in Counties Adjacent to or Downstream from

the Lake Anna Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45

2-5 Population Distribution from 2000 to 2065 Within 80 km (50 mi) of 

the ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48

2-6 Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

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

and the City of Richmond – 1980 to 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

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

Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51

2-9 Percent Unemployment, Individual Poverty, and Median Household Income . . . . 2-54

2-10 Major Employers in Louisa County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-54

2-11 Regional Employment Trends – 1990 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-54

2-12 County and City Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Type and by Industry . 2-55

2-13 Aggregated Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Industry or Business 

Type for Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, Fredericksburg, 

and the City of Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-56

2-14 Level-of-Service Designation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

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

Dominion Paid to Louisa County; and Operating Budgets for Louisa 

County – 1995 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-62

2-16 Visitor and Boat Launches at Lake Anna State Park – 1998 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63

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

Four-County Area of Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-65

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

and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-66

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

the City of Richmond – 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-67

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

Spotsylvania Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-69

3-1 North Anna Power Station Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
December 2006 xix NUREG-1811, Volume I

4-1 Characterization of Impacts from Construction of the Closed-Cycle Cooling

System for Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-48

5-1 Fish Species Most Commonly Impinged at Existing Units 1 and 2 (1979 to 1983) 5-22

5-2 Estimated Mean Monthly Impingement of RIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

5-3 Larval Fish Species Most Commonly Entrained at Existing Units (1978 to 1983) . 5-24

5-4 Estimated Mean Monthly Entrainment of Larvae of Common Fish Species . . . . . . 5-25

5-5 Temperature Requirements of Important Fish Species of Lake Anna . . . . . . . . . . 5-28

5-6 Fraction of Time at Various Lake Level Elevation (with associated downstream 

releases) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32

5-7 Fraction of Time by Season that Water Vapor Plume from the Proposed Unit 3

Wet and Dry Cooling Towers Would Exceed the Height of the Tallest Structure in

the PPE or Would Extend More than 800 m (2625 ft) from the Towers . . . . . . . . . 5-41

5-8 Liquid Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individuals at Lake Anna . . . . . . . . 5-62

5-9 Gaseous Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-63

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

Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . 5-64

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

Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65

5-12 Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to 40 CFR Part 190 . . . 5-69

5-13 Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to NCRP and 

IAEA Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-70

5-14 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (Ȥ/Q, s/m3

) for the North Anna ESP Site 

Design-Basis Accident Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-75

5-15 Design Basis Accident Doses for an ABWR Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-75

5-16 Design Basis Accident Doses for the Surrogate AP1000 Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-76

5-17 Design Basis Accident Doses for the Surrogate ESBWR Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-76

5-18 Mean Environmental Risks from ABWR Severe Accidents at the North Anna

ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-80

5-19 Mean Environmental Risks from the Surrogate AP1000 Severe Accidents at

the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-82

5-20 Mean Environmental Risks from Surrogate ESBWR Severe Accidents at the

North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-83

5-21 Comparison of Environmental Risk for New Surrogate ESBWR Units at the

North Anna ESP Site with Risks for Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 . . . . . . 5-85

5-22 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by 

Internal Events for an ABWR, a Surrogate AP100, and a Surrogate ESBWR at 

the North Anna ESP Site with Risks Initiated by Internal Events for 28 Current 

Operating Plants Undergoing License Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-86

5-23 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . 5-92
NUREG-1811, Volume I xx December 2006

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

(Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement [WASH-1248; AEC 1974]

or Reference Reactor Year [NUREG-0116; NRC 1976] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from 

All Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

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

the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17

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

Reactor Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

6-5 Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced

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

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

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

Spent Fuel Disposal Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-32

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

Normalized to Reference Light-Water Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-32

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

Each Advanced Reactor Type, Bq/MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35

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

Normalized to Reference 1100 – MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation . . . . . . . 6-38

6-10 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40

8-1 Dominion Site Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

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

County/City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23

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

Reported Within Surry County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-25

8-4 Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

Potentially Near the Portsmouth Alternative Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-48

8-5 Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species 

Potentially Occurring in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . 8-66

8-6 Characterization of Adverse Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . 8-80

8-7 Characterization of Adverse Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . . 8-81

9-1 Comparison of the Construction Impacts at the Proposed ESP and Alternative Sites

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

9-2 Comparison of the Operational Impacts at the Proposed ESP and Alternative 

Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5
December 2006 xxi NUREG-1811, Volume I

10-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Constructing and Operating Two Units |

at the North Anna ESP Site and the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4 |

10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7

10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8

December 2006 xxiii NUREG-1811, Volume I

Executive Summary

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

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

for two units located adjacent to the North Anna Power Station (NAPS), Units 1 and 2. The

North Anna ESP site is located in Louisa County, Virginia, approximately 10 km (6 mi) northeast

of the town of Mineral. On the basis of Revision 3 of Dominion’s application, the staff issued a

draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in December 2004. On April 13, 2006, Dominion |

submitted Revision 6 to its application, which included a revised Environmental Report (ER). 

In Revision 6 (and reflected in subsequent revisions) to the North Anna ESP application,

Dominion proposed (1) changing its approach for cooling proposed Unit 3 from a once-through

cooling system, as described in previous versions of the ER, to a closed-cycle system and

(2) increasing the maximum power level per unit from 4300 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)) to

4500 MW(t) for the proposed Units 3 and 4 (hereafter referred to as Units 3 and 4). Under the

revised cooling system approach, Unit 3 would use a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

cooling system. |

The NRC staff determined that the changes to the proposed action in Revision 6 of the

application were substantial; therefore, the staff prepared a Supplement to its Draft EIS (SDEIS)

pursuant to 10 CFR 51.72. In July 2006, the staff published a Notice of Availability for the |

Supplement to the Draft EIS for the North Anna ESP Application in the Federal Register. The |

scope of the SDEIS was limited to the environmental impacts associated with the change in the |

cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in the maximum power level for both units. The |

evaluation presented in the SDEIS replaced the evaluation of the impacts associated with the |

originally proposed once-through cooling for Unit 3 and modifies the analysis of impacts related |

to the power level increase. 

On September 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 9 to the application. In this revision,

Dominion reduced the value assumed for the release of liquid tritium. The effect of the change |

was to lower the calculated dose to the public. Any reference to the ER in this EIS refers to

Revision 9 unless otherwise specified. The revised evaluations, based on all submittals through |

Revision 9, along with public comments received on the SDEIS, are incorporated into this Final |

EIS together with comments concerning the original Draft EIS, and the staff’s consideration of

such comments. |

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

Issuance of an ESP is an action separate from the issuance of a construction permit (CP) or a

combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for such a

facility. An ESP application may refer to a reactor’s or reactors’ design parameters or a plant

parameter envelope (PPE), which is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP
NUREG-1811, Volume I xxiv December 2006

applicant expects will bound the design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be

built at a selected site; alternatively an ESP may refer to a detailed reactor design. An ESP is

not a license to build a nuclear power plant; rather, the application for an ESP initiates a

process undertaken to assess whether a proposed site is a suitable location for such a plant

should the applicant decide to pursue a CP or COL.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.)

directs that Federal agencies prepare an EIS for major Federal actions that significantly affect

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

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52 sets

forth the NRC regulations related to ESPs. As set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the Commission has

determined that an EIS will be prepared during the review of an application for an ESP. The

purpose of Dominion’s proposed action, issuance of the ESP, is to provide stability in the

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

rather than after construction is completed. Part 52 of Title 10 describes the ESP as a “partial

construction permit.” An applicant for a CP or COL for a nuclear power plant or plants to be

located at a site for which an ESP has been issued can reference the ESP, and matters

resolved in the ESP proceeding are considered resolved in any subsequent proceeding absent

the identification of new and significant information. However, issuance of either a CP (and

operating license) or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a major Federal

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

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

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

the applicant’s proposal in relation to these issues and determines whether the application

meets the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and NRC regulations. Site safety and

emergency planning are addressed in the staff’s safety evaluation report. This EIS addresses

the environmental impacts of the proposed action. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), however,

Dominion did not address the benefits of the proposed action (e.g., the need for power). In

accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, the Draft EIS, the SDEIS, and this Final EIS are focused on the

environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, that have

| characteristics that fall within the design parameters that would be specified in the ESP if it is

| granted.

The holder of an ESP, or an applicant for a CP or COL that references an ESP that includes a

site redress plan, may, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.25, perform the site preparation and

preliminary construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), provided that the Final 

EIS concludes that the activities will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts

that cannot be redressed. Dominion provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application.
December 2006 xxv NUREG-1811, Volume I

Upon acceptance of the Dominion ESP application for docketing, the NRC began the

environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal

Register a Notice of Intent (68 FR 65961) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff

visited the North Anna ESP site during December 2003 and held a public scoping meeting in

Mineral, Virginia, on December 8, 2003. Subsequent to the site visit and the scoping meeting

and in accordance with the provisions of NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff determined and

evaluated the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear

power plants at the North Anna ESP site, and stated its preliminary findings in a Draft EIS,

which was issued on December 2, 2004.

The Draft EIS set forth (1) the results of the NRC staff’s preliminary analyses, which considered

and weighed the environmental effects of the proposed action (issuance of the ESP) and of

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

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

staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The staff conducted a public meeting on February 17, 2005, to describe the preliminary results

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

information to assist them in formulating comments on the Draft EIS. On April 13, 2006, |

Dominion submitted Revision 6 to its application, which included substantial changes and |

required the staff to develop the SDEIS, which was published in July 2006. The staff held a |

similar public meeting on August 15, 2006, for the SDEIS. After the comment period, the staff

considered all comments received. The staff’s disposition of the comments, on both the Draft |

EIS and the SDEIS are set forth in Volume II, Appendix E, of this Final EIS. |

During the course of preparing the North Anna ESP EIS, the staff reviewed the revised ERs

submitted by Dominion; consulted, as necessary, with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies;

and followed the guidance set forth in the NRC’s review standard RS-002, Processing

Applications for Early Site Permits, to conduct an independent review of the issues presented in

the ER, as revised. The review standard draws from the previously published NUREG-0800,

Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, and

NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants.

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

the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts using guidance set forth by the

Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.27). Using this approach, the NRC has

established three significance levels – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – which are defined

below:

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
NUREG-1811, Volume I xxvi December 2006

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

Mitigation measures, assumptions, and applicant commitments used in the staff’s analysis are

presented in Appendix J. Proposed permit conditions are also included in Appendix J.

The staff’s recommendation, in view of the environmental impacts described in the EIS, is that

the ESP for North Anna Units 3 and 4 should be issued. This recommendation is based on

(1) the ER submitted by Dominion; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and local

agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s consideration of public comments

related to the environmental review that were received during the review process; and (5) the

assessments summarized in the EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in

the ER and in the EIS. In addition, in making its recommendation, the staff has concluded that

the alternative sites considered are not obviously superior to the proposed site. Finally, the staff

concludes that the site preparation and preliminary construction activities enumerated in

10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would not result in any significant adverse environmental impact that cannot

be redressed. 
December 2006 xxvii NUREG-1811, Volume I

Abbreviations/Acronyms

ABWR advanced boiling water reactor

ac acre(s)

ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ACR-700 Advanced CANDU Reactor

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System |

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

ALWR advanced light-water reactor

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BMP best management practices |

Bq becquerel(s)

Btu British thermal unit(s)

BWR boiling water reactor

C Celsius

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

COL combined construction and operating license, combined license |

CP construction permit

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

CWIS cooling water intake system

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

d day

DBA design-basis accident

dBA decibels |

DEIS draft environmental impact statement |

DGIF Department of Game and Inland Fisheries |

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EAB exclusion area boundary

EC energy conservation mode

EIS environmental impact statement
NUREG-1811, Volume I xxviii December 2006

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ER environmental report

ESBWR economic simplified boiling water reactor

ESE east-southeast

ESP early site permit

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan

F Fahrenheit

| FR Federal Register

ft foot, feet

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

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

gal gallon(s)

GEIS generic environmental impact statement

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

GT-MHR gas turbine-modular helium reactor

ha hectare(s)

HLW high-level waste

HPS Health Physics Society

hr hour(s)

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

| ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

in. inch(es)

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

IRIS international reactor innovative and secure

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

LAAC Lake Anna Advisory Committee

lb pound(s)

LLW low-level waste
December 2006 xxix NUREG-1811, Volume I

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOS level-of-service

LPZ low population zone

LWR light-water reactor

m meter(s)

m/sec meter(s) per second

m3

/d cubic meter(s) per day

m3

/s cubic meter(s) per second

MBq million Becquerel(s)

mGy/yr milligray per year

MGD million gallons per day

mi mile(s)

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

mL milliliter(s)

mph miles per hour

mrad millirad(s)

mrem millirem(s)

MSL mean sea level

mSv millisievert(s)

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

MTU metric ton(s)-uranium

MW megawatt(s)

MWC maximum energy conservation mode

MWd/MTU megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium

MW(e) megawatt(s)-electric

MW(t) megawatt(s)-thermal

MWh megawatt hour(s)

NA not applicable

NAPS North Anna Power Station

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NCHS National Center for Health Statistics

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NESC National Electric Safety Code

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NNE north-northeast

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxide(s)
NUREG-1811, Volume I xxx December 2006

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

| NUG non-utility generator

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL operating license

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PBMR pebble bed modular reactor

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PPE plant parameter envelope

ppm parts per million

PWR pressurized water reactor

RCIC reactor core isolation cooling

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

rms root mean square

ROI region of interest

RRY reference reactor-year

RSA Rapidan Service Authority

Ryr-1 per reactor year

s second

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

SDEIS Supplement to the Draft EIS

SER safety evaluation report

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SODI Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative

SOx sulfur oxide(s)

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure

SR State Route

SRS Savannah River Site

SSAR Site Safety Analysis Report

SSE south-southeast

Sv sievert(s)

SWR Service Water Reservoir

SWU separative work units

TEDE total effective dose equivalent
December 2006 xxxi NUREG-1811, Volume I

TRU transuranic (waste)

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UCO uranium oxycarbide

UFSAR Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

UHS ultimate heat sink

U.S. United States

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEC United States Enrichment Corporation, Inc.

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VAC Virginia Administrative Code

VTAX Virginia Department of Taxation |

VDCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation 

VDSS Virginia Department of Social Services

VEC Virginia Employment Commission

VEPCo Virginia Electric & Power Company (Virginia Power) |

VNHP Virginia Natural Heritage Program

VPDES Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

yd yard(s)

yr year(s)

WHTF Waste Heat Treatment Facility
December 2006 1-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

1.0 Introduction

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

application pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 52 from |

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit (ESP) for the North Anna

ESP site located in Louisa County, Virginia near the town of Mineral, Virginia. The |

September 25, 2003 Environmental Report (ER) contained in the application was revised by

letters dated October 2, 2003 (Revision 1), July 15, 2004 (Revision 2), September 7, 2004

(Revision 3), May 12, 2005 (Revision 4), July 25, 2005 (Revision 5), April 13, 2006 (Revision 6), |

June 21, 2006 (Revision 7), July 31, 2006 (Revision 8), and September 13, 2006 (Revision 9). |

Any reference in this environmental impact statement (EIS) to the ER refers to Revision 9 |

(Dominion 2006a), unless otherwise stated. Under the NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 52 and

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

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

prepare an EIS as part of its review of an ESP application.

The NRC issued the EIS in draft form for public comment in December 2004 (NRC 2004a). A |

Supplement to the Draft EIS (SDEIS), issued in July 2006, evaluated changes to the cooling |

system for proposed Unit 3 and an increase in power level for Units 3 and 4 made by Dominion |

after the Draft EIS was published (NRC 2006a). The evaluation presented in the SDEIS |

replaced the evaluation of the impacts associated with the originally proposed once-through |

cooling system for Unit 3 and modified the analysis of impacts related to the power level |

increase. These revised evaluations, along with the public comments received on the analysis |

presented in the SDEIS, are incorporated into this Final EIS together with comments received |

concerning the original Draft EIS and the staff’s consideration of such comments. |

The North Anna Draft EIS, the SDEIS, and this Final EIS follow a similar structure of section |

contents. Traditionally, change bars are placed in the margins of a final EIS to identify where |

the final document has been changed from the Draft EIS in response to public comments or |

corrections. For the North Anna ESP, two previous draft documents exist for this Final EIS. |

They differ with respect to the changes to the Unit 3 cooling system and the increase in |

maximum power level proposed in Dominion’s ER Revision 6. In this document, change bars |

are used primarily where new information is added in response to public comment, or a |

technically substantive change has been made. |
Introduction

NUREG-1811, Volume I 1-2 December 2006

1.1 Background

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

| Issuance of an ESP is a process that is separate from the issuance of a construction permit

(CP), an operating license (OL), or a combined construction and operating license (combined

license or COL) for such a facility. The ESP application and review process makes it possible

to evaluate and resolve safety and environmental issues related to siting before the applicant

makes a large commitment of resources. If the ESP is approved, the applicant can “bank” the

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

plan, the ESP holder can conduct certain site preparation and preliminary construction activities

enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10 (e)(1). An ESP does not authorize construction and operation of a

| nuclear power plant. To construct and operate a nuclear power plant, an ESP holder must

| obtain a CP and an OL, or a COL, which are separate major Federal actions that require their

own environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

As part of its evaluation of the environmental aspects of the action proposed in an ESP

application, the NRC prepares an EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18 and 10 CFR Part 51. 

Because site suitability encompasses construction and operational parameters, the EIS

addresses impacts of both construction and operation of reactors and associated facilities. In a

review separate from the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety characteristics of the

proposed site and emergency planning information. These latter two analyses are documented

in a safety evaluation report that presents the conclusions reached by the NRC regarding the

following issues:

& whether there is reasonable assurance that a reactor or reactors, having characteristics

that fall within the parameters for the site, can be constructed and operated without

undue risk to the health and safety of the public

& whether there are significant impediments to the development of emergency plans

& whether site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and measures can be

developed.

| The staff has issued a separate safety evaluation report for the North Anna ESP site in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 52 (NRC 2005b, 2006b). In addition, if the applicant proposes

either major features of emergency plans or complete and integrated emergency plans, the

safety evaluation report documents whether such major features are acceptable, or whether the

complete and integrated emergency plans provide reasonable assurance that adequate

protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Dominion

| chose to propose major features of emergency plans in its application.
Introduction

December 2006 1-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope

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

associated facilities, but should provide sufficient bounding parameters and characteristics of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

selection of a reactor design until the CP or COL stage. The PPE is discussed in more detail in |

Section 3.2 and is contained in Appendix I of this EIS. |

1.1.2 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities

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

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

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

enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), provided the final ESP EIS concludes that the activities will

not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be redressed. Dominion

provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application (Dominion 2006b). Activities

permitted under an ESP containing a site redress plan include preparation of the site for

construction of the facility, installation of temporary construction support facilities, excavation for

facility structures, construction of service facilities, and construction of certain structures,

systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated

accidents (10 CFR 50.10(e)(1)). The site redress plan specifies how the applicant would

stabilize and restore the site to its preconstruction condition (or conditions consistent with an

alternative use) in the event these site preparation activities are performed but a nuclear power

plant is not constructed on the ESP site.

Should the NRC grant the ESP and the ESP holder decides to perform the activities authorized

by 10 CFR 52.25, “Extent of Activities Permitted,” the ESP holder must obtain from the

landowner the authority to undertake those activities on the ESP site. In obtaining such a right,

the ESP holder must also obtain the corresponding right to implement the site redress plan

described in the staff’s Final EIS in the event that no plant is built on the ESP site. The staff

proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued requiring that the ESP holder

obtain the right to implement the site redress plan before initiating any activities authorized by

10 CFR 52.25. In addition, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that applicants for

Federal permits that would allow discharges into navigable waters obtain a certification

regarding the discharge or obtain a waiver for such a certification. As discussed in Section 1.5
Introduction

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

| references to the “GEIS” include the GEIS and Addendum 1

NUREG-1811, Volume I 1-4 December 2006

of this chapter, the staff proposes to include a condition prohibiting the ESP holder from

conducting any pre-construction activity that would result in a discharge into navigable waters

without first submitting to the NRC a Virginia Water Protection Permit (which under Virginia’s

State Water Control Law at Virginia Code § 62.1-44.15:5(A) constitutes the certification required

under Clean Water Act § 401) or a determination by the Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality (VDEQ) that no certification is required.

1.1.3 ESP Application and Review

In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), Dominion submitted an ER as part of its ESP

application (Dominion 2006a). The ER focuses on the environmental effects of construction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1987), and

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

(ESRP) (NRC 2000). RS-002 provides guidance to NRC staff reviewers to help ensure a

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

applicant may elect to use a PPE approach instead of supplying specific design information. 

The staff’s June 23, 2003, responses to comments received on draft RS-002 (in NRC’s

document system [ADAMS] under the Accession Number ML031710698) provide additional

insights on the staff’s expectations and potential approach to the review of an application

employing the PPE approach (NRC 2003). Specifically, the NRC staff adapted the ESRP

review guidance to the PPE concept. The findings in this EIS reflect the adaptation of the

ESRP guidance to the PPE approach.

| In addition, the staff also considered the information and analyses provided in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996)(a) | in

| its review. Because the GEIS included a review of data from all operating nuclear power plants,

| some of the information was useful for the environmental review of the proposed action. The

| staff has identified in the text those areas where this information has been used.
Introduction

December 2006 1-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.18, an EIS prepared by the NRC staff on an application for an ESP

focuses on the environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, that

have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters. Such an EIS must also

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

alternative to the site proposed. The Commission’s regulations recognize that certain matters

need not be resolved at the ESP stage (e.g., an assessment of the benefits, need for power)

and, thus, may be deferred until an applicant decides to apply for a CP or COL. Further, the

NRC staff realizes that certain information pertaining to the environmental impacts of

construction and operation of new nuclear power facilities may not be available when the NRC

staff reviews an ESP application.

Dominion’s ESP application, including its ER, was submitted under oath or affirmation. 

Applicants use the body of NRC regulatory guidance (e.g., Regulatory Guides, Review

Standards, and Standard Review Plans) and can take advantage of approaches and methods

that are acceptable to the NRC to analyze environmental impacts. The staff relied upon the ER

as a source of basic information about the plant parameters, the site, the region, and the

environment. The applicant and the NRC are not required to have identical positions on the

significance of environmental impacts; nevertheless, at times there are different conclusions

reached based on different methods and assumptions. Subsequent to the acceptance of the

application, the staff visited the site; consulted with local, State, Tribal and Federal agencies;

and conducted its own independent review. The Draft EIS, the SDEIS, and this Final EIS are

the result of the staff’s review and properly include material from various sources including the

ER. Ultimately, the NRC is responsible for the reliability of all of the information used in its EIS. 

If, as part of its independent review, the NRC determines that information presented in the ER is

useful and the NRC confirms its accuracy, then the NRC may use the information in its EIS.

With regard to the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the |

proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4, Dominion made a number of representations in its |

application. As discussed in the evaluations in this EIS, the staff relied on these representations |

and staff-developed assumptions in assessing the environmental impacts associated with |

construction and operation of Units 3 and 4. As such, fulfillment of these representations and |

assumptions provide part of the basis for the final impact assessment. Should a CP or COL |

applicant reference the ESP, and the staff ultimately determines that a representation or an |

assumption has not been satisfied at the CP/COL stage, that information would be considered |

new and potentially significant, and the affected impact area could be subject to re-examination. |

In its application and in responses to requests for additional information (RAIs), Dominion did

not or was unable to provide information and analysis for certain issues sufficient to allow the

NRC staff to complete its analysis. For such issues, Dominion did not offer, nor did the staff

identify, bases for assumptions that would allow resolution. The staff was unable to determine a

unique significance level for such issues, and therefore, these issues are not resolved for the

North Anna ESP site.
Introduction

NUREG-1811, Volume I 1-6 December 2006

As provided by 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2), the Commission shall treat those matters that are resolved

through this EIS as resolved in any later proceeding on an application for a CP or COL

referencing the requested North Anna ESP. However, as discussed in the NRC staff's

July 6, 2005, letter to Mr. A. Heymer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a CP or COL applicant

must identify whether there is new and significant information on these resolved issues

| (NRC 2005a). This requirement complements the obligation of a CP or COL applicant

referencing an ESP to provide information to resolve any significant environmental issue not

| considered in the previous proceeding on the ESP. Issuance of either a CP (and OL) or a COL

| to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a major Federal action that requires its own

| environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51. As provided in 10 CFR 52.79 and

under NEPA, the CP or COL environmental review will be informed by the EIS prepared at the

ESP stage, and the NRC staff intends to use tiering and incorporation-by-reference whenever it

is appropriate to do so. The CP or COL applicant must address any other issue not considered

| or not resolved in the EIS for the ESP. Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.70(b), the NRC is

required to independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in

the environmental review for a CP or COL application, and the staff may (1) inquire into the

continued validity of information disclosed in an EIS for an ESP that is referenced in a COL

application, and (2) look for any new information that may affect the assumptions, analyses, or

conclusions reached in the ESP EIS.

In addition, measures and controls to limit any adverse impact will be identified and evaluated

for feasibility and adequacy in limiting adverse impacts at the ESP stage, where possible, and at

the CP or COL stage. As a result of the staff’s environmental review of the ESP application, the

staff may determine that conditions or limitations on the ESP may be necessary in specific

| areas, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.24. Therefore, the staff identified in the Draft EIS, SDEIS, and

| this Final EIS when and how assumptions and PPE values limit its conclusions on the

| environmental impacts to a particular resource (see also Appendix J).

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

environmental staff (and technical experts from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

retained to assist the staff) visited the North Anna ESP site and alternative sites in

December 2003; January, February, September, and December 2005; and May 2006 to gather

information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs. During these site visits, the

staff and its contractor personnel met with the applicant’s staff, public officials, Federal and

State regulators, local officials, and the public. A list of the organizations contacted is provided

in Appendix B. Other documents related to the North Anna ESP site were reviewed and are

listed as references where appropriate.

Upon acceptance of the Dominion ESP application for docketing, the NRC began the

environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal

Register a Notice of Intent (68 FR 65961) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff

| held a public scoping meeting on December 8, 2003, in Mineral, Virginia. Subsequent to the
Introduction

December 2006 1-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

scoping meeting and in accordance with NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff determined and |

evaluated the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear

power plants at the North Anna ESP site, and stated its preliminary findings in a Draft EIS

issued on December 2, 2004 (NRC 2004a). On December 10, 2004, the staff issued a Notice of

Availability in the Federal Register (69 FR 71854). On December 17, 2004, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Notice of Filing (69 FR 75535), and initiated a

75-day comment period for the Draft EIS, which ended March 2, 2005.

A public meeting was conducted on February 17, 2005, at Mineral, Virginia, to describe the

results of the NRC environmental review, answer questions related to the review, and provide

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

Draft EIS.

On April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 6 to its application. The staff issued a Notice |

of Intent to prepare a supplement to the Draft EIS (71 FR 28392). In response to the changes

proposed in ER Revision 6 related to the Unit 3 cooling system and the maximum power level of

both Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff re-evaluated the environmental impacts of these issues and

documented its conclusions in the SDEIS (NRC 2006a). The scope of the SDEIS was limited to

the environmental impacts associated with the changes in the ER Revision 6 cooling system for

Unit 3 and the maximum power level for the proposed new units. This evaluation replaced the

evaluation of the impacts of once-through cooling for Unit 3 in the Draft EIS and modified the |

analysis of impacts related to the power level. On July 12, 2006, the staff issued a Notice of |

Availability for the SDEIS in the Federal Register (71 FR 39372). On July 14, 2006, the |

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Notice of Filing of the SDEIS |

(71 FR 40096) initiating a 45-day comment period during which the public could comment on

the SDEIS. Subsequently, the comment period was extended an additional 15 days, ending

September 12, 2006 (71 FR 46927). A public meeting was held August 15, 2006, in Mineral,

Virginia. Comments received at the public meeting and those received by letter and e-mail are |

included in Appendix E (Volume II) of this Final EIS along with those received on the Draft EIS. 

Revised evaluations, along with public comments received on the analysis presented in the

SDEIS, are incorporated into this Final EIS together with public comments and the staff’s

consideration of comments received concerning the Draft EIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1811, Volume I 1-8 December 2006

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

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

the proposed action at the North Anna ESP site, including the environmental impacts

associated with construction and operation of reactors at the site, the impacts of constructing

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

the ESP, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental

effects. It also provides the NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission regarding the

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

characteristics that fall within the PPE.

The comment letters on the Draft EIS and SDEIS are in the NRC’s document management

system (ADAMS) under accession numbers ML043380308 and ML061800217, respectively.

1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

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

ESP for the North Anna ESP site for nuclear power facilities with characteristics that fall within

the PPE. In addition, Dominion proposes a plan for redressing the environmental effects of

certain site preparation and preliminary construction activities (i.e., those activities enumerated

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

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

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

activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application for a CP or COL, and no alternative use is

found for the site. While Dominion is not currently proposing construction and operation of new

units, this EIS analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from the construction and

operation of two new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site, or at three alternative sites. 

These impacts are analyzed to determine whether the proposed ESP site is suitable for the new

units and whether there is an alternative site that is obviously superior to the proposed site.

The North Anna ESP site proposed by Dominion is located in Louisa County in northeastern

Virginia, near the town of Mineral. It is completely within the confines of the current North Anna

Power Station (NAPS) site, which is located on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna

| approximately 8 km (5 mi) upstream of the North Anna Dam. The NAPS site contains two

| nuclear generating units managed by Dominion Generation. Lake Anna is approximately 27 km

(17 mi) long with 435 km (272 mi) of shoreline. The lake was created in 1971 by the

construction of a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River. Virginia Electric and Power
Introduction

December 2006 1-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Company, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., owns the land above and below the lake

surface and around the lake up to the expected high-water mark.

For purpose of the ESP application, no specific plant design was selected by Dominion for the

ESP site; instead, a set of values of plant parameters (i.e., the PPE) has been specified for the

staff’s evaluation of the future development of the North Anna site. Dominion has for the

purpose of preparation of a COL application selected the Economic Simplified Boiling Water

Reactor (ESBWR) (Dominion 2005a). However, for the ESP review, Dominion’s application

uses the PPE approach. The PPE is based on the addition of power generation from two

distinct units, to be designated as North Anna Units 3 and 4. Each unit represents 4500 MW(t)

of the total generation capacity to be added and would consist of one or more reactors or

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

on the reactor type selected) would be grouped into distinct operating units, proposed Units 3 |

and 4. The ESP application does not propose construction and operation of Units 3 and 4. The |

phrase “proposed Units 3 and 4,” as used in this EIS, indicates surrogate reactors with the |

design parameters specified in the PPE for environmental evaluation. The total nuclear |

generating capacity to be added would not exceed 9000 MW(t). Cooling water for Unit 3, the

first of the proposed new units, was originally envisioned as being provided by Lake Anna using

a once-through cooling system. With the changes proposed in ER Revision 6, Unit 3 would now

be cooled using a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling tower system. Unit 4 would

use dry cooling towers.

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., ESP issuance) is to provide stability in the

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

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

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

of an ESP, safety and environmental reviews of applications for OLs under 10 CFR Part 50

would take place during plant construction. Alternatively, all safety and environmental issues

would have to be addressed at the time of the staff’s review of a COL submitted under

10 CFR Part 52 if no ESP for the site were referenced. Although actual construction and

operation of the facility would not take place unless and until a COL is granted, certain lead-time

activities, such as ordering and procuring certain components and materials necessary to

construct the plant, may begin before the COL is granted. As a result, without the ESP review

process, there could be a considerable expenditure of funds, commitment of resources, and

passage of time before site safety and environmental issues are finally resolved.
Introduction

NUREG-1811, Volume I 1-10 December 2006

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

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

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

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

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

discusses the environmental impacts of three categories of alternatives: (1) alternative sites,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

one of the alternative sites considered is obviously superior to the proposed site.

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

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

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

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

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

establishing the acceptability of the proposed site for future development, with the exception of

Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act certifications, the authorizations Dominion

| will need from Federal, State, and local authorities for construction and operation are not yet

necessary; therefore, they have not been obtained. 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act specifies that “Any applicant for a Federal license or permit

to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities,

which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or

permitting agency a certification from the State...” (401 certification). Dominion stated that it is

unable to obtain 401 certification from the Commonwealth of Virginia at the ESP stage. In a

letter dated October 6, 2005 (Dominion 2005b), responding to a request for additional

information, Dominion stated:

To address the timing of this certification, the ESP should include a condition prohibiting

Dominion from conducting any pre-construction activity that would result in a discharge into
Introduction

December 2006 1-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

navigable waters without first submitting to the NRC a Virginia Water Protection Permit

(which under Virginia’s State Water Control Law at Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:5(A) constitutes

the certification required under FWPCA § 401) or a determination by the Virginia DEQ that

no certification is required.

The Commonwealth of Virginia agreed to a permit condition prohibiting discharges to navigable

waters until a 401 certification is obtained or waived by the Commonwealth (VDEQ 2006). |

On November 10, 2006, Dominion requested a permit condition should an ESP be granted. |

The permit condition was submitted in response to a request from the Virginia Department of |

Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) to perform an Instream Flow Incremental Methodology |

Study (IFIM). The staff recommends that the permit condition below be included in the ESP. |

Dominion shall conduct a comprehensive IFIM study, designed and monitored in |

cooperation and consultation with the VDGIF and the VDEQ, to address potential impacts of |

the proposed Units 3 and 4 upon the fishery and other aquatic resources of Lake Anna and |

downstream waters. Development of the scope-of-work for the IFIM study shall begin in |

2007, and the IFIM study shall be completed prior to issuance of a COL for this project. |

Dominion agrees to consult with VDGIF and VDEQ regarding analysis and interpretation of |

the results of that study, and to abide by surface weather management, release, and |

instream flow conditions prescribed by VDGIF and VDEQ upon review of the completed |

IFIM study, and implemented through appropriate state or federal permits or licenses. |

On November 22, 2006, Dominion provided certification from the Commonwealth of Virginia that |

its project complied with the enforceable policy of Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. |

In addition, Dominion would need to obtain the other necessary authorizations in order to

conduct the site preparation and preliminary construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 52.25(a). 

Authorizations and consultations potentially relevant to the proposed ESP are included in

Appendix L.

The staff considered the necessary authorizations and consultations and contacted the |

appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to identify any compliance, permit, or significant

environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies that may impact the suitability of the

North Anna ESP site for the construction and operation of the reactors that fall within the PPE.

1.6 Report Contents

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1811, Volume I 1-12 December 2006

the environmental impacts of construction (Chapter 4) and operation (Chapter 5) of the

proposed new units. Chapter 6 analyzes the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle,

transportation of radioactive materials, and decommissioning, while Chapter 7 discusses the

cumulative impacts of the proposed action. Chapter 8 explains how the alternative sites were

selected, and analyzes the alternative sites and systems. Chapter 9 compares the proposed

action with the alternatives, and Chapter 10 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters

and presents the staff’s recommendation with respect to (1) the Commission’s approval of the

proposed site for an ESP based on the staff’s evaluation of environmental impacts and (2) the

site redress plan.

The appendices provide the following additional information:

& Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement Related to Dominion

Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s Application for an Early Site Permit at the North Anna ESP

Site

& Appendix B – Organizations Contacted

& Appendix C – Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related

to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s Application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

North Anna ESP Site

& Appendix D – Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

| & Appendix E – Comments and Responses to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

| and Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Volume II)

& Appendix F – Key Correspondence (Volume II)

& Appendix G – Environmental Impacts of Transportation

& Appendix H – Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment

& Appendix I – ESP Site Characteristics and Plant Parameter Envelope

| & Appendix J – Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC Commitments and Assumptions and

| Permit Conditions

& Appendix K – Staff’s Independent Review of Water Budget and Water Temperature

Impacts

& Appendix L – Authorizations and Consultations.
Introduction

December 2006 1-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

1.7 References

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

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

Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.”

68 FR 65961. “Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, North Anna Early Site Permit; Notice of

Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Vol. 68,

No. 226. November 24, 2003.

69 FR 71854. “Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site and

Associated Public Meeting.” Vol. 68, No. 237. December 10, 2004.

69 FR 75535. “Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of

Availability.” Vol. 69, No. 242. December 17, 2004.

71 FR 28392. “Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Intent to prepare a supplement to |

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” Vol. 71, No. 94. May 16, 2006. |

71 FR 39372. “Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Supplement to

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP

Site and Associated Public Meeting.” Vol. 71, No. 133. July 12, 2006. |

71 FR 40096. “Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of

Availability.” Vol. 71, No. 135. July 14, 2006.

71 FR 46927. “Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of the extension of the Public |

Comment Period on the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Early |

Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site.” Vol. 71, No. 157. August 15, 2006. |

Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 

33 USC 1251,et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.
Introduction

NUREG-1811, Volume I 1-14 December 2006

| Code of Virginia, §62.1-44:(5a). Online at: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-

| bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+62.1-44.15.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005a. Letter to the NRC dated

| November 22, 2005, Dominion’s Submittal of ESP Application Schedule. 

Accession No. ML053260619.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005b. Letter Response to Request for

| Additional Information dated July 20, 2005, Glen Allen, Virginia, October 6, 2005. 

| Accession No. ML052790657.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 9, Richmond, Virginia.

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

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

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

| Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437.

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Response to comments on Draft RS-002

Processing Applications for Early Site Permits. Accession No. ML031710698.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits. RS-002, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Letter Response to NEI Letter dated

| February 10, 2005, Concerning Industry Feedback and Position on the Extent of NRC

| Environmental Reviews at the Combined License Stage when an Applicant References an Early

| Site Permit. July 6, 2005. Washington D.C. Accession No. ML051050031.
Introduction

December 2006 1-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Safety Evaluation Report for an Early

Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1835. Accession No. ML052710305. 

Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP Site, Supplement 1. NUREG-1811,

Washington D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Supplement to the Final Safety |

Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. September 2006. |

Accession No. ML063170371.

|

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2006. Letter to NRC concerning |

Dominion Nuclear North Anna Early Site Permit Application, § 401 Certification of the Federal |

Clean Water Act. June 16, 2006. Accession No. ML061720278. |
December 2006 2-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

2.0 Affected Environment

The site proposed by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit

(ESP) is located in Louisa County, Virginia, within the existing boundaries of the currently

operating North Anna Power Station (NAPS) (Dominion 2006a). Virginia Electric and Power

Company (referred to as Virginia Power or VEPCo) and Dominion are wholly owned

subsidiaries of Dominion Resources, Inc. The site is on the shore of Lake Anna approximately

64 km (40 mi) north-northwest of Richmond. Two operating nuclear generating units, Units 1

and 2, are currently located on the NAPS site, and a small hydroelectric power plant is located

at the base of the North Anna Dam.

The station location is described in Section 2.1, followed by a description of associated land,

meteorology and air quality, geology, radiological environment, hydrology, ecology,

socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice in Sections 2.2

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

presented in Section 2.12.

2.1 Site Location

The proposed location for Units 3 and 4 is wholly within the NAPS site and is west of and

adjacent to the existing facilities of NAPS Units 1 and 2 (Figure 2-1). Two other NAPS units

received construction permits on July 26, 1974, but were not constructed. The NAPS site is

located in rural Louisa County, which had a population of about 25,000 in 2000. NAPS is

located within a triangle formed by the cities of Richmond, Charlottesville, and Fredericksburg,

Virginia. Figure 2-2 shows the location of NAPS in relation to the major cities and towns within

an 80-km (50-mi) radius. Interstate Highway 95 (I-95) passes within 26 km (16 mi) of the NAPS

site, and Interstate 64 passes within 29 km (18 mi). The nearest incorporated community is the

town of Mineral, which is approximately 10 km (6 mi) southwest of NAPS. Louisa, the county

seat, is 19 km (12 mi) west of the site. NAPS is situated on a peninsula on the southern shore

of Lake Anna, approximately 8 km (5 mi) upstream from North Anna Dam.

NAPS occupies approximately 422 ha (1043 ac) of land. In addition, the waste heat treatment

lagoons cover approximately 1400 ha (3400 ac), as shown in Figure 2-3. All site land,

subsurface lands, and mineral rights are owned jointly by Virginia Power, a subsidiary of

Dominion Resources, Inc., and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. No public or commercial

highways, railroads, or waterways traverse the site. Virginia Power also owns and operates the

North Anna Hydroelectric Project, an 855-kW-capacity hydroelectric power plant at the base of

the North Anna Dam.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-2 December 2006 Figure 2-1. North Anna ESP Site Boundaries within the Existing NAPS Site
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 2-2. Location of North Anna Power Station, 80-km (50-mi) Region
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-4 December 2006

Figure 2-3. North Anna Power Station Vicinity Map, 16-km (10-mi) Region
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The Lake Anna reservoir (or “the reservoir”) was formed by impounding the North Anna River

above the North Anna Dam. Construction of the dam was permitted by the Virginia State

Corporation Commission in 1969 (Virginia State Corporation Commission 1969). The Lake

Anna reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water, Lake Anna and the Waste Heat

Treatment Facility (WHTF). The WHTF is composed of three lagoons and is designated by the

Commonwealth of Virginia as a waste heat treatment facility in Dominion’s Virginia Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit (VDEQ 2001) for NAPS.

Lake Anna, which was created as a source of cooling water for NAPS, has become a popular

recreation area, and the dam provides downstream flood control. The lake is not used as a

source of potable or industrial water, except for the NAPS Units 1 and 2. Virginia Power owns

the land below the surface of and around the lake up to the 78-m (255-ft) high-water mark

above MSL. Since its completion, recreational use and residential development has grown

significantly around Lake Anna.

A Lake Anna Special Area Plan was developed by local jurisdictions to coordinate planning

efforts by Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties for the Lake Anna region and watershed. 

The plan was released in March 2000 (Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee 2000).

2.2 Land

This section discusses land-related issues for the North Anna ESP site. Section 2.2.1 describes

the site and the vicinity around the site. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing electric power

transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as

the area within 80 km (50 mi) of the NAPS boundary.

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity

The plant site proposed by Dominion in its ESP application is located in Louisa County in

northeastern Virginia. The proposed site is wholly within the existing boundaries of the NAPS

site. The proposed Units 3 and 4 would be sited adjacent to Dominion’s existing Units 1 and 2.

The NAPS site is situated on a peninsula of Lake Anna’s southern shore at the end of State

Route (SR) 700. Lake Anna, an artificial reservoir, was created in 1971 by Virginia Power by

erecting a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River. The reservoir was filled by

December 1972. Downstream of the dam, the North Anna River flows southeasterly, joining the

South Anna River to form the Pamunkey River about 43 km (27 mi) southeast of the NAPS site. 

The earthen dam that creates Lake Anna is about 8 km (5 mi) southeast of NAPS.

The Lake Anna reservoir (or “the reservoir”) was formed by impounding the North Anna River

| above the North Anna Dam. Construction of the dam was licensed by the Virginia State
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-6 December 2006

Corporation Commission in 1969 (Virginia State Corporation Commission 1969). The Lake

Anna reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water, Lake Anna and the Waste Heat

Treatment Facility (WHTF). The WHTF is composed of three lagoons and is designated by the

Commonwealth of Virginia as a waste heat treatment facility (Figure 2-4). The lagoons have a

total surface area of approximately 1400 ha (3400 ac) and are separated from Lake Anna by a

series of dikes. The main body of the lake is approximately 27 km (17 mi) long with 435 km

(272 mi) of irregular shoreline and approximately 3900 ha (9600 ac) of water surface. The land

adjacent to Lake Anna is becoming increasingly residential as the area is developed. No new

transportation routes (roads or railroad lines) or new industrial activities are currently planned in

the vicinity of NAPS.

Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative own, and Virginia Power controls, all of

the land within the NAPS boundary, both above and beneath the water surface, including those

portions of Lake Anna and the waste heat treatment lagoons that lie within the site boundary. 

The NAPS property comprises 729 ha (1803 ac), about 307 ha (760 ac) of which are covered by

water. Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative also own all the land outside the

NAPS boundary that forms Lake Anna, up to the expected high-water mark (i.e., elevation 78 m

[255 ft] above MSL). The NAPS site and all supporting facilities, including Lake Anna and the

waste heat treatment lagoons, the earthen dam that forms Lake Anna, dikes, railroad spur, and

roads constitute approximately 7544 ha (18,643 ac). Virginia Power also owns and operates

the North Anna Hydroelectric Project, an 855-kW(e)-capacity hydroelectric power plant at the

base of the dam that forms Lake Anna.

The primary land cover on the NAPS site is pine and pine-hardwood mixed forest (70 percent). 

Approximately 20 percent of the site is used for nuclear power station facilities and activities

including electricity generation, maintenance and distribution facilities, warehouses, training and

administration buildings, lagoons and settling basin, parking lots, roads, a railroad line,

information center, and the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). About

10 percent of the site is cleared area that includes the landscaped ground, open areas, laydown

areas, three historic cemeteries, a weapons range used for security training, and a recreation

and picnic area used by employees of Dominion Resources, Inc., and its subsidiaries.

Geographically, NAPS is located within the central Piedmont Plateau Physiographic Province. 

The topography of the site is characterized as a gently undulating surface that varies from 60 m

(200 ft) to 152 m (500 ft) above MSL. The Blue Ridge Mountains lie approximately 73 km

(45 mi) northwest of the site.

Louisa County has two incorporated towns, Louisa and Mineral. Louisa is the county seat and

has a population of approximately 1400. Mineral has a population of approximately 425 and is

the largest community within 16 km (10 mi) of NAPS. The county is largely rural with a
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 2-4. Lake Anna and the North Anna Power Station Waste Heat Treatment Facility
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-8 December 2006

population density of about 43 people/mi2. About 10 percent of the county is developed as

urban, residential, or industrial; 71 percent is natural and planted forest lands; 16 percent is

crop, pasture, and open land; and 3 percent is covered by water (Louisa County 2003).

Each Virginia county is required by Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia to have a

comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction. The

comprehensive plan for Louisa County was issued in September 2001 (Louisa County 2001);

the Spotsylvania County Plan was issued in February 2002 (Spotsylvania County 2002); and

the Orange County comprehensive plan was issued September 1999 (Orange County Office of

Planning and Zoning 1999). The Lake Anna Special Area Plan was issued in March 2000 (Lake

Anna Special Area Plan Committee 2000).

Louisa County’s comprehensive plan identifies two existing mining activities in the county

(Louisa County 2001). Virginia Vermiculite Ltd. operates a vermiculite facility at the western

end of the county (between the town of Louisa and the community of Boswells Tavern). A

granite mining activity exists west of U.S. Highway 522 at the north end of the county. Various

other mining activities have been proposed (Louisa County 2001).

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) requires an

| applicant seeking a Federal permit to conduct an activity that affects a coastal zone area to

provide to the permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the

enforceable policies of the state’s coastal zone program. The Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality (VDEQ) oversees this program for the Chesapeake Bay Coastal Zone

Management Area. NAPS is not within Virginia’s coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal Zone

Management Act (VDEQ 2004a). However, Spotsylvania County and the associated portion of

Lake Anna within Spotsylvania County are included within the Virginia coastal zone

(VDEQ 2004a). Therefore, Dominion is required to provide a Coastal Zone Management Act

certification to the Commonwealth of Virginia (VDEQ 2004b).

| On November 22, 2006, Dominion provided certification from the Commonwealth of Virginia that

| its project complied with the enforceable policies of Virginia’s Coastal Zone program

| (Dominion 2006d).

2.2.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

One 230-kV transmission line and three 500-kV transmission lines leave the NAPS site

switchyard. Each transmission line occupies a separate right-of-way, which ranges in width

from 37 to 84 m (120 to 275 ft) and 24 to 66 km (15 to 41 mi) in length, covering a total of

approximately 1174 ha (2900 ac) (Dominion 2006a). The transmission line rights-of-way extend

from NAPS to the north, south, east and west, terminating in Morrisville, Midlothian, Ladysmith,

and at the South Anna non-utility generator, respectively, as shown in Figure 2-2.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The NAPS transmission line rights-of-way were constructed between 1973 and 1984, and pass

through typical north-central Virginia land, such as row crops, pastures, forests and old fields,

hardwood forests, and shrub bogs. No areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) or VDEQ as “critical habitat” for endangered species exist at the ESP site or in any of the

associated transmission line rights-of-way. The rights-of-way do not cross any State or Federal

parks, wildlife refuges, or wildlife management areas.

Virginia Power maintains rights-of-way in timberlands and in the vicinity of road crossings on a

3-year mowing cycle. In areas inaccessible to mowers, non-restricted herbicides are used. In

areas of dense vegetation or wetlands, maintenance by hand treatments may be used.

Areas of rare or sensitive plant species are identified and avoided, or modified treatment

practices are used to avoid adverse impacts. Vegetation treatments have been developed in

cooperation with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Natural

Heritage Program.

Initial evaluations by Dominion show that any two of the 500-kV transmission lines together with

the 230-kV line would have sufficient capacity to carry the total output of the proposed new units

in addition to the existing units. If Dominion were to decide to proceed with development of the

proposed ESP units, a system study (load flow) modeling these lines, including the additional

power from the proposed new units, would be performed.

2.2.3 The Region

Regionally, NAPS is approximately 64 km (40 mi) north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia; 58 km

(36 mi) east of Charlottesville, Virginia; 35 km (22 mi) southwest of Fredericksburg, Virginia; and

112 km (70 mi) southwest of Washington, D.C. I-95 and I-64 pass within 26 km (16 mi) to the

east and 29 km (18 mi) to the south of the site, respectively. U.S. Route 1 is 24 km (15 mi) east

of the site.

The region, defined as up to 80 km (50 mi) beyond the NAPS boundary, includes all or portions

of the following counties in Virginia: Amelia, Albemarle, Buckingham, Caroline, Chesterfield,

Culpeper, Cumberland, Essex, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Hanover, Henrico,

King and Queen, King George, King William, Louisa, Madison, New Kent, Orange, Page,

Powhatan, Prince William, Rappahannock, Richmond, Rockingham, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and

| Westmoreland. The region also includes the city of Fredericksburg and a portion of Charles

County in Maryland. Major waterways, highways, roads, railroads, and other transportation

routes in the region are shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3.

Land use within the region varies with distance from major population centers and high-use

transportation corridors. The metropolitan areas of Richmond, Fredericksburg, and

Charlottesville, and the transportation corridors associated with I-95 and I-64 contain the highest
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-10 December 2006

density of residential, commercial, and industrial land-use. Land use in the immediate vicinity of

NAPS and the areas outside the noted metropolitan areas and transportation corridors is

primarily forest and agriculture. The region, comprising about 20 percent of the total area of

Virginia, encompasses four main land-use classes: to the north are mainly urban areas

surrounding Washington, D.C., and cropland; to the east is primarily cropland; to the south is a

mixture of cropland and pasture; and to the west is a mixture of forests and pasture.

Land use information for the three counties that border on Lake Anna – Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania and nearby Henrico County – is provided in Table 2-1.

Two major airports operate within the region: Richmond International Airport and

Charlottesville-Albemarle County Airport, approximately 72 km (45 mi) southeast and 64 km

(40 mi) west of NAPS, respectively. Three smaller airports are located within 24 km (15 mi) of

NAPS: Lake Anna Airport, Louisa County Airport, and Cub Field. These smaller airports are

located 11 km (7 mi) south-southwest, 18 km (11 mi) west-southwest, and 16 km (10 mi)

southwest of the site, respectively.

2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

Section 2.3 describes the general climate of the proposed ESP site and the regional

meteorological conditions that were used as the basis for evaluating design and operational

conditions for the prospective new units at the NAPS site, and to evaluate construction and

operational impacts. General climate information was obtained from data published through

the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina. Information for onsite

meteorological conditions was obtained from the meteorological stations that serve NAPS.

The onsite primary meteorological tower is located about 530 m (1750 ft) east-northeast from

the NAPS Unit 1 containment building (Dominion 2006a). The wind speed, wind direction,

ambient and dew point temperatures, and atmospheric stability data are collected from sensors

located on the tower. These data are considered representative of the ESP site.

2.3.1 Climate

The ESP site is located in the Piedmont region of Virginia. The climate in this region is

considered continental. Summers are generally warm and humid, while winters are generally

mild. Temperatures in the region rarely exceed 37.8(C (100(F) or fall below -18(C (0(F). The

Blue Ridge Mountains located west of NAPS act as a partial barrier to episodes of cold,

continental air in the winter. These mountains also tend to channel regional wind flow along a

general north-south orientation.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 2-1. Land Use in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties(a)

County and Land Use Hectares Acres Percent of Total

Henrico

 Residential 14,865 36,732 23.5

 Commercial 2094 5175 3.3

 Industrial 1451 3586 2.3

 Undeveloped(b) 27,744 68,554 43.9

 Water 1757 4341 2.8

 Other(c) 15,303 37,812 24.2

Total Henrico 63,214 156,200 100.0

Louisa

 Residential 7322 17,655 5.0

 Agriculture 31,979 79,019 23.5

 Forest 92,474 228,500 68.0

 Water 3994 9868 3.0

 Other(d) 649 1604 0.5

Total Louisa 136,418 336,646 100.0(e)

Orange

 Developed land(f) 4597 11,360 5.0

 Agriculture 34,021 84,064 37.0

 Forest 53,330 131,776 58.0

 Water N/A N/A

Total Orange 91,948 227,200 100.0(e)

Spotsylvania

 Residential 22,793 56,320 22.0

 Developed land(g) 3108 7680 3.0

 Agriculture 18,649 46,080 18.0

 Forest 53,874 133,120 52.0

 Other 5180 12,800 5.0

Total Spotsylvania 103,604 256,000 100.0

(a) The City of Richmond is heavily developed. For this reason, the land use of this jurisdiction is not discussed.

(b) Includes land being used for agricultural purposes.

(c) Includes public and semi-public (churches, schools, parks, etc.) and miscellaneous land classifications (rights-of-way,

utilities, transportation and communications facilities).

(d) Includes commercial and industrial lands.

(e) Numbers have been adjusted to achieve a total of 100 percent.

(f) Developed land is defined to include residential, commercial, industrial, and public use.

(g) Developed land is defined to include industrial and commercial.

N/A not available

Source: NRC 2002.

Data from Richmond Airport are considered representative of long-term climate conditions at the

site. Based on data presented in the ER (Dominion 2006a), Richmond receives an annual

average rainfall of 109.6 cm (43.16 in.). Normal monthly rainfall is equally distributed

throughout the year with maximum amounts of 12.8 cm (5.03 in.) and 11.2 cm (4.40 in.)

occurring in July and August, respectively, and the minimum of 7.5 cm (2.96 in.) during April. 

The maximum monthly rainfall amounting to 47.9 cm (18.87 in.) occurred in July 1945, and the

minimum amounting to 0.03 cm (0.01 in.) occurred in October 2000.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-12 December 2006

Richmond averages about 41.4 cm (16.3 in.) of snowfall annually with the majority occurring in

January and February. The maximum monthly snowfall was 72.4 cm (28.5 in.), which occurred

in January 1940. The maximum snow depth recorded from a single event was 51 cm (20 in.) in

February 1922.

The annual average temperature for the Richmond airport is 14.3(C (57.7(F). July has the

highest annual average monthly temperature of 25.6(C (78.0(F). The highest recorded

temperature is 40.6(C (105.0(F), which occurred in July 1977, while the lowest recorded

temperature is -24.4(C (-12(F), which occurred in January 1940 (NOAA 2001).

2.3.1.1 Wind

Based on data collected from the onsite meteorological station starting as early as 1974, the

prevailing winds are from the south-southwest at both the 10- and 48.4-m (33- and 159-ft) levels

(Dominion 2006a), although there is some seasonal variation. On a seasonal basis, the

prevailing winds are from the south-southwest at both levels in the summer. During the winter,

the prevailing winds are from the northwest for the lowest level, and north for the upper level. 

For the spring and fall, the prevailing winds at the two observation levels vary, with the

lower-level winds from the north or northwest, while the upper-level winds are from the

south-southwest. This information is consistent with local topography and regional climatic

activities.

The mean annual wind speeds at the North Anna ESP site are 2.8 m/sec (6.3 mph) and

3.8 m/sec (8.6 mph) at the lower- and upper-tower levels, respectively (Dominion 2006a). The

mean wind speed varies seasonally. For both levels, the highest wind speeds occur during the

spring while the lowest occur during the summer. The annual frequency of calm wind speed

conditions are 0.4 and 0.8 percent for the lower- and upper-tower levels, respectively

(Dominion 2006a).

Wind persistence is defined as a continuous flow from a given direction or range of directions. 

This is determined by grouping continuous hourly wind direction readings into one of 16

22.5-degree cardinal range directions, such as north through north-northwest. The longest wind

persistence event at the lowest level is 26 hours from the north. However, events of 25 and

24 hours have occurred from the northwest and the north-northwest, respectively

(Dominion 2006a). For the upper level, the longest wind persistence occurrence was 33 hours

from the west-northwest. At this level, three 30-hour wind persistence events have occurred

from the north-northwest, north, and south-southwest directions (Dominion 2006a).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

2.3.1.2 Atmospheric Stability

Atmospheric stability can be determined by the magnitude of change in the ambient

temperature between vertical levels of the atmosphere, known as the delta-T method as defined

by NRC. The two temperature measurement levels of the onsite meteorological station at

| NAPS are 10 and 48.4 m (33 and 159 ft).

On an annual basis, the highest frequency of stability class occurrence is neutral (30.7 percent)

followed by slightly stable (26.1 percent). The mean wind speeds with these two stability

classes are 3.1 m/sec (7.0 mph) and 2.3 m/sec (5.2 mph), respectively. Extremely unstable

conditions occur 20 percent of the time with a mean wind speed of 3.2 m/sec (7.2 mph), while

extremely stable conditions occur only 5.46 percent of the time with a mean wind speed of

1.3 m/sec (3.0 mph).

2.3.1.3 Temperature

Temperature measured at the lower level of the onsite meteorological station is considered

representative of onsite conditions. The average temperature at this level is 13.2(C (55.8(F),

while the normal temperature at the Richmond Airport is 14.3(C (57.7(F) (Dominion 2006a). 

A difference of several degrees is expected because the site is located in a rural area and

onsite temperatures are moderated due to the presence of Lake Anna, while the Richmond

Airport is located near a large city impacted by an urban heat-island effect. For comparison,

annual average temperatures for the nearby towns of Louisa and Partlow in the vicinity of the

NAPS site are 13.5(C (56.3(F) and 12.9(C (55.2(F), respectively.

2.3.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture

The moisture content of the atmosphere can be represented in a variety of ways. The most

recognized is relative humidity. However, that parameter is not measured at the NAPS site;

therefore data from Richmond is considered to be representative of the site. The normal annual

relative humidity for Richmond is 70 percent, with the higher values expected to occur in the

morning hours and lower values in the afternoon and evening (Dominion 2006a). Another

measured parameter is wet-bulb temperature, which is used for cooling-system modeling

studies. Based on a data record of 24 years (1973 to 1996), the 0.4 percent, 1 percent, and

2 percent wet-bulb temperatures measured in Richmond are 26.1(C (79(F), 25.6(C (78(F), and

25.0(C (77(F), respectively.

Fog is another relative indication of atmospheric moisture. Data collected at Richmond, based

on 73 years of data, indicate heavy fog will occur on an average of 27.1 days per year

(Dominion 2006a). Given the topography of the site compared to that of Richmond and

locations near Lake Anna, a higher occurrence of heavy fog at the NAPS site is expected.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-14 December 2006

With the addition of combination wet and dry cooling towers at the site, the potential impacts

from fogging, icing, and salt deposition might occur both within and outside the plant site

boundary. The extent to which these events would occur depends on both the local

meteorological conditions and the design of the wet and dry cooling towers. To determine the

| impact of the towers on the environment during operations (Chapter 5), Dominion used data

| collected onsite as well as data collected at nearby National Weather Service sites and an

analytical computer code. The input data for this code included hourly wind speed and direction

| data and dry bulb and dew point temperature data collected at the 10-m (33-ft) level of the

| primary onsite meteorological tower during the years of 1998 through 2000, and sea-level

| pressure, cloud-cover, visibility, and mixing-height data obtained from the nearby National

Weather Service Stations in Richmond and at Dulles Airport in Virginia. The information

collected from these sources was input to an analytical code that estimated the potential

impacts outlined in Chapter 5.

A general characterization of onsite humidity conditions and the potential for fogging resulting

from increased emission of water vapor to the atmosphere can be expressed in terms of dew

point depression, which is the difference between dry bulb and dew point temperature. In

response to questions raised by the staff, summary onsite data were provided for the number of

hours when the dew point depression was predicted to be five degrees or less as a function of

season, time of day, and wind direction for the same period that was used to estimate the

impacts from combination wet and dry cooling tower operation (Dominion 2006b). For the

winter and spring seasons, the greatest occurrence when the dew point depression was five

degrees or less occurred when winds were from the west-northwest. During the summer

season, the greatest occurrence was with winds from the southwest, while in the fall the

greatest occurrence was with winds from the west. In all cases, the greatest occurrence was

during the early morning hours. For all seasons and all wind directions, the amount of time that

the dew point depression was five degrees or less ranged from 37 percent (winter) to

28 percent (spring).

2.3.1.5 Severe Weather

The site can experience severe weather in the form of thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, snow and

ice, and hurricanes. Other significant weather events also are associated with several of these

events, such as hail and lighting occurring with thunderstorms, and high winds associated with

tornadoes. The probability of occurrence of impact from a tropical storm at the site is far greater

than a hurricane, given the fact that hurricanes lose intensity and degrade into tropical storms

soon after they make landfall.

The most representative long-term climatic data for thunderstorm occurrence at the site is data

from the Richmond Airport (NOAA 2001). On average, 36 thunderstorms are expected per

year. The maximum number (8 or more) is expected to occur in July with the minimum number

(much less than 1) occurring during the period from November through February. The site has
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

expected 100-year return periods for 1-hour and 24-hour rainfall totals of 9 cm (3.5 in.), and

| 20 cm (8.0 in.), respectively (NCDC 2003). For perspective, the highest recorded 24-hour

| precipitation amount near the site was 284 mm (11.2 in.). That occurred in Louisa in

| August 1969 in conjunction with the passage of the remnants of hurricane Camille through the

| region (Dominion 2006a). With the passage of tropical storm Gaston on August 30, 2004, there

| were reports of up to 330 mm (13 in.) of rainfall in the Richmond, Virginia area (NCDC 2004).

The occurrence of hail is typically associated with more organized thunderstorms. Recent data

from the National Climatic Data Center indicated that 18 hail events have been reported for

Louisa County during the period from January 1, 1955, to July 31, 2003 (NCDC 2003). Each

occurrence was in either the afternoon or the early evening. In four occurrences, hailstones

with diameters of 4.4 cm (1.8 in.) were observed, and in one occurrence, 3.8-cm (1.5-in.)

diameter hailstones were reported. The other events produced hailstones typically around

2.5 cm (1.0 in.) in diameter.

For the period of January 1950 through July 31, 2003, the site was not on the path of either a

hurricane or tropical storm. This is not unexpected given the inland location of the site and the

fact that hurricanes making landfall along the Atlantic coast lose intensity and degrade into

tropical storms and then into a system of heavy rainfall before they fully dissipate. However, the

site area has experienced the impacts of tropical storms that have passed in its vicinity. The

one with the largest impact was Tropical Storm Floyd in September 1999. Rainfall at or

exceeding 15 cm (6 in.) from this storm was recorded at two locations near the site. This storm

produced a maximum 2-minute wind speed of 18 m/sec (40 mph), which was recorded at the

Richmond Airport.

The site area is also susceptible to the occurrence of tornadoes and associated high winds. 

During the period from January 1, 1950, to July 31, 2003, a total of seven tornado sightings

were reported for Louisa County (NCDC 2003). The strongest winds were associated with the

| tornado that occurred on August 9, 1962. Maximum wind speeds were estimated to be between

51 m/sec (113 mph) and 70 m/sec (157 mph). The most recent tornado sighting in Louisa

County was on February 17, 1998.

Based on a 30-year data set of tornado occurrences in the United States, on the average, only

six tornadoes are expected to occur in Virginia annually (Ramsdell and Andrews 1986). The

best estimate tornado strike probability and 10-7 | probability design wind speed for the ESP site

are 1.6 x 10-4 yr-1 | and 110 m/sec (246 mph), respectively (Ramsdell 2004).

Louisa County has experienced 30 snow and ice events during the period from

December 28, 1993, to July 31, 2003 (NCDC 2003). Of that total, two events are specifically

listed as ice storms with the most devastating occurring on December 23, 1998. That storm

resulted in $20 million in property damage in the county. The other events are listed as heavy
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-16 December 2006

snow, winter storm, and winter weather/mix. The latter two events could have included some

degree of icing, but with a much smaller impact compared to those listed as ice storms.

2.3.1.6 Meteorological Monitoring

The meteorological monitoring for the proposed ESP site would consist of the current onsite

| monitoring program for NAPS provided that obstructions (including trees and the structures that

| would be constructed) are at a distance of at least 10 times their height. The primary

meteorological monitoring system consists of a Rohn Model 80 guyed 48.8-m (160-ft) tower

instrumented at the 10-m (33-ft) and the 48.4-m (159-ft) levels. Wind speed, wind direction,

horizontal wind fluctuation, and ambient temperature are measured at both levels. In addition,

at the 10-m (33-ft) level, dew point temperature data is measured. Temperature difference is

measured between the two levels with a separate temperature system, and precipitation data

are collected at ground level. Data are collected on a digital data recording system that is

located in an insulated building at the base of the tower. This system is interfaced with the

intelligent remote multiplex system so it can be transmitted into the control room for NAPS and

to the utilities operations center in Richmond for processing. The primary system is located

approximately 530 m (1750 ft) east of the NAPS Unit 1 containment building.

A backup monitoring system is also operational at the NAPS site. The system consists of a

Rohn Model 25 tower, a freestanding 10-m (33-ft) tower located 396 m (1300 ft) northeast of the

NAPS Unit 1 containment building. At the top of the tower, wind speed, wind direction, and

horizontal wind direction fluctuation data are collected. Data from this system are also collected

on a digital data recording system in the insulated building at the base of the tower and

transmitted into the control room for NAPS and to the utilities operations center in Richmond for

processing.

Data recovery rates for the period from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2001, for the primary

monitoring system, including reliable atmospheric stability information, ranged from

| 99.30 percent for the upper-level wind data in 1996 to 90.09 percent for the same data set

in 1997. For each year in the data set the recovery rate exceeded 90 percent for both levels. 

The frequency of wind speed, class wind direction, and stability class are available in the

updated Final Safety Analysis Report for NAPS Unit 1 and 2 (VEPCo 2002a).

The meteorological data for the period of January 1, 1996, to December 31, 1998, were used to

generate atmospheric dispersion factors (Ȥ/Q values) used to estimate radiological impacts in

the areas surrounding the ESP site.

The NRC staff expects that the current monitoring systems would remain operational during the

site preparation and construction phases as well as during the operational phase. Any

anticipated modifications to the system would be limited to transmitting appropriate

meteorological data to the additional control rooms.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-17 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The staff reviewed the available information relative to the onsite meteorological measurements

program and the data collected by the program. The staff concludes that the system provides

adequate data to represent onsite meteorological conditions as required by Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 100.20. The onsite data also provides an acceptable basis for

making estimates of atmospheric dispersion for design-basis accidents and routine releases

from the plant to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

2.3.2 Air Quality

The county in which the ESP site is located, Louisa County, is within the Northeastern Virginia

| Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). With the exception of Frederick County, the

| counties in this AQCR are designated as in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants

| for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established (40 CFR 81.347). 

| Attainment areas are areas where the ambient air quality levels are better than designated by

| the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Frederick County is designated as in

| nonattainment for the new EPA 8-hr ozone standard. Louisa County and Spotsylvania County

| (70 FR 76165) are classified as in attainment of the ozone standard (40 CFR 81.347).

Within the Commonwealth of Virginia, the EPA has designated two Class 1 areas where

visibility is an important issue (40 CFR 81.433) – James River Face Wilderness and

Shenandoah National Park. The boundary of the closer of these areas, Shenandoah National

Park, is within 76 km (42 mi) of NAPS (NRC 2002).

VDEQ would regulate airborne emissions at the North Anna ESP site during construction

activities and for routine non-radiological emissions during operation. Currently, the applicant

holds an Exclusionary General Permit from VDEQ under Title 9 of the Virginia Administrative

Code for all non-radiological airborne emissions resulting from current plant operations. Under

this permit, no air emission or air quality monitoring is performed at the site. Compliance is

based on estimated emissions using fuel sulfur content and fuel consumption records with a

limit on the hours of operation for boilers and diesel generators. If Dominion anticipates that the

facility will exceed the emission limits specified as part of the permit, then it would be required to

apply for a permit application under Title 5 of Virginia’s Administrative Code and maintain more

stringent recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Under the air quality permit for the existing units, the site provides VDEQ with the necessary

records and a compliance certification on an annual basis. Based on the 2000 emission

statement filed by Dominion with VDEQ, estimated emissions were well below the limits

established in the Exclusionary Permit. Any emissions from the operation of the proposed units

are not expected to jeopardize compliance with requirements set forth under the current permit. 

However, additional records would have to be submitted along with a certification for all

emission sources at the North Anna ESP site. The additional emissions are expected to be

limited to a short test period. 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-18 December 2006

2.4 Geology

A description of the geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the proposed site

is provided in Section 2.6 of the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Dominion

(Dominion 2006a). This description was based on earlier reports prepared for the two existing

units at the site (VEPCo 2002a; Dames and Moore 1969), the two units proposed but never

constructed (Dames and Moore 1971), and the independent spent fuel storage installation

(ISFSI) constructed for the two existing units (VEPCo 2002b). Additionally, results of

subsurface investigations performed in 2002 as part of the ESP application provided further

basis for this description. The staff's description of site and vicinity geological features and the

detailed analyses and evaluation of geological, seismological, and geotechnical data as

required for an assessment of the site-safety issues related to the specific proposed ESP site

are included in the staff's safety evaluation report (NRC 2006).

The North Anna ESP site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Trapp and

Horn 2000). The Piedmont Province is bounded on the west by the Blue Ridge Province and on

the east by the Coastal Province. The boundary between the Coastal Province and the

Piedmont Province is the Fall Line. The Fall Line is a low east-facing cliff paralleling the Atlantic

coastline from New Jersey to the Carolinas. It separates hard Paleozoic metamorphic rocks of

the Appalachian Piedmont to the west from the softer, gently dipping Mesozoic and Tertiary

sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain. This erosional scarp, the site of many waterfalls, often

represents an obstruction to upstream passage of migratory fish.

The ESP site is underlain by rocks of the Ta River Metamorphic Suite, which extend thousands

of feet below the surface. The crystalline metamorphic rocks near the surface have undergone

extensive weathering to create a layer of saprolite about 30 m (100 ft) thick beneath the site. 

Unconfined aquifer systems exist in the saprolite and in fractures within the crystalline bedrock. 

The water table around the ESP site is a slightly subdued version of the topography, which is

characterized by a gently undulating surface varying in elevation from about 60 to 150 m (200 to

500 ft) above MSL.

Sulfide and gold deposits have been mined in the vicinity of the NAPS ESP site. Mining

operations have resulted in significant degradation of Contrary Creek, which drains into

Lake Anna. The low pH and high metal concentrations in Contrary Creek are quickly buffered

and diluted as Contrary Creek enters Lake Anna. Dominion states that the ESP site has not

been, nor would be expected in the future to be, affected by such mining activities.

The geotechnical properties of the saprolite beneath the site are unsuitable for use as a

| structural fill material for plant construction. Therefore, structural fill material will need to be

imported to the ESP site during construction and excavated material will have to be removed to

another location.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-19 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Given Dominion’s proposed use of best management construction practices, the gently rolling

terrain and geotechnical properties of the saprolite render landslides in the region of the site

unlikely. This conclusion is supported by a study of historical hillslope failures including field

reconnaissance, air-photo interpretation, a literature search for available information on

landslides, review of existing literature, and discussions with researchers familiar with the site

region (Dominion 2004a).

2.5 Radiological Environment

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the

NAPS site since 1976 (NRC 1976). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure

pathway, direct exposure pathway, water exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from

Lake Anna and the North Anna River, and ingestion exposure pathway in a 40-km (25-mi)

radius of NAPS. The preoperational environmental radiation monitoring program sampled

various media in the environment to establish a baseline to determine the magnitude and

fluctuation of radioactivity in the environment once the units began operation (AEC 1973). The

preoperational monitoring program included collection and analysis of samples of air

particulates, precipitation, milk, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt as well as

measurement of ambient gamma radiation. After operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 began, the

monitoring program continued to assess the radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the

environment. Modifications to the monitoring program are made based on changes in the area,

such as milk production, agricultural uses, and changes in lake use. Radiological releases are

| summarized in the reports entitled Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Program and

| Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report; reports are issued annually. The 2005 Annual

Environmental Operating Report for NAPS (VEPCo 2006a) reported the estimated maximum

| dose to a hypothetical individual at the station boundary because of liquid and gaseous effluents

released during 2005 to be 0.0038 mSv (0.38 mrem) compared to the approximately 3.6 mSv

(360 mrem) received from background radiation. The limits for all radiological releases for

| Units 1 and 2 are specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (VEPCo 2006b).

The NRC staff reviewed historical data on releases and estimated occupational and population

doses. The data and analysis showed that doses to the maximally exposed individuals around

NAPS were a small fraction of the limits specified in Federal environmental radiation standards,

10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I; and 40 CFR Part 190.

2.6 Water

This section describes the hydrological processes governing the movement and distribution of

| water in the existing environment at the ESP site. The historic critical low-water period of the

| existing environment with the existing NAPS units in operation were used throughout this

analysis.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-20 December 2006

2.6.1 Hydrology

This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrological features of the existing

environment that could be altered by the construction or operation of the proposed Units 3

and 4. A description of the site's hydrological features was presented in Section 2.3.1 of the ER

(Dominion 2006a). The hydrological features of the site related to site safety (e.g., probable

maximum flood) are described by Dominion in the Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) portion

(Part 2) of the application (Dominion 2006a).

2.6.1.1 Surface Water Hydrology

The dominant hydrological feature of the NAPS site is the Lake Anna reservoir. The Lake Anna

reservoir was formed by impounding the North Anna River above the North Anna Dam. The

| Lake Anna reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water, Lake Anna and the WHTF. At

the normal “full” elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) above MSL, Lake Anna has a surface area of

3900 ha (9600 ac), whereas the WHTF has a surface area of 1400 ha (3400 ac).

The reservoir formed behind Lake Anna Dam has a volume of 3.76 x 108

 m3 (3.05 x 105 acre-ft)

at the normal pool level elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) above MSL. An additional 3.02 x 108

 m3

(2.45 x 105 acre-ft) are available for flood control storage up to the crest of the dam at elevation

80.8 m (265 ft) above MSL. A spillway with three radial gates is capable of regulating large

releases from the pool and two skimmer gates are able to regulate small releases. Generally,

the gates are operated to maintain a steady pool elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) above MSL. The

staff independently determined the stage-storage relationship of the reservoir using Geographic

| Information Systems (GIS) methods and determined that the values presented by Dominion

| agreed with the staff’s stage and storage relationship to within 2 percent

(Dominion 2004a, 2006a).

The WHTF receives the heated discharges from the existing units and, because of time of travel

and exposure to the atmosphere, dissipates some of the excess heat to the atmosphere before

the water is returned to Lake Anna. The WHTF is composed of three lagoons. Each lagoon is

| separated from Lake Anna by a dike. The three lagoons are interconnected via two canals. 

| Water returns to Lake Anna through a submerged weir in the dike which forms the third and final

| lagoon of the WHTF. The submerged weir, with its various stop-log configurations, regulates

| the elevation of the WHTF. Additionally, the submerged weir causes the water entering Lake

| Anna from the WHTF to enter the lake as a high-velocity submerged jet, which increases the

thermal mixing relative to a surface release.

The watershed above the reservoir drains 888 km2

 (343 mi2) of the eastern slopes of the

southwestern mountains in the Appalachian Range. Water released from North Anna Dam

| flows about 55 km (34 mi) down the North Anna River until it joins the South Anna River to form

| the Pamunkey River. After flowing about 146 km (91 mi) from its origin, the Pamunkey River
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-21 NUREG-1811, Volume I

| joins the Mattaponi River to form the York River. The York River flows about 56 km (35 mi)

before it enters Chesapeake Bay approximately 24 km (15 mi) north of Hampton, Virginia. 

Virginia currently requires a minimum release of 1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs) from the North Anna Dam,

| except under drought conditions. When the lake surface falls below elevation 75.6 m (248 ft)

MSL, the release is incrementally decreased to a minimum release of 0.57 m3/s (20 cfs)

(VDEQ 2001).

In an average year at the site, precipitation exceeds evaporation. Evaporation from the surface

area of the Lake Anna reservoir reduces the total amount of water available to flow downstream

of the dam. An approximation of the natural mean monthly and annual evaporation rates was

obtained from Van der Leeden et al. (1990) for an unnamed reservoir in nearby Richmond,

Virginia (40 mi [64 km] south-southeast of the site) at which the climate would be similar. The

Van der Leeden et al. report identified this reservoir as having an average evaporation rate of

99 cm (39 in.) per year with a maximum average monthly evaporation of 15 cm (5.9 in.) in July. 

In addition to this natural evaporation, the WHTF and Lake Anna experience induced

evaporation resulting from the heat added to the lake from the once-through heat dissipation

systems for NAPS Units 1 and 2. These two components (presence of the reservoir plus waste

reactor heat) combine to produce evaporation rates that likely exceed the historical

pre-impoundment evapotranspiration rates that would have occurred in the area that the

reservoir has inundated. Therefore, the presence of the reservoir and the discharge of heat to

the reservoir from Units 1 and 2 have increased evaporation and reduced the total quantity of

water available for release downstream of the dam. In drought years, the decrease in

precipitation is often paired with an increase in evaporation, resulting in significant water

deficits. However, the dam provides a beneficial downstream flow stabilization impact. The

historical pre-dam minimum flows of 0.28 m3 | /s (10 cfs) or less were recorded by the USGS for

| eight of the years between 1930 and 1976. Current post-dam minimum discharges are

0.57 m3 | /s (20 cfs).

Seasonal patterns of precipitation and evaporation also impact water availability. While monthly

averages of precipitation are relatively constant, ranging from a maximum of 13.0 cm (5.14 in.)

in July to a minimum of 7.4 cm (2.9 in.) in April, monthly averages of evaporation from

Richmond, Virginia range from a maximum of 14 cm (5.6 in.) in July to a minimum of 3.3 cm

(1.3 in.) in January. Over an annual cycle this seasonal variability tends to result in a water

deficit during July, August, and September and a water surplus the rest of the year.

2.6.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology

The North Anna ESP site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Aquifers occur in

both the shallow saprolite layer and the deeper fractured crystalline rocks. Recharge of the

aquifers in this region is predominately from local infiltration. The water table is considered a

subdued reflection of the ground surface; therefore, the groundwater generally flows from ridges

to valleys.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-22 December 2006

The hydraulic connection between the reservoir and nearby aquifers results in a rise of the

water table for those aquifers in proximity of the lake. Given the relatively small fluctuations of

| lake water surface elevation, the water table in these nearby aquifers does not vary significantly. 

No aquifers in the Piedmont Province of Virginia have been designated as sole source aquifers

| by the EPA (2006).

2.6.1.3 Hydrological Monitoring

This section describes the pre-application hydrological monitoring programs. Thermal and

chemical monitoring programs are discussed in Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4, respectively.

As a result of ongoing monitoring associated with the two existing units, Dominion was able to

consider this existing monitoring program as part of the pre-application monitoring program for

the ESP site. If the new units were built, many of these same monitoring activities would likely

be continued and would become part of the operational monitoring for the new units

(Dominion 2006a). Dominion collects the existing flow measurements directly associated with

the current site operation that are required under the terms of the applicant's existing VPDES

permit. Dominion also records lake level elevations at the dam. At the site, Dominion records

data from 19 groundwater wells. Nine of the groundwater wells are associated with NAPS

Units 1 and 2; one was installed near the ISFSI, and nine pre-ESP-application wells were

installed in 2002.

At various times in the past, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has maintained four streamflow

gauges in the vicinity of the plant. Two gauges measured streamflows of tributaries draining

into Lake Anna and two measured streamflows downstream of the North Anna Dam. The

| longest streamflow record exists for the North Anna River gauge (USGS Gauge 0167100) near

| Doswell, Virginia. This gauge reflected the release from Lake Anna and runoff from an

additional 250 km2 (97 mi2 | ) of watershed downstream of the North Anna Dam. Flow rates were

| recorded from April 1929 through October 1988. A streamflow gauge immediately downstream

from the North Anna Dam (North Anna River near Partlow, Virginia [USGS Gauge 01670400])

recorded data from October 1978 to October 1995. The gauge on Contrary Creek

(USGS Gauge 01670300), which drains into Lake Anna, reflected only 14 km2

 (5.53 mi2) of the

watershed and has a record from October 1975 to January 1987. Another stream gauge

upstream of Lake Anna (Pamunkey Creek at Lahore, Virginia, USGS Gauge 01670180)

recorded runoff from 105 km2

 (40.5 mi2) of the Pamunkey Creek drainage for the period from

August 1989 to July 1993. The two upstream gauges on Contrary Creek and Pamunkey Creek,

recorded flows representative of 120 km2

 (46 mi2) or approximately 13 percent of the total

upstream area contributing flow to the reservoir. Because of the limited inflow data, it is not

| possible to create a reliable historical water budget for Lake Anna from available inflow and

| discharge measurements only.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-23 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion records sufficient information to calculate discharge released through the dam by

providing lake elevation and release structure settings (e.g., skimmer gate and radial gate

openings). Such records are the only available discharge measurements for the North Anna

| River immediately downstream of the North Anna Dam since the Partlow gauge was

| discontinued in 1995.

No water velocity measurements within Lake Anna have been recorded. Velocity measurements are important for both understanding of the hydrodynamics of the lake and calibrating

| spatially distributed numerical models of fluid and heat transport process in the reservoir.

2.6.2 Water Use

Consideration of water use requires estimating the magnitude and timing of consumptive and

non-consumptive water uses. Non-consumptive water use does not result in a reduction in the

water supply available. For instance, water used to rinse fish impinged on intake screens off

the screens would result in no change in the water supply, as the same volume of water

pumped from the reservoir would eventually be returned to the reservoir. Consumptive water

use results in a reduction of the water supply available. For instance, reservoir evaporation

results in a transfer of water from the reservoir to the atmosphere, thereby reducing the lake

volume. The following two sections describe the existing consumptive and non-consumptive

uses of surface water and groundwater.

2.6.2.1 Surface Water Use

The existing NAPS units are the largest users of water in the region. When both Units 1 and 2

| are operating, eight circulating water pumps draw water from Lake Anna at a maximum rate of

120 m3/s (4246 cfs). The large volume of water withdrawn from Lake Anna for condenser

cooling is entirely returned to the WHTF. While there is no consumptive use of water between

the intake and discharge, the elevated temperature of the discharged water does result in

induced evaporative losses from the WHTF and Lake Anna.

In Section 2.3 of the ER, Dominion identifies surface water users within the North Anna River

drainage whose average daily withdrawal during any single month exceeds 38,000 L/d

(10,000 gpd). Dominion identified these users from the water-use database maintained by

VDEQ. Users include the NAPS existing units, Bear Island Paper Company, the Doswell Water

Treatment Plant, and St. Laurent Paper Products Corporation.

In Section 4.2.3 of the ER, Dominion discusses the upstream land-use changes that might alter

the inflow to the reservoir and downstream development that may increase the downstream

demand for water. These projections are based on comprehensive plans for the three upstream

counties (Louisa, Spotsylvania, and Orange Counties) and the four downstream counties

(Hanover, Caroline, New Kent, and King William Counties).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-24 December 2006

Increases in development generally result in increased areas of impervious surfaces. 

Impervious surfaces result in less groundwater recharge and higher fractions of surface water

runoff. Because of the limited projected development in the three upstream counties and

policies promoting the use of storm water management practices that limit the impact of

impervious surfaces, upstream land-use changes are not expected to appreciably alter the

patterns of inflow to the reservoir.

Growth in downstream demands for water withdrawals could result in increased water conflicts,

particularly during drought periods. The Doswell Water Treatment Plant in Hanover County has

a capacity of 15,000 m3

/d (4 MGD), which is the equivalent to a streamflow of 0.17 m3/s

(6.1 cfs). One of the alternatives proposed by Hanover County to meet its projected water

supply needs would require an additional withdrawal of 1.3 m3

/s (46 cfs) from the North Anna

River. The minimum release from Lake Anna prescribed by VDEQ for normal conditions is

1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs). During drought conditions the release prescribed by VDEQ can be reduced to

0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs). Three of the downstream counties are considering using the North Anna

River or Pamunkey River as future water sources to meet projected growth.

The Virginia Surface Water Management Act of 1989 and associated regulations

(9 VAC 25-220-10 et seq.) impose legal restrictions on surface water withdrawals where surface

water resources have a history of low-flow conditions that threaten important in-stream and

off-stream uses. The purposes of these regulations are to maintain surface water flow at

minimum levels during periods of drought, ensure assimilation of treated waste water, and

support of aquatic and other water-dependent wildlife. In an area designated by the State

| Water Control Board as a surface water management area, water withdrawals of 1,100,000 L

| (300,000 gallons) per month or more are required to have a surface water withdrawal permit. 

Permits and certificates must include a conservation plan that is activated during low-flow

surface water conditions. As of November 2006, the Virginia State Water Control Board had not

designated any surface water management areas in the Commonwealth.

2.6.2.2 Groundwater Use

Dominion describes groundwater use in the vicinity of the ESP site in Section 2.3.2.2 of the ER

(Dominion 2006a). Groundwater in the vicinity of the ESP site is primarily obtained from springs

and wells in either the saprolite or underlying crystalline bedrock. Most wells completed in the

saprolite have been excavated either by hand digging or augering. These wells are susceptible

to becoming dry because of seasonal fluctuations in the water table. Drilled wells generally

extend through the saprolite into the underlying bedrock. The production of groundwater in the

vicinity of the ESP site is generally not sufficient to satisfy large water demands because of the

relatively low yield of the aquifers. The majority of groundwater development in the area is for

domestic and agricultural use, with some public, light industrial, and commercial use.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-25 NUREG-1811, Volume I

2.6.3 Water Quality

The following sections describe the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in

the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. Pre-application monitoring programs for thermal and

chemical water quality are also described.

2.6.3.1 Surface Water Quality

This section describes the water quality of Lake Anna, the tributaries draining into Lake Anna,

and the North Anna River downstream of the dam. Dominion presents a discussion of the water

quality conditions in Section 2.3.3.1 of the ER (Dominion 2006a). The thermal load discharged

into the lake from the two operating units results in localized elevated temperatures in the lake. 

These elevated temperatures are the most significant water-quality concern associated with

both the existing and the proposed ESP units. Operational impacts of proposed Unit 3 on

Lake Anna water quality are discussed in Section 5.2.2.3 of this EIS. Monitoring programs for

thermal and chemical water quality are discussed in Sections 2.6.3.3 and 2.6.3.4, respectively.

Eight of the tributaries draining into Lake Anna are on the Virginia 2004 Clean Water Act

Section 303(d) list as impaired for one or more of the following attributes: fecal coliform

| bacteria, pH, and dissolved oxygen. The source of impairment for pH in one of the tributaries,

Contrary Creek, is known to be an abandoned mining operation (VDEQ 2004c). The specific

source of the impairment for the other tributaries is unknown. The lower portion of Lake Anna is

listed as impaired due to polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels in fish tissues; a public health

advisory has been issued regarding the consumption of certain fish. The source of the PCBs is

unknown at this time. Downstream of Lake Anna, the discharge is not listed as impaired until it

reaches the Chesapeake Bay estuary, after first entering the Pamunkey River and then the York

River.

Iron pyrite mining was conducted on land adjacent to Contrary Creek during the late 19th | and

early 20th | centuries (VDEQ 1986). When the mines were abandoned (circa 1920), mine shafts

| and tailings piles were left exposed. Runoff from the mine area was acidic and contained high

| concentrations of heavy metals. When NAPS Units 1 and 2 were under development, virtually

| no aquatic life was found in Contrary Creek downstream of the mine sites (AEC 1973). Prior to

| impoundment, the density and diversity of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates were markedly

| reduced in the North Anna River immediately downstream of its confluence with Contrary Creek. 

| Subtle changes were evident as far as 24 km (15 mi) downstream, although water quality was

| generally satisfactory (VDEQ 1986).

|

| In 1976, the Virginia State Water Control Board, in association with EPA, attempted to reclaim

| previously mined and disturbed areas along Contrary Creek to reduce the impacts of

| sedimentation and acid mine drainage (VDEQ 1986). The reclamation project reduced erosion

| and sedimentation in the area. The creation of the reservoir has mitigated most water-quality
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-26 December 2006

| impacts from Contrary Creek area runoff. Low-pH creek water is neutralized as it mixes with

| higher-pH reservoir water. Heavy metals are removed from the water column by adsorption

| onto clay particles and the subsequent settling of those particles. Chemical precipitation (and

| co-precipitation with iron) may also remove zinc and copper ions from Contrary Creek water

when it mixes with reservoir water. 

Units 1 and 2 have a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit from the

VDEQ (VDEQ 2001). Before Units 3 and 4 could begin to operate, Dominion would be required

to obtain a VPDES permit for discharges from these units. Dominion would also be required to

demonstrate to VDEQ that the thermal effluent limitation for Unit 3 is adequate to ensure

protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife

| through a Clean Water Act Section 316(a) demonstration. If determined to be necessary,

| VDEQ may require additional monitoring prior to issuance of a VPDES permit. VDEQ may also

| require ongoing monitoring as a condition of the VPDES permit. Unit 4 would use dry cooling

| towers, which discharge the heat directly to the air, and would have no effect on surface water

| quality.

2.6.3.2 Groundwater Quality

| There are no site-specific data available for the nonradiological chemistry of the groundwater

underlying the ESP site. In Section 2.3.3.2 of the ER and in response to a request, Dominion

provided a summary of published studies that characterize the water quality of crystalline

aquifers in the Piedmont Province (Dominion 2004a, 2006a). The Piedmont region aquifers

provide good quality water (USGS 2000). As with most crystalline rocks, the rocks of the

Piedmont Province contribute relatively high levels of naturally occurring radioactivity to the

groundwater. Groundwater sampling undertaken in 1992 as part of the Louisa County Water

Testing Program has identified coliform contamination in aquifers near the ESP site. This

coliform contamination is likely attributable to private septic systems in the area.

2.6.3.3 Thermal Monitoring

This section describes pre-application and pre-operational thermal monitoring programs. The

applicant is able to consider an ongoing monitoring program associated with the existing Units 1

and 2 as part of the pre-application and pre-operational monitoring program at the ESP site. 

Many of the same monitoring activities would be continued if the proposed units were

completed and would become part of the operational monitoring for the proposed units. In

Section 6.1 of the ER, Dominion describes the existing lake temperature measurements directly

associated with the current site operation that are required under terms of its existing VPDES

permit (Dominion 2006a; VDEQ 2001a,b).

The current temperature monitoring program in Lake Anna reservoir includes both continuous

fixed-location temperature stations and temperature profile locations that are sampled twice per
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-27 NUREG-1811, Volume I

year. Ten fixed-location temperature stations are located around Lake Anna, seven within the

main body of the lake, one at the discharge canal, and two within the WHTF. An additional

fixed-location station is located downstream of the North Anna Dam. The temperature profiling

| is conducted during at least two quarters per year, one measurement is always during the

| July-to-September quarter and the second is during one of the remaining quarters. All of the

| spot profile locations are located in the main body of the lake.

2.6.3.4 Chemical Monitoring

This section describes the pre-application and operational chemical monitoring programs. As

a result of ongoing monitoring associated with the existing two units, the applicant is able to

consider this operational monitoring program as part of the pre-application and pre-operational

monitoring program for the ESP site. Many of these same monitoring activities would be

continued if Units 3 and 4 were completed and would likely become part of the operational

monitoring. In Section 6.6 of the ER, Dominion describes the chemical monitoring that is

required under terms of the applicant's existing VPDES permit (Dominion 2006a).

The NAPS Units 1 and 2, VPDES permit establishes chemical discharge limits at a variety of

locations internal to the NAPS facility and at the discharge from the WHTF into Lake Anna at

Dike 3. Chemical monitoring of a variety of constituents is required including pH, chlorine,

copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, suspended solids, oil and grease, and biological oxygen

demand. While temperature is monitored both inside and outside the WHTF, no chemical

monitoring is required outside the WHTF.

The Commonwealth of Virginia monitors Lake Anna, Lake Anna's tributaries, and the North

Anna River downstream from Lake Anna. Results from this monitoring program provide the

basis for the Virginia Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Recent sampling

by the Commonwealth has resulted in a public health advisory regarding the consumption of

certain fish in Lake Anna and its tributaries. The advisory was triggered because PCBs were

detected in the tissues of certain fish.

Community-based monitoring of Lake Anna and WHTF water quality has been performed by

volunteers from the Lake Anna Civic Association. Water samples are collected and analyzed

for several standard water-quality metrics, such as the fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli,

and dissolved oxygen. Results from this monitoring program are provided to the

Commonwealth of Virginia and EPA.

2.7 Ecology

Much of the proposed North Anna ESP site construction area consists of dirt roads, cleared

areas, parking lots, buildings, and other areas recovering from prior disturbance. Because of
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-28 December 2006

past development or use, undisturbed habitats are absent from this area. The western portion

of the current and proposed laydown area can be classified as “old-field” habitat. None of the

current or proposed laydown area is forested. The area proposed for temporary offices is an

existing office complex; thus, undisturbed habitats are absent from this area. Approximately

32 ha (80 ac) of the 729-ha (1803 ac) proposed site is currently forested; most of the forested

portion of the site is within the area where cooling towers would be constructed. Generally,

wildlife species found in the forested portions of the ESP site and surrounding areas are those

typically found in the forested portions of the North Anna site and in upland Piedmont forests of

north-central Virginia. Wildlife species in the old-field habitat of the laydown area and in the

transmission line rights-of-way within the ESP site would include most of those found in the

adjacent wooded areas. A few small wetland areas and two intermittent streams exist on the

ESP site (Dominion 2006a).

Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2 provide general descriptions of the terrestrial and aquatic

environments near the ESP site. They provide detailed descriptions, where needed, to support

the analysis of potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of new nuclear

power generating facilities. The descriptions are provided to support mitigation activities

identified to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for potential impacts identified

during the assessment. Descriptions are provided to facilitate comparison of the alternatives

identified to the North Anna ESP site. Also included are descriptions of monitoring programs for

terrestrial and aquatic environments.

2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The ESP site is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province as described by Omernik

(1987). Although forests in the Piedmont Province are nominally characterized by oak-hickorypine forest (Woods et al. 1999), this portion of northeastern Virginia has been settled since the

colonial era, and therefore no longer contains virgin forests. Vegetative cover surrounding the

ESP site is an irregular patchwork of row crops, pastures, pine plantations, abandoned (old)

fields, and second growth forests of hardwoods and mixed pine-hardwoods (Dominion 2006a).

| The Lake Anna reservoir is adjacent to the site, oriented from northwest to southeast. 

2.7.1.1 Biological Communities of the North Anna Site

Approximately 30 percent of the North Anna site consists of generation and maintenance

facilities, parking lots, roads, cleared areas, and mowed grass. Hardwood forests and planted

pines exist on the approximately 70 percent of the site that has not been cleared for the

construction or operation of the existing units. These wooded areas are remnants of forests

that were used for timber production prior to acquisition by Virginia Power and are dominated by

a variety of oaks (Quercus spp.), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-29 NUREG-1811, Volume I

(Liquidambar styraciflua), and red maple (Acer rubrum) trees. Scattered loblolly pines

(Pinus taeda), Virginia pines (P. virginiana), and short-leaf pines (P. echinata) exist in some

wooded areas (Dominion 2006a).

The Piedmont region of Virginia is characterized as an irregular plain with low rounded ridges

and shallow ravines (Woods et al. 1999). There are no steep ridges on the ESP site. The

rolling terrain at the site extends down slope to the waters of Lake Anna, resulting in essentially

no marsh habitat along the shoreline at the site. Hydrophytic vegetation, such as cattails

(Typha spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.), are typically absent or extend only to approximately

0.3 m to 1 m (1 to 3 ft) beyond the shoreline (Dominion 2006a). Two intermittent streams

flowing north into an unnamed arm of Lake Anna, just northwest of the power-block area, bisect

| the area where cooling towers would be located. Dominion has completed a wetland

| delineation that identified 2.7 hectares (6.68 acres) of wetlands in the construction footprint

| (Dominion 2006c). The delineation also identified approximately 1676 m (5500 linear feet) of

| streams that cover an area of approximately 0.19 hectares (0.46 acres), and approximately

| 1.0 hectares (2.49 acres) of open water within a beaver pond at the western edge of the ESP

| area near the end of the unnamed arm of Lake Anna. In a September 2006 letter, the ACE

verified this delineation (ACE 2006).

Wildlife species found in the forested portions of the North Anna site are those typically found in

upland Piedmont forests of northeastern Virginia. Frequently observed mammals, such as the

white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis

virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoagenteus), exist

at the site, as do smaller mammals such as moles (Talpidae), shrews (Soricidae), and a variety

of mice (Muridae) and voles (Microtus spp.). Woodchucks (Marmota monax) live in the grassy

areas near forest edges at the site, and beavers (Castor canadensis) occur in Lake Anna and

its tributaries. Various birds and herpifauna (e.g., snakes, turtles, lizards, and toads) live in the

uplands and along the edge of Lake Anna (Dominion 2006a).

Virginia Power has cooperated with the National Audubon Society in conducting periodic

Christmas Bird Counts during December or January. Common bird species recorded in upland

areas on and near the North Anna site during these surveys include the American crow

(Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee

(Poecile carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black vulture (Coragyps atratus),

turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), song sparrow (Melospiza

melodia), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis),

northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), tufted titmouse

(Baeolophus bicolor), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker

(Picoides pubescens), and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) (Audubon Society 2006). 

Species known to nest within forested areas at the North Anna site, along forested edges, and

in open areas (for example, northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee, blue jay) are those that

commonly nest in upland Virginia habitats. Virginia Power has placed bluebird nest boxes in
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-30 December 2006

suitable habitats at the North Anna site and has constructed roofed structures for swallows in

some locations. Eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) annually use the nest boxes, and barn

swallows (Hirundo rustica) nest beneath the roofed structures (Dominion 2006a).

Several species of residential and migratory wading birds and waterfowl use Lake Anna. 

Numerous gulls, ducks, and geese were noted during Christmas Bird Counts (Audubon

Society 2006), as were great blue herons (Ardea herodias). Virginia Power biologists have

documented breeding at Lake Anna by mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), wood ducks

(Aix sponsa), and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) (VEPCo 1986). Virginia Power, in

association with the Louisa County Chapter of Ducks Unlimited, has placed wood duck nest

boxes on Lake Anna, and wood ducks have used several of these nest boxes (VEPCo 1986). 

Belted kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon), great blue herons, and green-backed herons (Butorides

virescens) are present at Lake Anna throughout the year, and kingfishers and green-backed

herons presumably nest on or near the Lake Anna shoreline. Great blue herons typically nest in

rookeries, and because there are no known rookeries at Lake Anna (Dominion 2006a), it is

unlikely that great blue herons nest on the lake. Waterfowl are typically most abundant at Lake

Anna during the winter. Lake Anna provides important habitat for migratory waterfowl on the

Atlantic flyway, especially during extremely cold winters when the elevated water temperature

from station operation maintains a large ice-free body of water. The most common ducks

observed during winter are mallard, American black duck (Anas rubripes), bufflehead

(Bucephala albeola), and greater scaup (Aythya marila) (VEPCo 1986). The Canada goose,

American coot (Fulica americana), ringed-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), and herring gull

(L. argentatus) are also abundant on Lake Anna during the winter (Audubon Society 2006;

VEPCo 1986).

2.7.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Terrestrial Species

This section describes the threatened and endangered terrestrial animal and plant species that

exist within the ESP site, vicinity, and corresponding transmission line rights-of-way. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) maintains current lists of threatened or endangered

species at its website (FWS 2004a). The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

(VDGIF) and Virginia Natural Heritage Program (VNHP) also maintain lists of State-protected

| species at their websites (VDGIF 2004a; VDCR 2004). Terrestrial species potentially occurring

near the North Anna site that are listed as threatened or endangered by these agencies are

listed in Table 2-2.

Animals

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a Federal- and State-threatened species, are

| occasionally observed along Lake Anna (six were observed during the 2006 Christmas Bird

| Count) (Audubon Society 2006). However, there are no known eagle nests at the ESP site

(NRC 2002). The nearest known bald eagle nest is approximately 4.2 km (2.6 mi) to the west. 

Dominion is not aware of any eagle nests along North Anna-associated transmission line 
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-31 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 2-2. Terrestrial Species Known or Likely to Occur in Counties Adjacent to or 

Downstream from the Lake Anna Reservoir (Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania, 

Caroline, and Hanover Counties)

Scientific Name Species Counties Status* Source

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

FT/ST VDGIF 2004a,

FWS 2004a,

VDCR 2004, FWS

2004b

Picoides borealis red-cockaded

woodpecker

Caroline FE/SE VDGIF 2004a

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

FS/ST VDGIF 2004a

Dendroica cerulea cerulean warbler Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

FS VDGIF 2004a

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s sparrow Caroline FS/ST VDGIF 2004a,

FWS 2004b,

VDCR 2004

Bartramia longicauda upland sandpiper Louisa, Orange,

Spotsylvania, Caroline,

Hanover

ST VDGIF 2004a

Mammals

Plecotus rafinesquii macrotis eastern big-eared bat Hanover SE VDGIF 2004a

Sorex longirostris fisheri Dismal Swamp

southeastern shrew

Caroline ST VDGIF 2004a

Amphibians

Ambystoma tigrinum tiger salamander Hanover SE VDCR 2004

Insects

Speyeria idalia regal fritillary Orange, Spotsylvania FS FWS 2004a,b

VDGIF 2004a

Vascular Plants

Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Spotsylvania, Hanover,

Caroline

FT/SE VDGIF 2004a, FWS

2004a,b VDCR 2004

Helonias bullata swamp pink Caroline, Hanover,

Spotsylvania

FT/SE VDGIF 2004a,

VDCR 2004, FWS

2004b

Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint-vetch Caroline FT FWS 2004a,b

Juncus caesariensis New Jersey rush Caroline FS/ST VDCR 2004

*FE = Federally endangered, FT = Federally threatened, FS = Federal species of concern, SE = State endangered,

ST = State threatened.

(a) The migrant subspecies L.l. migrans is a Federal species of concern, all loggerhead shrikes in Virginia are State

threatened.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-32 December 2006

rights-of-way. The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludoviciana), a State threatened species

occasionally has been observed in the vicinity of NAPS during Christmas Bird Counts (Audubon

Society 2006). It is known to breed in central Virginia (VDGIF 2004a), but breeding loggerhead

shrikes have not been recorded at the North Anna site or along the transmission line rights-ofway (Dominion 2006a). The loggerhead shrike inhabits mowed or grazed grassy areas and

margins of wooded areas.

With the exception of the bald eagle and loggerhead shrike, no other Federally and/or

State-listed endangered or threatened terrestrial animals are known to exist at the North Anna

site or along the transmission line rights-of-way, although the upland sandpiper (Bartramia

longicauda) and the cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) may occasionally migrate through the

area (VDGIF 2004a). The regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) has been reported in Orange

and Spotsylvania Counties, but has not been reported in Louisa County (VDGIF 2004a). The

eastern big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii macrotis) has been reported in Hanover County,

downstream from Lake Anna. Several threatened or endangered species, including the

red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis),

dismal swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri), and tiger salamander

(Ambystoma tigrinum) have been reported in Caroline County (VDGIF 2004a), which is

downstream from the North Anna site. However, the presence of these species at the NAPS

site appears doubtful, and reported observation sites are well away from the transmission lines,

or portions of the North Anna River potentially affected by construction and operation of new

reactors at the North Anna site.

Plants

There are no known populations of any plants species listed as threatened or endangered by

the FWS or the Commonwealth on the North Anna site (Dominion 2006a; NRC 2002). 

Additionally, there are no known populations of such species in Louisa County (VNHP 2004;

FWS 2004a).

The supplemental environmental impact statement prepared for the license renewal of NAPS

Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2002) described three Federally listed plant species that could potentially

occur in the North Anna transmission line rights-of-way: the small whorled pogonia

(Isotria medeoloides), swamp pink (Helonias bullata), and the sensitive joint-vetch

(Aeschynomene virginica). The previous evaluation determined that continued operation and

maintenance of the transmission line rights-of-way would have no effect on these species. 

Because the existing rights-of-way would not be altered, and no additional rights-of-way would

be required to support the operation of the proposed additional units, no additional species are

likely to be affected. The New Jersey rush (Juncus caesariensis), a State threatened species,

occurs in shaded stream banks and other wet areas, and has been reported to occur in Caroline

County (VDCR 2004).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-33 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The transmission line rights-of-way are managed to prevent woody growth from reaching the

transmission lines. The removal of woody species can provide grassland and bog-like habitat

for many rare plant species dependent on open conditions. Virginia Power has cooperated with

the VDCR’s Natural Heritage Program in rare plant surveys within transmission line

rights-of-way. The Natural Heritage Program prepared reports on the results of the rare plant

species surveys. Although several rare plant species have been located along other Virginia

Power transmission line rights-of-way, no endangered or threatened plants were noted along

the rights-of-way associated with the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2006a).

2.7.1.3 Terrestrial Ecological Monitoring

Dominion currently performs no terrestrial ecological monitoring (Dominion 2006a). However,

Dominion does cooperate with private organizations such as the local chapter of the Audubon

Society to allow informal monitoring of selected resources at and near NAPS, and has worked

with the VDCR Natural Heritage Program to conduct rare plant surveys in transmission rights-ofway. The NRC expects Dominion to work with the Commonwealth on development and

implementation of any required monitoring programs.

2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology

This section discusses the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. The

information summarized here is extracted from summaries prepared for the license renewal of

North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2002) and Dominion’s ER (Dominion 2006a). 

| The information in these documents was reviewed by the staff. Where descriptions presented

here are taken directly from the original documents, references are provided to direct the reader

to the source documents.

The aquatic resources in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site are associated with Lake Anna,

the WHTF, and the North Anna River (VEPCo 2001). The reservoir was created to serve as the

cooling water source for NAPS. The reservoir was made during 1971 by erecting a dam on the

main stem of the North Anna River, just upstream of the confluence of the North Anna River and

Northeast Creek (Figure 2-5) (NRC 2002).

The reservoir drains an area of 888 km2

 (343 mi2) (VDEQ 1986). The dam is approximately

27 m (90 ft) high and 1500 m (5000 ft) long and contains 700,000 m3

 (900,000 yd3) of earth and

rock (AEC 1973). The reservoir began filling during January 1972 and reached full pool in

December of that year (AEC 1973). The reservoir is approximately 27 km (17 mi) long, with

435 km (272 mi) of shoreline. The reservoir is relatively shallow (maximum depth 27 m [90 ft];

average depth approximately 8 m [25 ft] at full pool), with a surface area of 5300 ha (13,000 ac)

(AEC 1973). The normal elevation of the reservoir is 76 m (250 ft) above MSL, at which stage it

holds 376,000,000 m3

 (305,000 acre-feet) of water (AEC 1973). The reservoir is used 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-34 December 2006 Figure 2-5. Lake Anna, the WHTF, and the Rivers and Creeks in the Vicinity of NAPS.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-35 NUREG-1811, Volume I

extensively for recreation and fishing. The aquatic resources of Lake Anna are managed

| cooperatively by Virginia Power, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)

and VDCR (NRC 2002).

The reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water: the WHTF and Lake Anna. Lake

Anna is the larger body of water and is physically separated from the WHTF by three dikes. 

The WHTF is the smaller body of water into which the waste heat from existing North Anna

Units 1 and 2 is discharged via a discharge canal. The total surface area of the WHTF is

1400 ha (3400 ac). The surface area of Lake Anna is 3900 ha (9600 ac). The WHTF was

formed by diking off the three southernmost arms of the reservoir. These arms are the three

cooling lagoons of the WHTF; all three lagoons are interconnected by canals (NRC 2002). 

The third dike has a weir regulating outflow allowing water to exit the WHTF into Lake Anna

(Section 3.2.2.2). Fish can move between the two bodies of water at the weir.

The North Anna River headwaters are in Louisa and Orange Counties, Virginia, and flow

eastward for about 97 km (60 mi) before joining the South Anna River 55 km (34 mi)

downstream of the North Anna Dam to form the Pamunkey River (Figure 2-2). The Pamunkey

River flows about 146 km (91 mi) to the southeast, joining with the Mattaponi River to form the

York River, which flows about 56 km (35 mi) into the Chesapeake Bay north of the Hampton

| Roads area of Virginia.

2.7.2.1 Biological Communities of Lake Anna

Lake Anna is typical of many shallow reservoirs found in the southern and mid-Atlantic states. 

Since impoundment, Lake Anna has gone through the typical ecological succession of

reservoirs. The initial biotic community was highly productive because initial nutrient levels

were high. Productivity subsequently decreased and ultimately stabilized (Paterson and

Fernando 1970; Voshell and Simmons 1978). Aquatic communities in Lake Anna experienced

gradual post-impoundment changes from riverine to lake communities. Some of these

communities had stabilized in Lake Anna by 1975 (VEPCo 1986), and all have been relatively

stable since 1985 (VEPCo 1986; VEPCo 2002b; NRC 2002).

Lake Anna contains numerous phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic macroinvertebrate

communities. Seventy-seven genera of phytoplankton have been identified, and diatoms, green

algae, blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria), and cryptomonads are the dominant forms. The

zooplankton are dominated by small-bodied forms (rotifers and copepods). This has been

attributed to selective predation upon larger-bodied zooplankton by landlocked schooling

clupeids such as various shad species (Brooks and Dodson 1965). A total of 124 benthic taxa

have been identified from Lake Anna (VEPCo 1986). Three bivalve species, Elliptio

complanatus, Ellipito productus, and Sphaerium striatum (AEC 1973; NRC 2002) were collected

in the North Anna basin prior to impoundment.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-36 December 2006

In more recent years, the introduced Asiatic clam (Corbicula spp.) has dominated collections

from both Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. The Asiatic clam has spread rapidly

throughout the United States since its first discovery in 1938 (VEPCo 1986). Its populations

expand rapidly when they invade a new habitat, and densities stabilize as the population

reaches carrying capacity of the habitat. Asiatic clams are present throughout Lake Anna with

the greatest population densities found at mid-lake (VEPCo 1989). After the Asiatic clam’s

initial invasion of Lake Anna, densities increased sharply from 1979 to 1981. Populations

remained relatively stable between 1984 and 1988 (VEPCo 1989). Virginia Power received

approval from VDEQ to discontinue Asiatic clam sampling in 1989 (NRC 2002).

Small numbers of unionid mussels (Elliptio spp.) and fingernail clams (family Sphaeriidae) have

also been collected. Acid drainage and sediment from the Contrary Creek mine sites

historically depressed freshwater mussel populations downstream from the Contrary

Creek-North Anna River confluence. Prior to the impoundment of Lake Anna the first major

mussel beds occurred 100 m (330 ft) downstream of the confluence of the North and South

Anna Rivers (Reed and Simmons 1972). There are indications that mussel populations are

recovering in the lower North Anna River (VEPCo 1986; NRC 2002).

Forty species of fish (representing 12 families) have been reported in Lake Anna (VEPCo 1986)

(Table 2-3). Species include those historically found in the North Anna River, those that had

been in local farm ponds inundated by the new reservoir, and those introduced by VDGIF.

Recreational species include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), striped bass (Morone

| saxatilis), walleye (Sander vitreus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow perch (Perca

flavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white perch (M. americana),

pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), redbreast (L. auritus), channel

catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and white catfish (Ameiurus catus). Forage species include

threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense), gizzard shad (D. cepedianum) and blueback herring

(Alosa aestivalis). Striped bass and walleye are stocked annually by VDGIF. Sterile triploid

herbivorous grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) was stocked in the WHTF in 1994 by

| Virginia Power (NRC 2002). The sterile grass carp were stocked (with the approval of the

| VDGIF) in the WHTF to control the growth of the nuisance submersed aquatic plant hydrilla

| (Hydrilla verticillata).

Because of the importance of recreational fishing in Lake Anna, its fish community has been the

subject of wide-ranging studies (VEPCo 1986). Abundance and distribution of fish were

evaluated over a period from 1975 to 1985, using a variety of sampling methods. Larval fish

studies, creel surveys, and a number of special studies focused on the reproduction and growth

of important species, such as largemouth bass. Seasonal movement and habitat preferences of

striped bass were investigated using ultrasonic tags (Dominion 2006a).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-37 NUREG-1811, Volume I

| Table 2-3. Fish Reported from Lake Anna

Scientific Name Common Name

Anguillidae

Anguilla rostrata American eel

Clupeidae

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad

D. petenense threadfin shad

Alosa aestivalis blueback herring

Umbridae

Umbra pygmaea eastern mudminnow

Poeciliidae

Gambusia affinis mosquitofish

Catostomidae

Catostomus commersoni white sucker

Erimyzon oblongus creek chubsucker

Moxostoma macrolepidotum shorthead redhorse

Hypentelium nigricans northern hog sucker

Esocidae

Esox niger chain pickerel

E. lucius northern pike

Cyprinidae

| Ctenopharyngodon idelle grass carp

Cyprinus carpio common carp

Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub

N. micropogon river chub

Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner

Notropis analostanus satinfin shiner

N. procne swallowtail shiner

N. hudsonius spot tail shiner

Aphredoderidae

Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch

Ictaluridae

Ictalurus nebulosus brown bullhead

I. natalis yellow bullhead

I. punctatus channel catfish

Noturus insignis margined madtom

Ameiurus catus white catfish

Centrarchidae

Enneacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish

Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish

L. gibbosus pumpkinseed

L. gulosus warmouth

L. macrochirus bluegill

L. microlophus redear sunfish

Acantharchus pomotis mud sunfish

Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie

Percidae

Perca flavescens yellow perch

|

| Sander vitreus walleye

Etheostoma olmstedi tessellated darter

Moronidae

Morone americana white perch

M. saxatilis striped bass
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-38 December 2006

The community structure for fish in Lake Anna remained relatively stable during the 1975 to

1985 period, with some year-to-year variation in species composition. Post-1975 changes

included (1) a decline in relative abundance of yellow perch and black crappie, (2) an increase

in the relative abundance of white perch and threadfin shad, and (3) an increase in redear

sunfish abundance, with a corresponding decrease in pumpkinseed (Dominion 2006a). These

variations were caused by (1) normal population fluctuations, (2) reservoir aging, (3) the

introduction of forage species and competing predators, (4) the installation of fish attraction

structures and artificial habitat, and (5) the increase in Asiatic clam densities (VEPCo 1986).

Lake Anna appears to support a greater standing crop of fish than most U.S. reservoirs, with

thriving populations of several forage species and game fish species. The mean standing crop

for fish in Lake Anna ranged between 105 and 134 kg (232 and 296 lb) of fish per 0.4 ha (1 ac)

during the 1975 to 1985 period, but it increased substantially in 1985 to 189 kg (417 lbs) per

0.4 ha (1 ac) because of a large increase in introduced threadfin shad and an increase in the

abundance of gizzard shad. Both species provide forage for Lake Anna’s game fish, which

include largemouth bass, walleye, and striped bass. Standing stocks of largemouth bass, Lake

Anna’s most popular sport fish, remained stable during the 1975 to 1985 period. During 1985,

Lake Anna produced more largemouth bass of citation size (3.6 kg [8 lb] or more) than any

other lake or reservoir in Virginia. Life history studies of Lake Anna largemouth bass suggest

that the reproductive success, feeding ecology, and growth of largemouth bass were similar

before and after Units 1 and 2 commenced operation (VEPCo 1986; Dominion 2006a).

Non-native fish species, including striped bass, walleye, threadfin shad, and blueback herring,

have been stocked in Lake Anna by VDGIF since 1972. Striped bass, introduced during 1973,

have been stocked annually since 1975 to create and maintain a “put-grow-and-take”

recreational fishery. A self-sustaining population is not expected in Lake Anna because the

streams, including the North Anna River, that flow into Lake Anna lack the habitat to support

striped bass reproduction. Studies show that striped bass grow and provide a substantial

recreational fishery, but adults are subject to late-summer habitat restrictions (e.g., may be

restricted to cooler-water refuge areas). As a consequence, they may lose weight and show a

decline in condition. Walleye are also stocked annually by the VDGIF and are highly

sought-after game fish (Dominion 2006a). Threadfin shad, introduced during 1983 to provide

forage for striped bass and other species, are vulnerable to cold shock and winter kills, and

would not be able to survive in Lake Anna if it were not for operation of NAPS. Threadfin shad

appear to be thriving and are an important source of food for game fish. Blueback herring was

| stocked by VDGIF during 1980 also as a forage species (Dominion 2006a).

Commercially Important Fisheries of Lake Anna

There is no commercial fishing on Lake Anna or the North Anna River. Professional fishing

guides regularly take clients fishing for largemouth, striped bass, black crappie, and walleye on
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-39 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Lake Anna, but there is no commercial fishing in the lake. Professional fishing guides must

adhere to Commonwealth fishing regulations, and are prohibited by law from selling their catch

(Dominion 2006a).

Recreationally Important Fisheries of Lake Anna

Lake Anna is a popular destination for anglers from central and northern Virginia. Lake Anna’s

proximity to the cities of Washington, D.C., Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Charlottesville

attracts many anglers. The heated effluent that flows into Lake Anna at Dike 3 creates

conditions conducive to good fishing during the winter, making the reservoir a popular fishing

spot when cold weather slows or shuts down fishing at other ponds and lakes in the region. 

VDGIF estimated that 42,731 anglers fished Lake Anna for combined total of 232,439 hours

over a 12-month period during 2000 and 2001. The species most often sought were largemouth

bass, striped bass, and crappie, with 69 percent, 15 percent, and 12 percent of anglers,

respectively, pursuing these species (VDGIF 2003). Although not the most targeted species,

black crappie, not largemouth bass, was the species most often harvested. Depending on the

time of year, species such as bluegill, white perch, channel catfish, and walleye are also sought

by Lake Anna anglers (Dominion 2006a).

VDGIF manages the fisheries of Lake Anna, “...with particular emphasis on providing quality

largemouth and striped bass fisheries within the capacity of available habitat” (Odenkirk 1999). 

Thus, the VDGIF focuses on these two species. Other species, such as black crappie and

channel catfish, are monitored by the VDGIF but are not as actively managed

(Dominion 2006a).

Electro-fishing catch rates for largemouth bass greater than 20 cm (8 in.) long in Lake Anna

have been high in recent years (VDGIF 2003; Odenkirk 2001, 2002). Young-of-the-year catch

rates, although lower, have been indicative of consistent recruitment. Structural indices of the

largemouth bass population indicate a population dominated by larger, older individuals. 

Growth of younger (1 to 4 years old) largemouth bass is excellent; however, growth of older

largemouth bass (5 years and older) is below the district average (Odenkirk 1999). On average

(all age classes considered), largemouth bass in Lake Anna grow more rapidly than largemouth

bass in other large Virginia impoundments (Odenkirk 2001). In summary, largemouth bass tend

to grow rapidly in their first 4 years of life. Their growth rate levels out at age 5, and then slows. 

The population of Lake Anna contains a high proportion of harvestable individuals, and provides

relatively high catch-per-unit-effort for anglers seeking larger, trophy-sized fish

(Dominion 2006a).

Annual stockings of fry and fingerlings sustain the striped bass population in Lake Anna. 

Normally, between 100,000 and 200,000 fingerlings are stocked annually, which equates to

| about 25 and 50 fish per ha (10 and 20 fish per ac) (Odenkirk 1999). Striped bass growth

patterns in Lake Anna vary from year to year, with some of the variability apparently related to

the size of fish stocked (dependent on size of fish supplied by hatcheries). Young striped bass
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-40 December 2006

grow rapidly and reach harvestable size (51 cm [20 in.]) in about 30 months (Odenkirk 1999). 

Estimates of annual mortality range from 35 to 50 percent, depending on the cohort evaluated,

with the lower percentage likely more typical (Odenkirk 1999, 2001, 2002; Dominion 2006a).

Based on experimental gill net catches, black crappie abundance in Lake Anna was very high

during 1997 and 1998, but has declined in recent years (Odenkirk 1999, 2001, 2002). Growth

of black crappie in Lake Anna is similar to growth observed in other impoundments in the

region. There is considerable year-to-year variability in population size structure (i.e., average

size of fish captured), but it is unclear if this is an indication of changes in age composition or

changes in growth rates. The catch-per-unit-effort of quality black crappie declined by

50 percent between 1997 and 1998, an indication that fishing mortality is high. Most black

crappie (92 percent) caught in gill nets were caught in the upper lake (Odenkirk 1999;

Dominion 2006a).

Channel catfish ranked fifth in abundance in gill nets during 1997 and fourth in abundance

during 1998 (Odenkirk 1999). Much higher numbers of channel catfish and white catfish were

captured in gill nets during 1998 than during 1997, but this was attributed to low reservoir levels

(related to drought) rather than an actual increase in numbers of catfish (Dominion 2006a). 

Depending on the time of year, walleye are also sought by Lake Anna fishermen. Walleye are

also stocked annually by the VDGIF. Walleye have been stocked in the lake since 1972

(McCotter 2005).

Gizzard shad are regarded by fisheries managers as a less-than-ideal forage species, because

their rapid growth makes them unavailable to predators in 1 to 2 years. Threadfin shad, while

the ideal size for forage, are subject to mass die-offs from low temperatures or sudden

temperature changes. Because threadfin shad abundance is cyclic, gizzard shad serve in most

years as Lake Anna’s forage base (Odenkirk 1999). During 1997 and 1998, gizzard shad

numbered second and first, respectively, in Lake Anna gill net catches. Threadfin shad were

seventh in 1997 and eighth during 1998. Most shad (71 percent during 1997 and 76 percent

during 1998) were caught in the upper reservoir (Odenkirk 1999; Dominion 2006a).

Nuisance Species of Lake Anna

Virginia Power first collected Asiatic clams in benthos samples during 1979. Densities

increased sharply thereafter, as this species with its high reproductive potential quickly occupied

suitable habitat in the reservoir (VEPCo 1986). The total numbers and densities of Asiatic clam

at the various locations in Lake Anna and the WHTF show sizable fluctuations between years,

mostly as a result of variations in spawning activity (Willis 1998, 1999a,b, 2000a,b, 2001;

Dominion 2006a). Small clams less than 2 mm (0.08 in.) long are sometimes locally abundant

immediately after spawning takes place and inflate numbers and densities found at a particular

sampling location. Asiatic clam numbers in the WHTF near the cooling water discharge for

Units 1 and 2 show the most dramatic fluctuations. For example, densities of clams at this
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-41 NUREG-1811, Volume I

location declined from 1619 clams per m2 during spring 1992 to 11 clams per m2 during fall 1992

(Willis 1992a,b). Clams in this area are subject to boom and bust cycles, because under

extreme conditions (high plant operating levels, high ambient temperatures, drought), water

temperatures can get high enough to cause localized die-offs. Larger (greater than 15 mm in

length), older (1 to 3 years old) Asiatic clams are uncommon in Lake Anna samples, generally

comprising less than 10 percent of the total collected (Odenkirk 2001; Willis 1998, 1999a,b,

2000a,b,c, 2001, 2002a,b). Larger Asiatic clams are generally uncommon in WHTF samples as

well, but sometimes make up a significant percentage (i.e., greater than 50 percent) of the total

in the third lagoon of the WHTF when sample sizes are small (Willis 1999b, 2000a,b).

When Virginia Power compared 1990 to 2002 Asiatic clam survey results to similar surveys

conducted during the 1980s, data indicated a decline in the Lake Anna population. The

greatest sample totals were recorded during the springs of 1985 and 1988, when 194 and

294 clams, respectively, were collected in replicate samples from a mid-lake location. The

greatest sample totals collected during the fall occurred during 1986 and 1987, when 237 and

1227 clams, respectively, were collected from a mid-lake location. The greatest number of

clams collected during the 1990 to 2002 period from the mid-lake location was 148, during

spring 1994 sampling. Operational experience at Units 1 and 2 provides further evidence of a

stable or declining Lake Anna Asiatic clam population; no condenser tube blockages have been

reported since Asiatic clams first appeared in Lake Anna during the late 1970s

(Dominion 2006a).

In the course of monitoring Asiatic clam populations, Virginia Power also looks for evidence that

the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has invaded Lake Anna. As of the end of 2002,

Virginia Power biologists had observed no zebra mussels in Lake Anna or the WHTF. 

Dissolved calcium levels in Lake Anna and the WHTF are well below those known to promote

shell growth in zebra mussels. Low dissolved calcium levels should limit its establishment in

| those waterbodies. 

2.7.2.2 Biological Communities of the WHTF

The WHTF is the body of water into which waste heat from the existing units is discharged via

the canal. It is separated from Lake Anna by a series of dikes. A weir at dike three allows

water to flow from the WHTF to the lake. The same aquatic communities occur in the WHTF

and Lake Anna. Fish can swim from Lake Anna into the WHTF and back. 

2.7.2.3 Biological Communities of the North Anna River

| The North Anna River joins the South Anna River 55 km (34 mi) downstream from the North

| Anna Dam (Figure 2-2), forming the Pamunkey River. Another 146 km (91 mi) downstream, the

Pamunkey River joins the Mattaponi River to form the York River. The York River then flows

| east for 56 km (35 mi) emptying into Chesapeake Bay.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-42 December 2006

The lower North Anna River below the North Anna Dam is small, approximately 23 to 46 m

(75 to 150 ft) wide, but supports a diverse assemblage of stream fishes. There is no

commercial fishing in the North Anna River, but recreational fishing is popular. Unless stream

flow is unusually high, powerboats are impractical, so most anglers fish from shore or from

canoes and kayaks. Recreational fishermen generally seek largemouth and smallmouth bass

| (Micropterus dolomieu) or redbreast sunfish. Bluegill and redear sunfish are present as well,

but receive less attention from anglers (Dominion 2006a).

In the North Anna River downstream of the dam, the periphyton community (single-celled,

filamentous or colonial algae, and associated microfauna attached to underwater surfaces) is

| dominated by diatoms, as are many southeastern streams. Caddisflies (family Trichoptera) that

feed on seston (living and dead plankton, plus particulate matter) from Lake Anna dominate the

benthic macroinvertebrate community. Farther downstream, macroinvertebrate communities

show more diversity and are similar to those of the South Anna River (VEPCo 2001;

Dominion 2006a).

Before the North Anna River was impounded, the fish community of the river downstream of the

Contrary Creek inflow was dominated by pollution-tolerant species. In the years following

impoundment (and partial reclamation of the Contrary Creek mine sites), there was a steady

increase in measures of abundance and diversity of fish in the river. During 1984 to 1985,

38 species from 10 families were found in the North Anna River, compared to 25 species from

| 8 families in the South Anna River (VEPCo 1986) control site. (Forty species have been

| reported from Lake Anna.) When species from Lake Anna were subtracted from the North Anna

River totals, the two fish communities (North and South Anna River communities) showed

similarities, indicating that the operation of the existing units had little or no effect on fish

diversity downstream from the dam (Dominion 2006a).

During 2000, the number of fish collected at four stations downstream of the North Anna Dam

was low but was similar to 1989, 1993, and 1996 collections. High spring flows and canceled

surveys in the fall likely contributed to the low numbers of fish collected. Experience has shown

that high flows are associated with low electrofishing catch rates, and vice versa. Although the

number of fish collected in 2000 was low, the species composition of the catch was similar to

previous years, with six species comprising 80 percent of the electrofishing catch by number

and the same six species comprising 83 percent of the electrofishing catch by weight. All

indications are that the low catch in 2000 was an anomaly, and the North Anna River continues

to support a healthy, well-balanced community of aquatic organisms (Dominion 2006a).

| There is anecdotal information of an anadromous shad run (anadromous meaning fish that

| begin their lives in freshwater and migrate into the open ocean where they mature and then

| return to freshwater) in the North Anna River up to the breached Anderson Mill Dam just

| upstream of the Virginia State route (SR) 738 road crossing. The North Anna River is a tributary

| of the Pamunkey River which has an annual run of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) (Jenkins
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-43 NUREG-1811, Volume I

| and Burkhead 1994, Bilkovic et al. 2002a,b). The shad reported from the Anderson Mill site are

| likely American shad. The Pamunkey Fish Hatchery in King William County, Virginia, is

| approximately 121 km (75 mi) downstream of the North Anna Dam. Shad reared at this facility

| are normally stocked in the Pamunkey River and the James River as fry.

|

| Young American eels (Anguilla rostrata) are found in the North Anna River, but are not sought

| by commercial fishermen. The American eel is a catadromous species, meaning that these fish

| begin their lives in the open ocean and migrate into coastal rivers where they spend more of

| their lives in freshwater (Rohde et al. 1994). Upon reaching sexual maturity, at age 5 to

| 7 years, the eels migrate back to the ocean where they spawn and die. Eels in the North Anna

| River are juveniles, and also are known as “yellow eels” (Dominion 2006a).

VDGIF periodically surveys all fish of the lower North Anna River and monitors the condition of

the recreational fishery. The largemouth and smallmouth bass populations in the lower river are

the species most often sought by anglers and the species most likely to attain harvestable size. 

Recent VDGIF surveys have indicated that largemouth bass and smallmouth bass populations

are healthy, despite the limited supply of forage in the river (Dominion 2006a).

Since 1987, Virginia Power biologists have gathered data on the abundance and distribution of

bass species in the lower North Anna River (VEPCo 2001). Biologists established transects at

four locations in the lower river, counting and categorizing (by size) all bass that are observed

and noting the type of cover being used by the fish. Historically, largemouth bass have

dominated the fish counts at upstream locations, while smallmouth bass have been more

prevalent at downstream locations (VEPCo 2001). In recent years, both species have occupied

the entire study area. Density estimates for both largemouth and smallmouth bass at all

locations were lower during 2000 than average densities for the entire study period, but dense

growth of hydrilla adjacent to stream banks limited the ability of observers to accurately count

the fish (Dominion 2006a).

Redbreast sunfish were most abundant in North Anna River electrofishing samples during 1998,

1999, and 2000, and are the most abundant species since 1981 (VEPCo 2001). The redbreast

sunfish is found across the coastal plain and Piedmont of Virginia in warm-water creeks and

rivers of low-to-moderate gradient (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). It is an adaptable species and

may also be found in ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and even slightly brackish waters near the coast. 

The lower North Anna River redbreast population is a typical stream-dwelling population, with

unremarkable growth rates, food habits, and spawning habits (Dominion 2006a).

| Native striped bass are known to spawn in the rivers of the Chesapeake Bay watershed,

| including the Pamunkey, upstream from the limits of brackish water from early April through the

| end of May (Setzler-Hamilton et al. 1981). Between 1997 and 1999, the furthest upstream

| Bilkovic et al. (2002b) collected striped bass eggs and larvae from the Pamunkey River was

| about river km 131 (81 mi) (number of km [mi] upstream from the mouth of the York River in
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-44 December 2006

| Chesapeake Bay). This location (river km 131 [81 mi]) is about 119 km (74 mi) downstream

| from the North Anna Dam and about 4.8 km (3.0 mi) downstream of the Route 360 bridge

| crossing. It is likely that in some years spawning occurs upstream of this location, but probably

| contributes little to annual striped bass recruitment in the York River system. The most

| upstream record of striped bass prior to the impoundment of Lake Anna is a record of a single

| specimen caught in 1971 and reported by Reed and Simmons (1972) from the Pamunkey River

| at the State Route 615 bridge crossing just north of Studley, Virginia some 29 km (18 mi)

| upstream of the Bilkovic et al. (2002b) record. This upstream record is some 90 km (56 mi)

| downstream of the Lake Anna Dam and 55 km (34 mi) downstream of the fall line on the North

| Anna River, thought to be the historic upstream range of the striped bass in the North Anna-

| Pamunkey River system. Since stocking of Lake Anna with young striped bass, movement of

| bass downstream of the reservoir has been observed. A single specimen was observed by

| Dominion biologists in 1989 during a snorkel survey at Dominion’s Station NAR5 approximately

| 28 km (17 mi) downstream of the North Anna Dam. Anecdotal accounts from a reputable

| fishing guide on North Anna confirm the presence of striped bass in the North Anna River

| downstream of the dam and are likely pour-over fish from the Lake Anna population that get

| washed over or through the dam perhaps during periods of high water (NRC 2005).

2.7.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

This section describes the threatened and endangered aquatic species that exist within the ESP

site, vicinity, and corresponding transmission line rights-of-way, and examines the potential

impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed new units upon these resources.

Animals

Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River for more

than 25 years. No Federally or State-listed fish species has been collected in any of these

monitoring studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional

special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. No Federally or State-listed fish

species’ range includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none are believed to occur in

counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa,

Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties). Two aquatic species listed by the FWS as Federally

endangered do potentially occur in the counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River

(Table 2-4). They are dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and the James River spiny

mussel (Pleurobema collina), neither of which has been observed or collected in local streams.

The VDGIF ecological databases indicate that there is the potential for one State-listed mussel

| species, the James River spiny mussel to be present near the NAPS site. Although this species

may occur in streams that border Lake Anna or the North Anna River, none have been

| observed or collected. None of the three Federally or State-listed species has been found in

Lake Anna or the North Anna River.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-45 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 2-4. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Known or Likely to

Occur in Counties Adjacent to or Downstream from the Lake Anna Reservoir

Scientific Name Common Name Counties Status

Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel Hanover, Louisa, and Spotsylvania FE, SE

Pleurobema collina James River spiny mussel Orange, Hanover, Louisa, Caroline, and

Sportsylvania

FE, SE

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe Orange, Hanover, Louisa, Caroline, and

Spotsylvania

SE

FE = Federal endangered (FWS 2004a, b) 

SE = State endangered

The dwarf wedge mussel was historically found in Hanover, Louisa, and Spotsylvania Counties

(VDCR 2004). It is listed as endangered by both the Commonwealth and FWS. The FWS

Recovery Plan for the species, completed in 1993, indicated that one population survives in the

South Anna River in Louisa County (Moser 1993). The VDGIF Fish and Wildlife Information

Service database currently lists a relic population in the South Anna River in Louisa County,

presumably the same population (VDGIF 2004b).

| An additional mussel species, the fluted kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus subtentum), a

| candidate for Federal listing, has been reported to have been observed in the vicinity of the

| North Anna ESP site (VDGIF 2006). However, these observations may be in error, because

| confirmed observations limit this species to more western mountain streams that drain to the

| Gulf of Mexico.

There are other bivalves listed as species of concern by the Federal and State governments. 

The VDGIF’s Fish and Wildlife Information Service database lists these species as occurring in

a stream or streams near NAPS. All confirmed accounts of these species are confined to

mountain streams in southwestern Virginia that are tributaries of the Tennessee River. It is

unlikely that a disjunct population would occur several hundred miles away in a river system that

flows eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. None of the mussel species of concern were collected in

pre-impoundment surveys of the North Anna River, and none have been collected in more

recent years during routine monitoring surveys.

Plants

No Federally or State-listed aquatic plant species has been collected in any of the monitoring

studies associated with the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2, nor has any listed species been

observed in surveys or special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. No Federally or

State-listed aquatic plant has a range that includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and

none is believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River

(i.e., Carolina, Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-46 December 2006

2.7.2.5 Aquatic Monitoring

The NRC does not impose conditions of operation, including monitoring requirements, in the

area of water quality. Regulation of water quality is implemented by a National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the EPA or the states (Virginia in the case

of any new units at North Anna). The NRC's role in water quality is limited to assessing aquatic

impacts as part of its National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) evaluation. To provide

the information needed to assess potential aquatic impacts, previous monitoring programs and

monitoring programs planned for construction and operation were reviewed. These programs

are expected to support any required assessments of aquatic impacts associated with new

units.

Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna since the early 1970s. Virginia

Power conducts quarterly electro-fishing sampling at nine stations (five stations in Lake Anna,

and four in the WHTF) and at six gill-netting stations (four in the lake and two in the WHTF). 

These surveys are designed to document (1) the types of fish species present in Lake Anna,

(2) their relative numbers by species, and (3) their size class distribution. In the North Anna

River below the dam, Virginia Power biologists have also gathered abundance and distribution

data on largemouth and smallmouth bass by direct (snorkel) observation. The biologists

sampled river segments, counted and categorized (by size) all bass that were observed, and

noted the type of cover being used. Other fish abundance and distribution information in the

North Anna River are collected three times per year by electro-fishing at four stations.

In response to NRC Generic Letter 89-13, Virginia Power initiated a semi-annual sampling

program in the fall 1990 to monitor Asiatic clams in the reservoir. Virginia Power continues to

collect replicate samples at two Lake Anna stations (i.e., intake and mid-lake) and two WHTF

stations. They report the total number and density of clams at the stations and discuss

population trends in semiannual reports. In the course of monitoring Asiatic clam populations,

Virginia Power assesses the micro-fouling potential of Asiatic clams and looks for evidence that

the exotic zebra mussel has invaded the reservoir. As of the end of 2002, Virginia Power had

observed no zebra mussels in the reservoir.

Virginia Power biologists have also conducted studies in the North Anna River in response to

reduced flow because of drought conditions. The studies included physical habitat

measurements at different flows, dissolved oxygen concentrations and temperatures and

collection of benthic macro-invertebrates.

Each fall, when warranted, an aerial and ground-based monitoring program that focuses on

identifying the presence of a nuisance submerged aquatic macrophyte is conducted.

VDGIF also conducts aquatic ecology monitoring as part of their management responsibilities

for the fisheries of Lake Anna. VDGIF district biologists monitor and research the fishes of Lake
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-47 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Anna annually, focusing primarily on the largemouth and striped bass. Other species, such as

black crappie, walleye, channel catfish, and gizzard and threadfin shad, are also monitored by

VDGIF.

2.8 Socioeconomics

This section presents the socioeconomic resources that could be potentially impacted by the

construction, operation, and decommissioning of two new nuclear power units. It is organized

into two major subsections providing details on demographics and community characteristics. 

These subsections include discussions on spatial (e.g., regional, vicinity, and site) and temporal

(e.g., 10-year increments of population growth) considerations, where appropriate, as

referenced.

The potential impact area for the analysis discussed in this section was determined by where

the majority of employees of the currently operating NAPS Units 1 and 2 reside. There are

approximately 720 employees currently at NAPS. Approximately 79 percent of these

employees live in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

| Richmond (NRC 2002). The staff assumes the operations workers for new units would likely

| settle in these same areas. The remaining 21 percent of the workers would be scattered across

| the remaining counties and cities and would not have a discernable impact. The applicant

| believes that 80 percent of the construction workforce is likely to come from the 80-km (50-mi)

| region surrounding the plant and impacts will not be noticeable except in the nearest counties. 

| The remaining 20 percent of the construction workforce is likely to concentrate where both

| housing availability and commuting distance allow. These workers are likely to settle, where

| possible, in the same five closest jurisdictions. The staff’s socioeconomic analysis, therefore,

| focuses on Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond.

2.8.1 Demographics

The analysis of the population distribution around the ESP site out to an 80-km (50-mi) radius is

based on the 2000 census. Table 2-5 presents the population in the concentric rings starting at

16 km (10 mi), 16 to 40 km (10 to 25 mi), 40 to 60 km (25 to 37 mi), and 60 to 80 km (37 to

| 50 mi), and projected population increases in those rings from 2000 to 2065. Dominion used a

formula adopted from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (2004), with the 1990 and

2000 Census as the base. The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, located at the

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, performed the 2001 provisional population estimates for

| Virginia. The percent annual growth in population ranges between 1.0 percent (2040 to 2065)

| and 1.9 percent (2000 to 2010). Total growth in population between 2000 and 2065 is projected

| at 135 percent. The ESP, if granted, would expire in 2027 assuming an issue date of 2007.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-48 December 2006

| Table 2-5. Population Distribution from 2000 to 2065 Within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP Site

| (Note: Through 2040, this is resident population. The year 2065 includes transient

| population.)

Year

0 to 16 km

(0 to 10 mi)

16 to 40 km

(10 to 24.9 mi)

40 to 60 km

(24.9 to

37.3 mi)

60 to 80 km

(37.3 to

50 mi) Total

% Annual

Growth

2000 15,511 185,456 487,482 849,347 1,537,796

2010(a) | 20,996 239,813 604,455 984,645 1,849,909 1.9

2020(a) | 26,480 294,169 721,067 1,119,943 2,161,659 1.6

2030(a) | 31,965 348,526 837,680 1,255,241 2,473,412 1.4

2040(a) | 37,449 402,883 954,292 1,390,539 2,785,163 1.2

2065(a) | 90,425 538,773 1,254,173 1,728,783 3,612,154 1.0

(a) Estimated population.

Source: Dominion (2006a).

All or parts of 32 counties and five major cities are located within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed

North Anna ESP site. The largest population center within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is the town

of Mineral, which is southwest of NAPS. In 2000, the population of Mineral was 424

(USCB 2000a). Lake Anna State Park also lies within the 16-km (10-mi) radius to the northwest

of the site.

The town of Louisa, located west of the ESP site, falls within the 32-km (20-mi) radius. In 2000,

its population was 1401 (USCB 2000a). The City of Fredericksburg, population 19,279

(USCB 2000a), is northeast of the site, and the town of Culpeper, population 9664

(USCB 2000a), is north of the site. Fredericksburg and Culpeper fall within or on the edge of

the 48-km (30-mi) radius. Charlottesville, population 45,049 (USCB 2000a), is located west of

NAPS, and Richmond, population 197,790 (USCB 2000a), is east of the site. Charlottesville

and Richmond lie within or on the edge of the 64-km (40-mi) radius.

| Table 2-6 lists the age distribution of the population in the relevant jurisdictions – Henrico,

Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond in 2000 – and compares

the city populations to the population of Virginia. The counties’ age-distributed populations

closely track within 2 to 3 percent of each other. The exceptions are Spotsylvania County’s

under-18 age group (30.0 percent versus 24.6 percent for Virginia), Orange County’s 25-to-44

age group (27.8 percent versus 31.6 percent for Virginia), and Orange County’s 65-and-over

age group (17.1 percent versus 11.2 percent for Virginia).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-49 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 2-6. Estimated Age Distribution of Population in 2000

Henrico

County

Louisa

County

Orange

County

City of

Richmond

Spotsylvania

County Virginia 

Age Group People % People % People % People % People % People %

Under 18 64,702 24.7 6255 24.4 5955 23.0 43,178 21.8 27,108 30.0 1,738,262 24.6

18 to 24 20,553 7.8 1691 6.6 1678 6.5 25,932 13.2 6626 7.3 679,398 9.6

25 to 44 86,166 32.9 7656 29.9 7184 27.8 62,712 31.7 29,062 32.2 2,237,655 31.6

45 to 64 58,278 22.2 6710 26.2 6620 25.6 39,839 20.1 20,073 22.2 1,630,867 23.0

65 and over 32,601 12.4 3315 12.9 4444 17.1 26,129 13.2 7526 8.3 792,333 11.2

Totals 262,300 100.0 25,627 100.0 25,881 100.0 197,790 100.0 90,395 100.0 7,078,515 100.0

Source: USCB (2000b).

Table 2-7 contains data on population, projected population, and annual growth rates for the

area of potential impact. Among the counties included in the comparison, Spotsylvania County

by far has the fastest growth rate, in terms of percentage growth from 1980 through 2000

(actual) and projected growth rate through 2030. Between 1990 and 2000, the population of 

Spotsylvania County increased by 57.4 percent. The population in Louisa County for the same

10-year period increased by 26.1 percent. During the same time period, population increases in

Henrico and Orange Counties were 20.4 and 20.8 percent, respectively. The population of the

City of Richmond decreased 2.6 percent during the same period (Virginia Statistical Abstract

2004). The City of Richmond consistently lost population over the 30-year period from 1970

through 2000 and is projected to continue to do so through 2020. Both Spotsylvania and Louisa

Counties are ranked among the fastest growing counties in Virginia.

Table 2-7. Population Growth in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, and the

City of Richmond – 1980 to 2030

Henrico County Louisa County Orange County City of Richmond Spotsylvania County

Year Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth Population

Annual

%

Growth

1970 154,465 14,004 13,792 249,431 16,424

1980 180,735 1.6 17,825 2.4 18,063 2.7 219,214 -1.3 34,435 7.7

1990 217,880 1.9 20,325 1.3 21,421 1.7 203,056 -0.8 57,405 5.2

2000 262,300 1.9 25,627 2.3 25,881 1.9 197,790 -0.3 90,395 4.6

2010 301,000(a) 1.4 29,100 1.3 30,000 1.5 191,600 -0.3 125,000 3.3

2020 335,000 1.1 32,600 1.1 34,400 1.4 189,600 -0.1 153,000 2.0

2030 365,000 0.9 36,200 1.1 38,600 1.2 189,600 0.0 181,400 1.7

(a) Projected population for 2010-2030; values for 1970 through 2000 are actual census population numbers.

Sources: Weldon Cooper Center (2004); Virginia Employment Commission (2003); Virginia Statistical Abstract

(2004, 2005).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-50 December 2006

2.8.1.1 Transient Population

The area within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site is predominately rural and characterized by

farmland and wooded tracts. No significant industrial or commercial facilities are in the area,

and none are anticipated. As a result, daily commuting is most likely to be out of, rather than

into, the area.

Recreational use of Lake Anna, which is the cooling water source for NAPS, is the greatest

contributor to a transient population. Numerous recreational sites, consisting of boat ramps, wet

slips, camping sites, picnic areas, etc., are located around the reservoir. A central data

collection site for recreational use of the lake does not exist. Dominion developed an estimate

of lake use on a peak weekend day in mid-summer based on representative usage of

recreational facilities (e.g., boating, picnicking, and camping) (Dominion 2006a). Data for the

estimate were provided by the VDCR for the recreational facilities at Lake Anna. The estimate

does not include use of the lake by local residents with their own private boat docks. Table 2-8

shows the estimated transient population in the vicinity attributed to the lake and to Paramount’s

Kings Dominion Amusement Park, located 32 km (20 mi) north of Richmond.

The resulting estimated total peak daily transient population on Lake Anna is 5900 for boating

and other uses of the lake and 4370 for Lake Anna State Park. The use of the WHTF is limited

to residents around the WHTF and their guests; thus, its peak use is less than 1000. Given the

conservative assumptions and the potential for double-counting, these numbers may be high

(Dominion 2006a).

The annual transient population is less certain because of the dramatic drop in boating during

weekdays and the fall, winter, and spring seasons. Based on the Lake Anna State Park data

and assuming 180 days of operation, the average daily attendance for the park is less than one

quarter of the peak daily attendance. Assuming that the average attendance, excluding the

park, is one-half the peak daily figure (Dominion 2006a), the total annual attendance in the

vicinity of Lake Anna would be about 808,300, based on a 180-day use period.

An accurate count of the transient population between the 16-km (10-mi) and 80-km (50-mi)

radii from the ESP site is difficult to estimate. There are colleges, schools, and hospitals within

80 km (50 mi). However, compared to the resident population within the same area, use of

these facilities by the transient population is expected to be insignificant (Dominion 2006a).

Between 16 km (10 mi) and 80 km (50 mi) from the ESP site, Paramount’s Kings Dominion

Amusement Park is the only major recreational facility that draws a significant number of

transient visitors. Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park is 56 km (35 mi) southeast of

the site. The park operates from March to November and hosts about 2 to 2.5 million visitors

annually. According to the park’s public relations manager, the park could experience slow 
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-51 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 2-8. Estimated Transient Population Recreating at Lake Anna Facilities and Paramount’s

Kings Dominion Amusement Park

Facility

Daily Peak

Transient

Population

Annual

Usage Comments/Assumptions

Lake Anna – Recreational Facilities and State Park

Lake Anna 5900 531,000 Annual use based on 180 days at 2,950/average day.

Waste Heat Treatment Facility <1000 90,000 Peak daily use based on doubling the resident

population in cooling lagoon sectors (one guest per

resident). Annual use based on 180 days at

500/average day.

Lake Anna State Park 4370 187,300 Annual use was 187,300 between July 1, 2001, and

June 30, 2002. Park closes in winter. Usage includes

occupants of boats launched at the park.

Total Estimated Annual

Attendance

-- 808,300 Assumed 180 days of operation. For Lake Anna State

Park assumed 25 percent of the peak daily attendance. 

For Lake Anna (including the WHTF), assumed

average attendance is one half the peak daily figure.(a)

Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park

Total estimated attendance -- 2,500,000 Annual use is estimated at between 2.0 to 2.5 million

between March and November. Park closes in winter.

Attendance from outside

80-km (50-mi) radius

7246 999,948 Assumes that 40 percent of park visitors come from

outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius.(b)

| Total estimated transient

population

18,516 -- Sum of Lake Anna and Paramount’s Kings Dominion

Amusement Park transient population 

(a) Dominion calculated the annual attendance at 807,300 based on a 180-day season (Dominion 2006a). The

NRC staff, using the same numbers and assumptions, derived an estimated annual attendance of 808,300.

(b) Dominion used the maximum capacity of 2.875 million visitors per year to estimate 20,830 average daily park

visitors (Dominion 2006a). The NRC staff used the current estimated annual number of visitors at the park as a

basis for calculations of the estimated transient population.

Source: Dominion (2006a).

growth in the future, until it reaches its current maximum capacity of 2.875 million visitors

per year (i.e., an additional 15 percent above the current attendance) (Dominion 2006a). On

average, the park is open for public use about 138 days per year (Paramount 2004).

Using the annual number of visitors to the park and the average number of days open, the

current average daily park visitor count is conservatively estimated to be 18,115. While there is

no official count of visitors that come from areas outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP

site, the majority of the park visitors are expected to come from the Richmond and

Fredericksburg areas because of their proximity to the park. Dominion assumed that 40 percent

of the daily park visitors (7246 visitors) come from areas outside the 80-km (50-mi) radius; or

999,948 visitors over the 138 days that the park is open. These park visitors are considered
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-52 December 2006

transient population (Dominion 2006a). The total estimated transient population within 80 km

(50 mi), therefore, is the sum of Lake Anna recreational state park and King’s Dominion out-of-

| area attendance, or 18,516 persons.

2.8.1.2 Migrant Labor

Migrant workers are typically members of minority or low-income populations. Because migrant

workers travel and can temporarily spend a significant amount of time in an area without being

an actual resident, they may be unavailable for counting by census takers. If this occurred,

migrant workers would be under-represented in the U.S. Census Bureau’s (USCB) minority and

low-income population counts.

Agriculture in Louisa County is representative of the surrounding region, including Spotsylvania

Henrico, and Orange Counties. In 1997, Louisa County had 385 individual farms. The main

crops grown within the county are legumes, grass hay, corn for grain, soybeans, corn for silage,

and wheat. Beef cattle production is also important, with 71 percent of the farms holding cattle

and calf inventories and 71 percent of the farms selling cattle and livestock (Louisa

County 2001). Migrant workers do not harvest agricultural crops in Louisa County; however,

they do replant forestland that has been harvested (NRC 2002).

Over the past 5 years, most completely harvested forestland in Louisa County has been

replanted or allowed to regenerate naturally. From July 1998 to June 2000, approximately

1465 ha (3560 ac) of forestland were thinned or cleared. In 1999, 877 ha (2130 ac) were

reforested (Louisa County 2001). Planting takes place from late January through March and is

often done under a Virginia Department of Forestry contract, even on private lands. Migrant

laborers often plant the trees. Data on the number of migrant workers participating in the

planting are not available, but the number is considered to be small. Given the expected small

number of migrant workers, even if they were concentrated at a single location, they would

remain only for a short time and would not materially change the population characteristics of

any particular census tract within Louisa County.

2.8.2 Community Characteristics

2.8.2.1 Economy

The communities potentially most impacted socioeconomically by activities at the ESP site are

Henrico, Louisa, Orange, Spotsylvania Counties, and the City of Richmond, all in central

Virginia. The greatest impacts would be observed in Louisa County, where the NAPS site is

located. All these counties, but not the City of Richmond, have experienced steady growth in

population and economic activity during the 1990s. Brief discussions of the economy of each of

the counties follow.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-53 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Some comparative economic statistics for the four counties and Virginia are presented in

Tables 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, and 2-13. Table 2-9 presents information on the unemployment

rate (for December 2003), the percentage of individuals below the poverty line for 2000, and

median household income. Table 2-10 presents the major employers in Louisa County. 

Table 2-11 presents information on regional employment trends for Henrico, Louisa, Orange,

and Spotsylvania Counties; the City of Richmond; and the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Table 2-12 contains county and city employment by proprietorship and industry (1990 and

2000) for the four counties and the City of Richmond. Table 2-13 is an aggregation of

Table 2-12 and totals employment by industry or business type across the four counties and

City of Richmond for 1990 and 2000.

The City of Richmond is part of the Richmond-Petersburg metropolitan statistical area, which is

home to approximately 950,000 people. The Richmond-Petersburg area is the primary

economic driving force within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of NAPS. The Richmond metropolitan

statistical area is located approximately 160 km (100 mi) from Washington, D.C., and has a

transportation network of trucking and railroad terminals and interstate highway access to main

east-west and north-south routes. It also has an international airport and the western-most

inland port in the Commonwealth of Virginia with direct access to the Atlantic Ocean, giving it

access to both domestic and international markets (VEPCo 2001).

The unemployment rate for the City of Richmond at the end of December 2003 was 5.3 percent

(Table 2-9), an increase from an annual unemployment rate of 2.9 percent for the year 2000

(Table 2-11). The workforce decreased from approximately 221,241 to 196,175 or about

11.3 percent between 1990 and 2000. Services, government, and manufacturing are the

biggest employment sectors for 2000 (see Table 2-12). The City of Richmond has the highest

poverty rate and lowest median household income of the five jurisdictions evaluated (Table 2-9).

Henrico County is also part of the Richmond-Petersburg metropolitan statistical area. The

Richmond area is home to the headquarters of 35 major corporations, including eight Fortune

500 companies and 14 Fortune 1000 corporations. Of those numbers, three Fortune 500 and

three Fortune 1000 companies are located in Henrico County (Henrico County 2004a). 

Services, retail trade and finance, insurance, and real estate are the largest employment

sectors in the county (Table 2-12) (Henrico County 2004a). Capital One Financial Corporation

is one of the largest private employers in the area (NRC 2002). The unemployment rate in

Henrico County was 3.0 percent in December 2003 (Table 2-9) (Virginia Employment

Commission 2004), essentially unchanged from 2000. Henrico County’s employment increased

from approximately 142,000 in 1990 to 195,000 in 2000, or about 37 percent (see Table 2-11).

Henrico County had the second highest median household income (at $49,185 in 2000) and the

second lowest percentage individual poverty in 2000, 6.2 percent of the total population

(Table 2-9). The median household income in Henrico County exceeded Virginia’s median

household income by approximately $2500.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-54 December 2006

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

Unemployment

(% December 2003)

Poverty

(% Estimated 2000)

Median Household Income

(2000 $)

Henrico County 3.0 6.2 49,185

Louisa County 4.8 10.2 39,402

Orange County 3.5 9.2 42,889

City of Richmond 5.3 21.4 31,121

Spotsylvania County 1.9 4.7 57,525

Virginia 3.3 9.6 46,677

| Note: Low income was defined as being in a household having an income below the official poverty level.

Sources: USCB (2000c); Virginia Employment Commission (2004).

Table 2-10. Major Employers in Louisa County, Virginia

Employer Product Number of Employees

Dominion Virginia Power Electric Utility 1318+

Kloeckner–Pentaplast Rigid PVC Products 652

Wal-Mart, Inc. Distribution Center 525

Louisa County Public Schools Education 680

Louisa County Government Services 250(a)

AGI Klearfold, Inc. Plastic Packing 160

Tri-Dim Filters 120

(a) Inclusive of full- and part-time employees (VEPCo 2001).

Sources: Louisa County Economic Development (2004), and NRC (2002).

Table 2-11. Regional Employment Trends – 1990 and 2000

County, City, and

State

Workers

Employed FullTime and PartTime 1990

Workers

Employed FullTime and PartTime

2000

% Change in

Workers

Employed 1990 -

2000

Unemployment

Rate 1990

%

Unemployment

Rate 2000

%

Henrico 142,293 194,787 36.9 3.0 1.6

Louisa 8427 11,641 38.1 4.9 3.1

Orange 9955 10,558 6.1 2.5 2.2

Spotsylvania and

Fredericksburg

40,402 59,872 48.2 3.8, 3.4 1.3, 2.3

City of Richmond 221,241 196,175 -11.3 6.4 2.9

Total for region 422,318 473,033 12.0 - -

Virginia 3,727,194 4,424,791 18.7 4.5 2.2

Sources: BEA (2000) and County and City Data Books (1994, 2000).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-55 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 2-12. County and City Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Type and by Industry

Industry

Henrico

County Louisa County

Orange

County

Spotsylvania

County and

Fredericksburg City of Richmond

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

| Total Employment 142,293 194,787 8427 11,641 9955 10,558 40,402 59,872 221,241 196,175

| Wage and Salary

Employment

126,504 178,082 6375 6359 7649 8466 33,500 50,699 206,804 182,142

Proprietors

employment

15,789 16,705 2052 5282 2306 2092 6902 9173 14,437 14,033

& Nonfarm

proprietor

employment

15,628 16,529 1621 4827 1868 1613 6603 8871 14,437 14,033

& Farm

proprietor

employment

161 176 431 455 438 479 299 302 0 0

By Industry

Farm employment 234 214 511 476 644 671 373 341 0 0

Agriculture services,

fishing, and other

899 1352 146 191 126 164 294 D 539 639

Mining 200 187 76 D L D 10 D 161 195

Construction 10,539 12,092 1352 1227 972 913 3916 4497 8842 8513

Manufacturing 13,465 16,514 1548 1548 2058 1689 3215 3420 28,327 19,175

Transportation and

public utilities

6313 8815 D D 214 326 1271 2191 12,383 10,965

Wholesale trade 9771 11,757 116 227 212 558 1945 2678 11,697 9048

Retail trade 29,430 38,274 773 1310 1782 1903 10,606 15,513 22,744 18,830

Finance, insurance,

and real estate

19,811 32,402 431 1222 601 D 3084 3754 24,320 16,601

Services 39,902 59,016 D 2949 1897 1768 10,424 19,237 61,122 61,735

Government and

government

enterprises

11,729 14,164 1040 1341 1446 2066 5264 7652 51,106 50,474

D - Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the

totals.

L - Fewer than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.

Source: BEA (2000).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-56 December 2006

Table 2-13 Aggregated Full-Time and Part-Time Employment by Industry or Business Type

for Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, Fredericksburg, and the

City of Richmond

Industry or Business Type 1990 Employment 2000 Employment % Increase (Decrease)

| Total Employment 422,318 473,033 12.0

| Wage and Salary Employment 380,832 425,748 11.8

Proprietors employment 41,486 47,285 14.0

& Nonfarm proprietor

employment

40,157 45,873 14.2

& Farm proprietor

employment

1329 1412 6.2

By Industry

Farm employment 1762 1702 -3.4

Agriculture services, fishing, and

other

2004 2346(a) 17.1(a)

Mining 447(a) 382(a) -14.5(a)

Construction 25,621 27,242 6.3

Manufacturing 48,613 42,346 -12.9

Transportation and public utilities 20,181(a) 22,297(a) 10.5(a)

Wholesale trade 23,741 24,268 2.2

Retail trade 65,335 78,830 20.7

Finance, insurance, and real

estate

48,247 53,979(a) 11.9(a)

Services 113,345(a) 144,705 27.7(a)

Government and government

enterprises

70,585 75,697 7.2

(a) Summations and percentages are for numbers shown in Table 2-12 (i.e., as with Table 2-12, some county

data are not reported because of confidentiality issues).

Source: BEA (2000).

Louisa County is located in the triangle between Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Charlottesville. 

I-64 runs east-west through the county, as does a CSX Corporation rail line. Because NAPS is

located in Louisa County, that county has benefitted more economically from the existing

Units 1 and 2 than have Henrico, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties. Table 2-10 shows the

top seven employers in Louisa County.

Until the 1990s, Louisa County had been rural and dominated by farming and forestry, which

are still economically important. In the 1990s, the county population grew by 26 percent,

without a comparable increase in industrial and commercial development (Louisa County 2001). 
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-57 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The number of full-time and part-time jobs in the county increased from 8427 in 1990 to 11,641

in 2000, an increase of 38.1 percent (see Table 2-11). During the 1990s, two clothing

| manufacturers that were located in the county closed (Louisa County 2001). A positive aspect

of the county’s economic development was the arrival of a Wal-Mart Regional Distribution

Center at Zion Crossroads in the western part of the county. Wal-Mart currently employs

approximately 525 people (see Table 2-10). In addition, since 1990 the unemployment rate in

Louisa County dropped from 4.9 percent (see Table 2-11) to 3.1 percent in 2000. The

unemployment rate has since increased to 4.8 percent for December 2003 (Table 2-9). 

Services, manufacturing, construction and finance, insurance, and real estate were the top

employment sectors in the county in 2000 (Table 2-12). Louisa County had the second highest

individual poverty rate and second lowest median household income (for 2000) of the five

jurisdictions (see Table 2-9).

More than half the resident workers in Louisa County commute to jobs outside the county

(Louisa County 2001; VEPCo 2001; Virginia Employment Commission 2005). In many

respects, Louisa County is a bedroom community for the larger metropolitan regions,

particularly Richmond, and to a lesser extent, Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, and

Washington, D.C.

Operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 in Louisa County has kept the property tax assessment rates

significantly below those of neighboring counties. It also enabled the county to begin an

economic development program in the 1970s with the construction of its industrial park

| (NRC 2002). In addition, NAPS represents a local source of high-wage employment. The

| average weekly wage in the nuclear electric power generation industry in the Richmond

| Metropolitan Statistical Area (which includes Louisa County) was $1551 in 2004, while the

| average wage for all industries was $762 in the Richmond MSA, $744 in Louisa County, and

| $779 in Virginia (Virginia Employment Commission 2005). While recognizing that NAPS has

been economically beneficial, Louisa County would like to lessen its dependence on NAPS

through diversification of the local economy. To achieve this diversification, the county hopes

that it can attract technology and bio-research firms (NRC 2002) and that Wal-Mart will train and

provide employment for workers at the lower end of the pay scale, which is defined as being

substantially higher than minimum wage (currently the Federal minimum wage is

| $5.15 per hour), but generally less than $10 per hour.

The economy in Orange County is dominated by agribusiness, manufacturing, and commercial

retail services. The towns of Orange and Gordonsville are the only two incorporated towns in

the county. A planned, gated residential community exists at Lake of the Woods

(VEPCo 2001).

Orange County's employment was approximately 10,560 in 2000 (see Table 2-11), but

55 percent of working adults commuted out of the county to work (Orange County 2004a;

Virginia Employment Commission 2005). The existing employment base in Orange County
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-58 December 2006

represents an increase of 6.1 percent over the 1990 level (Table 2-11). The largest employer

(600 people) is American Woodmark Corporation. The second largest employer (287 workers)

is Von Holtzbrinck Publishing Services, a book distribution center (Orange County 2004b). The

unemployment rate in Orange County was 3.5 percent in December 2003 (Table 2-9), an

increase from the annual unemployment rate of 2.2 percent in 2000 (Table 2-11). Orange

County had the third highest median household income and individual poverty rate of the five

jurisdictions studied (Table 2-9). In percentage terms, the fastest growing employment sectors

in Orange County during the decade of the 1990s were wholesale trade (163 percent),

transportation and public utilities (52.3 percent), and government and government enterprises

(42.9 percent) (Table 2-12).

Spotsylvania County is located halfway between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia. 

Economically, it is more associated with the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area through the

commuting patterns of its residents (NRC 2002). It is estimated that approximately 63 percent

of the county’s workers commute to jobs outside the county (Virginia Employment

Commission 2005). The county is a bedroom community to the Washington, D.C. area.

Historically, agriculture and forestry have been important components of the economy for

Spotsylvania County. The economic slowdown of 2001 to 2002 did not materially impact

Spotsylvania County, as can be seen by the unemployment and other economic factors. The

continued building boom, particularly in residential construction, was the most important

economic factor (Partridge et al. in Jaksch and Scott 2005). The relative economic importance

of agricultural and forest activities has declined compared to the commercial base as the county

has grown. The largest employer in Spotsylvania County is Spotsylvania County Schools

(employment over 3000). Spotsylvania County government is the next largest employer (at over

650 workers), with CVS Pharmacy third (575 workers). CVS Pharmacy has a distribution

warehouse located in the county (Spotsylvania County 2005a,b).

The unemployment rate in Spotsylvania County was 1.3 percent for the year 2000 (Table 2-11). 

This compares with an unemployment rate of 1.9 percent as of December 2003 (Table 2-9).

While there is exceptionally low unemployment in the county, Spotsylvania County lacks

resident-based employers that pay higher wages. The prevalent wage paid by a number of

resident based employers is under $10 per hour (Partridge et al. in Jaksch and Scott 2005). 

Workers employed full-time and part-time increased by approximately 48.2 percent between

1990 and 2000 (Table 2-11). In percentage terms, the fastest growing employment sectors in

Spotsylvania County between 1990 and 2000 were services (84.5 percent); transportation and

public utilities (72.4 percent); retail trade (46.3 percent); and government and government

enterprises (45.4 percent) (Table 2-12).

There are no growth restrictions in Spotsylvania County, which had the second highest growth

rate in Virginia and the thirteenth highest in the country (Partridge et al. in Jaksch and
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-59 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Scott 2005). Attempts are being made to manage growth through the permit process. One

such approach involves down-zoning housing density (for example, where housing density once

was one house per acre, now it is one house per 2 acres). Attempts are being made to

preserve agricultural land by limiting one house to approximately 10 acres. Also, market forces

are limiting entry into the county’s housing market. It is currently a seller’s market, because

houses in Spotsylvania County are more affordable than in Fairfax County and other Northern

Virginia locations. The average price of a residential house in Spotsylvania is around $215,000,

with more than that price often being offered by potential buyers. This is shifting growth that

might have taken place in Spotsylvania County to Louisa and Caroline Counties and beyond

(Goss 2003 in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Table 2-13 aggregates employment by industry or employment type across Henrico, Louisa,

Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond between 1990 and 2000. The

fastest growing sector was services (27.7 percent). Next was retail trade at 20.7 percent,

followed by agricultural services, fishing, and other at 17.1 percent. Proprietor employment

increased by 14.0 percent, followed by finance, insurance, and real estate, which increased by

11.9 percent. The construction workforce increased from 25,621 in 1990 to 27,242 in 2000, or

6.3 percent. As can be seen from Table 2-11, the total number of workers increased from

422,318 in 1990 to 473,033 in 2000, or 12.0 percent.

2.8.2.2 Transportation

There are 32 counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site. One county is in

Maryland while the remaining counties are in Virginia. The 31-county Virginia area is served by

two major freeways. I-95 runs north-south through the region and connects it with Washington,

D.C., to the north and Richmond, Virginia, to the south. I-64 connects Richmond to

Charlottesville on the west and Norfolk on the east. I-295 serves as a beltway around the City

of Richmond.

The area is also traversed by several other State and Federal highways including U.S. Route 15

(U.S. 15) from the vicinity of Warrenton in the north, through Culpeper, and on south. U.S. 29

runs more northeast to southwest from the vicinity of Manassas, through Culpeper, to

Charlottesville, and extends on to the southwest. U.S. 33 passes through Louisa and then

southeast to Richmond. U.S. 250 runs between Charlottesville and Richmond. Numerous

State routes (SRs) traverse the area including SRs 700, 652, 208, and 522.

Road access to North Anna is via SR 700, a narrow, two-lane, paved road. SR 700 intersects

SR 652 approximately one-half mile from the North Anna site. The major commuting routes in

the immediate vicinity of NAPS are SRs 700, 652, 208, 522, and 618. These roads all carry a

level-of-service (LOS) designation “B” (stable flow in which the freedom to select speed is

unaffected but the freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished). See Table 2-14 for a

description of LOS designations.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-60 December 2006

Table 2-14. Level-of-Service Designation Characteristics

Level-of-Service Conditions

A Free flow of the traffic stream; users are unaffected by the presence of others.

B Stable flow in which the freedom to select speed is unaffected, but the freedom to

maneuver is slightly diminished.

C Stable flow that marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of

individual users is significantly affected by interactions with the traffic stream.

D High-density stable flow, in which the freedom to maneuver is severely restricted;

small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems.

E

Operating conditions at or near capacity level, causing low but uniform speeds and

extremely difficult maneuvering that is accomplished by forcing another vehicle to

give way; small increases in flow or minor perturbation will cause breakdowns.

F

Defines forced or breakdown flow that occurs whenever the amount of traffic

approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. This situation

causes the formation of queues characterized by stop-and-go waves and extreme

instability.

Source: VEPCo 2001.

General transportation studies have been undertaken of highways in the region, and plans are

| in place to upgrade serveral highways, including those in areas around Lake Anna. The

interchange for SR 606 and I-95 is congested, generally at a LOS D or better. A Virginia

Department of Transportation (VDOT) I-95 interchange study has determined that this

interchange will become more congested in the future (Dominion 2006a).

The VDOT I-95 study includes an analysis of traffic patterns for the SR 606/I-95 interchange out

to year 2025. The study identifies an existing congestion issue and relates it to the ongoing

rapid growth in western Spotsylvania County. Upgrading the access to I-95 has been delayed 

| because of lack of funding, and is not yet included in VDOT’s funded projects as of

| October 2006. The VDOT study also identifies the need for widening the western section of

SR 606 to alleviate the existing congestion that affects traffic trying to access I-95 north and

south.

I-95 north from Richmond is not as congested. I-64 west from Richmond has a LOS no worse

than B (Dominion 2006a). During the December 2003 site visit, the staff noted that even during

what would normally be considered rush hour, I-64 leaving Richmond westbound in the evening

or returning to Richmond in the morning was moderately traveled, with traffic moving well. 

SRs 208 and 522 are well maintained, lightly traveled, two-lane roads.

The Louisa-Orange-Spotsylvania Advisory’s three-county planning group, the Lake Anna

Advisory Committee, has recommended that planners in each of the three counties upgrade
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-61 NUREG-1811, Volume I

their local roads around Lake Anna. The recommended upgrades would provide a

circumferential roadway system around the lake with adequate lanes for towed boats and

bicycles. Should the upgrade occur, it would alleviate congestion on local roads, such as

SRs 608 and 522 (Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee 2000). The Louisa County

Comprehensive Plan of 2001 also recognizes the need to improve the roadways around Lake

Anna. The plan recommends improvement to the roads within Louisa County, but provides no

information on funding or the timing of the recommended road improvements (Louisa

| County 2001). No major upgrades are planned at this time (Coffey and Hatler in Jaksch and

| Scott 2005).

Spotsylvania County plans to widen SR 606 west of I-95 to four lanes and has included this

project in their comprehensive plan (Spotsylvania County 2002). Construction of a SR 208

Bypass around the historic Courthouse District was originally planned to begin in 2006. Both

| projects have been delayed (Vogel and Goss 2005 in Jaksch and Scott 2005). When

| completed, the SR 208 Bypass will alleviate a potential bottleneck in the Spotsylvania

| Courthouse area. Construction is scheduled to be bid in 2007. SR 208 south is a two-lane road

with a bridge over Lake Anna west of the ESP site. Spotsylvania County’s long term plans are

to upgrade the two-lane roads around Lake Anna by widening them to include shoulders, which

should more easily accommodate larger vehicles such as motor homes. This upgrade is in line

with the three-county planning group’s plans for the Lake Anna area (Dominion 2006a).

In Hanover County, U.S. 33 links Richmond with Louisa and points to the north and west. This

two-lane road in the northern part of the county is currently congested and needs to be widened

(Dominion 2006a). A time frame for the widening has not been set because the source of

funding has not been identified. Traffic congestion would be considered in developing a county

traffic management plan (Hanover County 1998).

2.8.2.3 Property Taxes

Table 2-15 presents information on the total property tax revenues and the amount Dominion

paid to Louisa County for NAPS from 1995 to 2003. In addition, the percentage of total property

taxes paid and the county’s budget is presented. For the period 1995 to 2003, property taxes

for NAPS averaged about 46 percent of the total property tax revenue for Louisa County over

the 9-year period and averaged approximately 22.5 percent of the county’s total annual budget. 

Dominion projected annual property tax payments for NAPS would continue to increase slightly

(absolute amount) through the license renewal term of Units 1 and 2 (VEPCo 2001). However,

the percent such payments represent of the total county taxes paid will probably continue to

decline. The potential effects of electric utility deregulation in Virginia on future property tax

collections from the units is not fully known at this time.

The significance of this discussion on the economy is that the four-county area around the ESP

site is in a state of change. Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties are more economically sound 
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-62 December 2006

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

Paid to Louisa County; and Operating Budgets for Louisa County – 1995 to 2003

Year

Total Property Tax

Revenues

Property Tax Paid

to County for

NAPS

Percent of Total

Property Taxes

Total County

Operating Budget(a)

Louisa County

1995 19,244,309 10,683,585 56 36,120,116

1996 21,452,251 11,131,726 52 44,471,914

1997 22,783,690 11,361,154 50 37,600,195

1998 24,141,313 11,006,924 46 37,651,399

1999 24,094,105 11,145,065 46 43,562,452

2000 24,770,698 10,583,390 43 46,554,387

2001 24,343,887 10,987,610 45 51,944,200

2002 25,861,613 9,931,868 38 56,704,171

2003 26,098,535 10,171,340 39 54,514,969

(a) The total county budget is up in some years because of capital construction such as schools.

Source: McLeod in Jaksch and Scott 2005.

than Orange and Louisa Counties. Spotsylvania County, for at least the last two decades, has

been influenced economically by the Washington, D.C., and northern Virginia economies, with

many white-collar professionals choosing to live in Spotsylvania County (for the suburbancountry lifestyle) and commute to jobs in Washington, D.C, and northern Virginia. Also, over the

last two decades, the Richmond area has become economically diversified and has grown

significantly. Some of this growth has impacted Spotsylvania County, to the north, and Henrico

County, which abuts the City of Richmond.

Orange and Louisa Counties have also benefitted from the growth in neighboring Henrico and

Spotsylvania Counties. In addition, both Louisa and Spotsylvania Counties have been impacted

by Lake Anna and the economic development around Lake Anna. Orange County has been

impacted to a lesser extent by this development because it has fewer miles of shoreline. 

Development around Lake Anna has been oriented toward upscale vacation and retirement

homes. Lake Anna is becoming family oriented with more permanent year-round residences

(Goss 2003 in Jaksch and Scott 2005). Land values around the lake have increased

significantly. Starter homes are being built on Louisa County’s eastern edge, closer to the City

of Richmond. Homes and developments for residents with moderate incomes are scattered

across Louisa County, and upscale neighborhoods are being built in the western end of the

county closer to Charlottesville and around Lake Anna.

Dominion has a significant impact on the economic well-being of Louisa County, paying on

average, about 46 percent of the total property taxes between 1995 and 2003. Louisa County
Affected Environment

(a) October through September is defined as a water year for purposes of measuring precipitation.

December 2006 2-63 NUREG-1811, Volume I

schools have benefitted substantially from the taxes Dominion pays for NAPS by being able to

upgrade their infrastructure. Over time, the percentage contribution of total NAPS property

taxes payable to Louisa County for NAPS Units 1 and 2 will decline, assuming the current rate

of economic growth in the county continues. Thus, while the economic importance of NAPS is

expected to decline, it may decline even faster if Louisa County experiences substantial

economic growth as did Spotsylvania and Henrico Counties during the 1990s.

2.8.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation

Access to the North Anna site itself is provided by SR 700, a two-lane road leading up to the

plant boundary. The terrain is gently undulating and wooded. Most of the site structures are

screened from public view up to the proximity of the plant boundary. Noise from plant

operations is not noticeable, particularly from points outside the NAPS plant boundary.

From October 2000 to September 2002,(a) the area around Lake Anna went through a severe

drought, the worst in the 108-year history of data collection in the area. The drought had an

impact on Lake Anna with the water level dropping to 245 feet above MSL. The normal

operating pool level is 250 feet above MSL. As a result of the drop in water levels, most boat

| ramps could not support launches (Dominion 2004b,c), although commercial marinas continued

| to operate (Duke’s Creek Marina, Anna Point Guide Service, McCotter’s Guide Service, Gene

| Hord’s Guide Service, and High Point Marina in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

The staff made an effort to determine how the drought affected park attendance and boat

launches at Lake Anna State Park. The results are presented in Table 2-16.

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

Year Annual Park Visitors Annual Boat Launches

1998 145,500 2792

1999 111,000 2449

2000 158,200 2107

2001 178,300 2447

2002 185,900 2125

2003 159,700 2073

Note: For annual park visitors, the 2003 data are for 11 months of the year only, from January through

November.

Source: Dominion 2004c.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-64 December 2006

With respect to park attendance, it appears the drought had little impact. Annual attendance

rates increased through the drought period (2000 to 2002) and then, based on annualizing the

attendance from 11 months to 12 months for 2003, declined again.

The impact of the drought on boat launches from the park is more obvious. There was a

general downturn in the number of boat launches between 1998 (at 2792 launches) and 2000

(at 2107 boat launches). During 2001, the number of launches increased to 2447 and then

declined to 2125 in 2002 (the worst year of the drought), or 13.2 percent, although the ramps

remained operational. The number of boat launches continued their decline into 2003, declining

| by 2.4 percent over 2003. The impact on Lake Anna’s commercial marinas and guide services

| varied. All of the marinas remained operational, although some had problems with their wet

| slips and ramps and had to undertake modifications to keep operating. By changing launch

| points, the guides were also able to keep operating, although some noticed that fishing success

| was down for about a two-year period, and some reported that customer demand also fell off

| because of perceived poor conditions more than actual lack of success. Some guides reported

| that they had no trouble finding fish and that they were able to avoid navigation hazards that

| became more of a problem for private boaters (Wayne’s World of Fishing, Anna Point Guide

| Service, McCotter’s Guide Service, Gene Hord’s Guide Service, Glenn Briggs Guide Service,

| and Teddy Carr in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

2.8.2.5 Housing

| Approximately 850 permanent employees work at NAPS Units 1 and 2 (Dominion 2006a). 

Approximately 79 percent of these employees live in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania

Counties and the City of Richmond; the rest live in other locations. Table 2-17 presents the

county of residence for the 820 permanent employees for whom addresses were provided

| during the license renewal review (NRC 2002). The staff expects that the 850 employees

currently employed at NAPS Units 1 and 2 are distributed throughout the counties in the same

pattern as the 820 employees were at the time of license renewal. 

Dominion refuels each nuclear unit at NAPS on an 18-month staggered schedule. During

refueling outages, site employment increases by as many as 700 temporary workers for 30 to

40 days. The staff assumed that residences for these temporary workers are similarly

dispersed throughout the region as are those of NAPS permanent employees.

Table 2-18 provides the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies for the area of

potential impact for 1990 and 2000. Each county in the area of potential impact has a

comprehensive land use plan. Louisa County updated its plan in September 2001 (Louisa

County 2001). Louisa County is adding from 350 to 400 homes a year to its housing stock. 

This rate has been fairly constant over the last 3 to 4 years (NRC 2002).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-65 NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

Four-County Area of Potential Impact

County

Number of

Personnel

Percent of Total

Personnel

Henrico, including the City of Richmond 104 12.7

Louisa 237 28.9

Orange 120 14.6

Spotsylvania 186 22.7

Other 173 21.1

Total 820 100.0

| Source: NRC 2002.

The county showing the greatest increase in housing units over the decade of the 1990s is

Spotsylvania County, which one would expect given its economic growth over the decade. The

number of housing units increased by 62.7 percent, and the number of renter-occupied housing

units increased by 62.5 percent. The number of vacant units increased by 31.4 percent. The

City of Richmond had the largest number of vacant units at 7733 in 2000, representing a

decrease of 12.2 percent from 1990.

Table 2-19 presents more detailed 2000 census data on vacant housing units for Henrico,

Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond. Of the total vacant

housing units, the City of Richmond, as previously noted, had the highest number at

7733 vacancies of which 3113 (or 40.3 percent of vacant housing) were for rent and another

2659 (or 34.4 percent) were vacant. Henrico County was second with 4449 vacant units of

which 1970 (or 44.3 percent of vacant housing) were for rent and another 818 units (or

18.4 percent of vacant housing) were vacant. Louisa and Orange Counties had the smallest

number of units for rent at 73 and 116, respectively. Within the counties of interest and the City

of Richmond, approximately 5630 units were available for rent.

Rental rates for reasonable housing in Louisa County are considered high for a small rural area,

and the availability of rental apartments and housing is limited. Rents range from $750 to

$800 per month for a moderately priced two-bedroom unit. The presence of the Wal-Mart

distribution center at Zion Crossroads has pushed rents to these levels and they can be held

there because of the shortage of housing. There is also shortage of rental housing in Orange

and Culpeper Counties and nearby Charlottesville (Hayfield and Livingood in Jaksch and

Scott 2005).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-66 December 2006

Table 2-18. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County – 1990 and 2000

1990 2000

Approximate Percentage

Change

HENRICO COUNTY

Total Housing Units 94,539 112,570 19.1

Occupied Units 89,138 108,121 21.3

 Owner Occupied 56,848 71,089 25.1

 Renter Occupied 32,290 37,032 14.7

Vacant Units 5401 4449 -17.6

LOUISA COUNTY

Housing Units 9080 11,855 30.6

Occupied Units 7427 9945 33.9

 Owner Occupied 5932 8110 36.7

 Renter Occupied 1495 1835 22.7

Vacant Units 1653 1910 15.5

ORANGE COUNTY

Housing Units 9038 11,354 25.6

Occupied Units 7930 10,150 28.0

 Owner Occupied 6047 7822 29.4

 Renter Occupied 1883 2328 23.6

Vacant Units 1108 1204 8.7

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

Housing Units 20,483 33,329 62.7

Occupied Units 18,945 31,308 65.3

 Owner Occupied 15,516 25,735 65.9

 Renter Occupied 3429 5573 62.5

Vacant Units 1538 2021 31.4

CITY OF RICHMOND

Housing Units 94,141 92,282 -2.0

Occupied Units 85,337 84,549 -0.1

 Owner Occupied 39,515 39,008 -1.3

 Renter Occupied 45,822 45,541 -0.6

Vacant Units 8804 7733 -12.2

Sources: USCB 1990, 2000d.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-67 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 2-19. Vacant Housing Units for Henrico, Louisa, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City

of Richmond – 2000

Number Percent of Vacant Units

Henrico County

Vacant Housing Units 4449

 For rent 1970 44.3

 For sale only 806 18.1

 Rented or sold, not occupied 395 8.9

 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use 454 10.2

 For migratory workers 6 0.1

 Other vacant 818 18.4

Louisa County

Vacant Housing Units 1910

 For rent 73 3.8

 For sale only 124 6.5

 Rented or sold, not occupied 84 4.4

 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use 1226 64.2

 For migratory workers 0 0.0

 Other vacant 403 21.1

Orange County

Vacant Housing Units 1204

 For rent 116 9.6

 For sale only 170 14.1

 Rented or sold, not occupied 66 5.5

 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use

 For migratory workers

 Other vacant

484

1

367

40.2

0.1

30.5

Spotsylvania County

Vacant Housing Units 2021

 For rent 359 17.8

 For sale only 449 22.2

 Rented or sold, not occupied 164 8.1

 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use 564 27.9

 For migratory workers 1 0.0

 Other vacant 484 23.9

City of Richmond

Vacant Housing Units 7733

 For rent 3113 40.3

 For sale only 949 12.3

 Rented or sold, not occupied 761 9.8

 For seasonal, recreational or occasional use 249 3.2

 For migratory workers 2 0.0

 Other vacant 2659 34.4

Source: USCB 2000d.
Affected Environment

(a) A “run of the river” means that there is little or no water storage behind the dam or structure being

employed to withdraw water from the river.

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-68 December 2006

2.8.2.6 Public Services

Water Supply

Table 2-20 summarizes the daily water consumption and areas served by each water system

within the area of potential impact. Henrico County provides water to approximately

83,411 residential, commercial, and industrial customers (NRC 2002). Currently, the county

purchases its water supply from the City of Richmond, which has no restrictions on the amount

of water that can be purchased. Henrico County’s average daily water use is 130,000 m3

/day

(35 MGD). The county also has service agreements to supply limited amounts of water to

Hanover and Goochland Counties (NRC 2002). Because of the rapid growth rate in Richmond

and surrounding counties, a water supply treatment plant with a capacity of 210,000 m3

/day

(55 MGD) was completed and placed in operation in May 2004 for Henrico County. Henrico

County has a permit to withdraw 300,000 m3

/day (80 MGD) of water. The plant is expected to

be expanded to accommodate the larger withdrawal rate by 2010 (Slater in Jaksch and

Scott 2005).

Richmond’s source of water is the James River, which supplies approximately 562,000 people

in the City of Richmond and in Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico Counties. It has a maximum

capacity of 484,000 m3

/day (128 MGD) and an average use of 310,000 m3/day (83 MGD)

(VEPCo 2001). Richmond is upgrading the plant to treat 570,000 m3

/day (150 MGD).

About 80 percent of the residential drinking water for Louisa County is from groundwater

through private wells. Twelve small private water supply systems exist in the county. The

major treatment plant in the county is the Northeast Creek water treatment plant that supplies

the town of Louisa, part of the town of Mineral, and some county residents. The plant has a

capacity of approximately 3800 m3

/day (1 MGD), and average use is 1100 m3/day (0.3 MGD). 

To provide water for industrial and other users, five new groundwater wells and a new storage

tank were also completed between 2001 and 2004 in the Zion Crossroads area in the western

part of the county (Delk in Jaksch and Scott 2005). This is in addition to the existing storage

tank.

Ninety percent of Orange County residents obtain their drinking water from private groundwater

wells. The town of Orange draws its water directly from the Rapidan River in what is known as

a “run-of-the-river” withdrawal.(a) The town of Orange also owns and operates a 7600 m3

/day

(2 MGD) capacity water treatment plant that supplies the town (VEPCo 2001). Average daily

use is around 5700 m3

/day (1.5 MGD) (VEPCo 2001).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-69 NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

Spotsylvania Counties

Water System Source

Daily Capacity

m3/day (MGD)

Average Daily Use

m3/day (MGD) Area Served

Henrico County James River NA 130,000 (35) Henrico, Hanover and

Goochland Counties

City of Richmond James River 484,000 (128) 310,000 (83) Richmond, Chesterfield,

Hanover, and Henrico Counties

Louisa County Water

Authority

Groundwater/NE

Creek Reservoir

3800 (1) 1100 (0.3) Towns of Louisa, Mineral, and

some County residents

Town of Orange Rapidan River 7600 (2) 5700 (1.5) Town of Orange

Rapidan Service

Authority

Groundwater NA 75 (0.02) Town of Grodonsville, plus 50 to

60 homes on Route 20

Wilderness Treatment

Plant

Rapidan River 6100 (1.6) 1500 (0.4) Town of Wilderness/Lake of the

Woods

Spotsylvania County Ni River 23,000 (6) 17,000 (4.5) Supplies most residential,

commercial, and industrial areas

in the county

NA = not available.

Source: NRC 2002.

Part of the town of Orange’s treatment plant production, around 2000 m3

/day (0.5 MGD), is

sold to the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA), which supplies the town of Gordonsville

| (VEPCo 2001). RSA operates two other Orange County facilities. The source of water for

these plants is the Rapidan River and groundwater. RSA’s Wilderness Treatment Plant has a

6100 m3

/day (1.6 MGD) treatment capacity and supplies, on average, approximately

1500 m3

/day (0.4 MGD) to Lake of the Woods and the town of Wilderness (VEPCo 2001).

Spotsylvania County has a public water system supplying most residential, commercial, and

industrial areas within the county. Rural areas of the county are served by wells and springs

(NRC 2002). The Ni River Treatment Plant, which draws water from the Ni River, has a

capacity of 23,000 m3

/day (6 MGD) and average use of 17,000 m3/day (4.5 MGD). Another

larger treatment plant began operating during 2004 (Elam in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Public water supply is not a constraint to growth in the vicinity of NAPS. There are supply

concerns in some individual municipalities and in some of the impact counties. In Louisa

County, water and sewer infrastructure are a concern now, particularly around the I-64 corridor

in the vicinity of Gum Springs. The county is considering a separate system for this area. 

Water supply reservoirs are also a concern. The recent drought exacerbated a shortage in the

availability of water supplies. Currently there are no growth restrictions in Louisa County

(Williams and Buckler in Jaksch and Scott 2005).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-70 December 2006

In Orange County, the Rapidan River is the source of water for several public water supply

systems. The Rapidan River is not normally a high flowing river; thus, during the 2000 to 2002

drought, there were some water supply problems. In the corridor that encompasses

Gordonsville and the town of Orange, water and sewer services are operating at maximum

capacity. Any new growth will require system upgrades. Location is also a problem. The

existing water supply system at the eastern end of the county, where many current NAPS

employees live, is operating at close to capacity. Shipping water from the west end of the

county to the east end would be expensive. Currently there are no growth restrictions in

Orange County (Livingood and Kendall in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

There are no limitations on new sources of water from groundwater, and many of the treatment

plants located in the area of potential impact have reserve treatment capacity, especially in the

larger metropolitan areas. In cases where municipal systems are approaching reserve-capacity

limits, plans are in place to address those limitations by constructing new treatment systems or

expanding existing facilities.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

| None of the nearest three counties has a hospital; however, there are major medical facilities in

| Henrico County and in Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Charlottesville. 

In Orange County, there are two outpatient clinics and no hospitals. The fire departments are

made up of volunteers, and rescue services are composed of both volunteer and paid

employees. In the future, for new facilities, the county is considering hiring full-time paid staff

(Livingood and Kendall in Jaksch and Scott 2005). An increase in construction workers locating

to the county could put pressure on this infrastructure.

In the town of Louisa and Louisa County, there is no hospital. In Louisa County, general fire,

police, and rescue services are considered adequate at present (Lintecum in Jaksch and

Scott 2005).

Henrico County is home to three hospitals. In total, 12 acute-care hospitals and seven specialcare facilities are located in the Richmond area representing nearly 5200 patient beds. Notable

in this total is the Medical College of Virginia Hospital, a major research and teaching center

| (Henrico County 2004b). Spotsylvania County has no hospitals, but is served by hospitals in

| Fredericksburg, immediately to the north. The nearest general acute-care hospitals to the town

| of Mineral are Mary Washington Hospital in Fredericksburg, Henrico Doctor’s Hospital in

| Henrico County, Martha Jefferson Hospital in Charlottesville, and Culpeper Regional Hospital in

| Culpeper, all between about 30 to 35 miles away (Switchboard 2005).
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-71 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Social Services

Social services in the Commonwealth are provided in each county by the Virginia Department of

Social Services (VDSS) with offices in each county. The department provides services to

children (child care, protective services, foster care and child support enforcement, among other

services) and adults (adult protective services, domestic violence prevention, etc.) and financial

assistance such as food stamps and Medicaid. The department has 131 local departments

located throughout Virginia (VDSS 2004).

2.8.2.7 Education

Louisa County has one high school, one middle school, and three elementary schools. For the

school year 2000 to 2001, there were 4232 students in the school system (NRC 2002). All

schools currently have higher enrollment than they were designed to accommodate (on the

order of 100 to 150 students depending on the school), so overcrowding is a concern. 

Enrollment is growing at 2 percent a year. Tax rates in the county have not increased in

6 years, so while the schools are being maintained, there has been no new construction to

accommodate the increased enrollment. Growth is occurring in the county because of its low

tax rates when compared to the surrounding counties, in turn because Louisa County has

NAPS in its tax base (see Table 2-15) (Melton in Jaksch and Scott 2005). Property was

| purchased for a new elementary school in 2004, with construction to start in 2007 (Green in

Jaksch and Scott 2005). Property also has been purchased for construction of a new middle

school. The growth areas in the county are around Lake Anna, Zion Crossroads, and the I-64

corridor (Lintecum in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Orange County schools have a total enrollment of approximately 4200 students spread among

five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school (Shifslett in Jaksch and

Scott 2005). Orange County is expanding its school infrastructure. One new middle school has

been added, and the high school has been renovated, adding an additional 26,000 square feet

of space. Both middle schools currently have 600 students and could accommodate 800. The

high school has a current enrollment of 1250 and could expand to 1500 pupils. Growth is taking

place in the eastern end of the county, closer to NAPS and Lake Anna. There is one middle

school in the eastern end of the county, and if growth continues, a new elementary school will

need to be built (Baker in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Spotsylvania County has 26 schools in its system (16 elementary schools, 6 middle schools,

and 4 high schools). In addition, the county has one vocational school, and one special high

school for intellectually gifted students (NRC 2002). Approximately 20,350 students are

enrolled in the county school system, and an additional 350 are in the special high school

(NRC 2002). A middle school is being constructed to accommodate growth around Lake Anna

(Goss 2003 in Jaksch and Scott 2005).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-72 December 2006

Henrico County and the City of Richmond have 41 elementary schools, 10 middle schools,

9 high schools, and 2 technical centers (NRC 2002). Total school enrollment is more than

41,000.

2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known and potential historic and cultural

resources at the North Anna ESP site and the immediate surrounding area.

2.9.1 Cultural Background

The area around the North Anna ESP site is rich in prehistoric and historic Native American and

historic Euro-American resources. A number of recent documents provide adequate

background detail for the area’s cultural chronology and prehistoric and historic period contexts. 

Consequently, only a brief summary is provided here. For the ESP site, Ahlman and

Mullin (2001) discuss the prehistoric and historic contexts. Another overview document

discusses the cultural background at the nearby North Anna State Park (Goode and

Dutton 1999), located upriver and north of the plant. Historic period overviews are available for

both Louisa County (Thomas Jefferson Planning District 1995), in which the plant is located,

and for Spotsylvania County (Traceries 1996), which is situated just across the North Anna

River to the east of NAPS. Cooke (1997) also provides a historical overview of Louisa County. 

| In addition, cultural information was obtained from the supplemental environmental impact

| statement prepared for the license renewal of NAPS, Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2002). The following

| cultural chronology summaries are extracted from these sources.

Prehistoric Period

The prehistoric Native American occupation of the region including the North Anna site includes

three general periods: the Paleo-Indian period (about 10,000 to 8000 B.C.); the Archaic period

(about 8000 to 1000 B.C.); and the Woodland period (about 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1600). Toward

the end of the Woodland period (A.D. 1500 to 1675), a transitional episode known as the

Protohistoric period occurred in which initial contacts with Europeans and cultural changes

associated with subsequent white settlement of the area took place.

The prehistoric periods were marked by initial reliance on big game hunting subsistence,

followed by increased use of smaller game animals and plant foods in the Archaic era. Major

environmental changes in the Archaic period led to an increasingly more sedentary lifestyle,

focused primarily in riverine settings. Late in the Archaic, more sedentary villages and an

increasing reliance on cultivated crops became the norm and the subsequent Woodland period

was characterized by larger base camps in the river valleys, with subsistence based on
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-73 NUREG-1811, Volume I

agriculture, hunting and gathering, and intergroup trade. The latter part of the Woodland period

is primarily identified by the added presence of European trade goods (NRC 2002).

Historic Period Native American

At the time of European contact and subsequent intrusion into the area surrounding the North

Anna site, the lands including the piedmont and mountains of western Virginia were occupied by

several Siouan-speaking Indian groups.

One of the Monacan Indian groups, part of the larger Monacan Confederacy, is commonly

associated with the area of present-day Louisa County. Between 1607 and 1720, the Monacan

were gradually pushed from their homelands through a series of encounters with the

encroaching settlers, and by the 1677 “Treaty Between Virginia and the Indians.” By 1700, the

Monacan had left Louisa County (Cooke 1993). Although some of the Monacan left the area for

good, going as far as Pennsylvania and Canada, a remnant group moved to the Bear Mountain

area of Amherst County, Virginia, around 1720. Today, the Virginia Monacan Tribe numbers

about 900 individuals (Hauck and Maxham 1993). In 1989, the Monacan Tribe was recognized

by the Virginia General Assembly as one of the eight indigenous tribes in the Commonwealth,

and became a member of the Virginia Council on Indians (Monacan Indian Nation Website).

Historic Period Euro-American

Similar to the prehistoric period, the historic period in Virginia can be subdivided into sequential

time periods that are descriptive in terms of associated events. These include the European

Settlement to Society Period (1607 to 1750); Colony to Nation Period (1750 to 1789); Early

National Period (1789 to 1830); Antebellum Period (1830 to 1860); Civil War Period (1861 to

1865); Reconstruction and Growth Period (1865 to 1917); World War I to World War II Period

(1917 to 1945); and the New Dominion Period (1945 to present).

European settlement of the area around the North Anna site began shortly after 1700, and

Louisa County was formed in 1742. The earliest economy of the area was based on cultivation

of tobacco in the fertile lands along the North and South Anna River valleys. In the early 1800s,

production of tobacco resulted in severe soil exhaustion, and wheat and corn replaced it as

staple crops. Although the area remained largely rural and agricultural in nature, at times

mining and quarrying also became important to the economy of Louisa County in the 1800s,

including mining of iron, copper, sulfur, gold and other ores, and quarrying of whetstone

materials. The area just upriver from the North Anna site was the scene of intensive gold

mining in the period from about 1830 to 1900 (NRC 2002).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-74 December 2006

2.9.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the North Anna ESP Site

To assess both known and potential cultural resource sites at the North Anna ESP site, several

existing literature and database sources were consulted, along with direct contacts to several

organizations (Appendix B). Particularly useful in this regard was the recent cultural resource

assessment for the plant site, commissioned by Dominion Resources (The Louis Berger

Group 2001a,b). Additionally, Dominion Resources commissioned the Louis Berger Group to

survey the area proposed for ten survey areas, totaling appropriately 2.4 ha (6.0 acres) within

the area of Potential Effects for the proposed ESP site (Mullin 2006).

At the time of the 2001 cultural resource assessment, examination of historic and cultural

resource files at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Archives indicated that no

previously recorded cultural resource sites were known to exist at NAPS (Ahlman and

Mullen 2001). Similarly, a review of historical documentation at the Louisa County Historical

Museum, including historic maps dating between 1751 and 1863, indicates few historic

resources in the vicinity of the North Anna site, other than an early road paralleling the south

side of the North Anna River that appears to be near the western boundary of the North Anna

site. An unpublished map based on county deeds from 1765 to 1815 (Truce undated), shows

the presence of the “Jerdones Mill” on the North Anna River bank, just upriver from the North

Anna site, along with the associated “Jerdones Mill Road.” The same map shows an “Old Mine

Road” within the North Anna site area.

Background research undertaken by Ahlman and Mullin (2001) indicate that on undisturbed

lands within the larger plant boundary there is potential for both unrecorded prehistoric and

historic cultural resources to occur. A field inspection of the proposed ESP project area was

completed (Voigt 2003). This reconnaissance concluded that much of the proposed ESP site

lies within previously disturbed areas, particularly in the eastern portion. However, some

undisturbed areas in the western sector were identified that may have some potential for the

presence of cultural resources. With the exception of the two cemetery sites discussed below,

the 2006 survey of the ESP site found no artifacts, cultural features, or cultural deposits

(Mullin 2006).

As a follow-up to the 2001 assessment, five known historic period cemeteries were recorded,

three of which lie within the administrative boundary of the North Anna site and two that are

located just down river from the North Anna Dam (Louis Berger Group 2001b). Two of these

cemeteries have associated archaeological remains of former structures.

Two of the recorded historic period cemeteries, designated as 44LS221 and 44LS222 in the

Virginia Department of Historic Resources site file system, are located in the vicinity of

proposed ESP construction or laydown areas. Site 44LS221 is a small cemetery located in the

area known as the Northwest Laydown Yard in a lightly wooded area. During construction of
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-75 NUREG-1811, Volume I

NAPS, this area was marked and protected during construction activities. Site 44LS222 is

located on the hilltop above the proposed construction area and is protected by a tall chain-link

fence.

It should also be noted that reconnaissance-level historic and archaeological investigations

completed in 1969 and 1970 for both the North Anna site area and the lake bed area yielded

few results (AEC 1973). A few Archaic period artifacts were noted in the area, but the

investigator did not deem them worthy of recording and evaluating. In addition, according to

records in the Louisa County Historical Society files, a total of 33 historic period cemeteries

were identified in the area along the river to be inundated. Many of these were avoided by

adjusting project boundaries, although some were “removed” prior to inundation. This total

apparently includes at least four of the cemeteries recorded recently at the North Anna site. 

Finally, cultural resource surveys along transmission line rights-of-way associated with NAPS

have largely resulted in negative findings for cultural resources (Saunders 1976;

MacCord 1981).

2.9.3 Native American Consultation

Today, there are eight Native American tribes that are recognized by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. Six of these tribes have for several years been pursuing Federal recognition, but that

status has not yet been achieved. Consultation letters were sent to the following tribes in

conjunction with the North Anna ESP EIS:

& Chickahominy Indian Tribe

& Chickahominy Indians – Eastern Division

& Mattaponi Indian Tribe

& Monacan Indian Nation

& Nansemond Indian Tribe

& Pamunkey Indian Tribe

& Rappahannock Tribe

& Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe

Based on information previously received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, NRC also contacted

the Tuscacora Nation concerning the ESP EIS for the proposed Units 3 and 4.

In addition, the Virginia Council on Indians was contacted regarding the project. The Council

serves as an integrating office for Virginia’s Indian Tribes within the state government.
Affected Environment

(a) Minority categories are defined as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or

other Pacific Islander; Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; “other” may be considered a separate

minority category. The 2000 Census included multi-racial data (NRC 2004b).

(b) A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a census

tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau collects and

tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical

subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in accordance with

Census Bureau guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. 

Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (NRC 2002).

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-76 December 2006

2.10 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) or low-income populations. The

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental

justice (CEQ 1997). Although it is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission has

voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews (NRC 2004b). On August 24,

2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice

matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040).

The staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within

80 km (50 mi) of the North Anna site, employing the 2000 Census (USCB 2000e) for lowincome populations and the 2000 Census (USCB 2000f) for minority populations. The radius

within 80 km (50 mi) of NAPS encompasses counties in Virginia and Maryland. The analysis

was also supplemented by field inquiries to the planning departments of Orange, Louisa, and

Spotsylvania Counties (Livingood and Kendall 2003, Williams and Buckler 2003, and

Goss 2003, respectively in Jaksch and Scott 2005); social service agencies in Louisa and

Orange Counties (Lingo in Jaksch and Scott 2005), and other governmental officials in

Spotsylvania County (Partridge et al. in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

For purposes of the staff’s review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage of

any minority or aggregated minority category within the census block groups(b) within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the NAPS site exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities in the

entire Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland (for Charles County, Maryland) by at

least 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of minorities within the census block group

is at least 50 percent. A low-income population is defined to exist if the percentage of

low-income population within a census block group exceeds the corresponding percentage of

low-income population in the entire Commonwealth of Virginia and State of Maryland by at least

20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-income population within a census block

group is at least 50 percent. For counties and census block groups within an 80-km (50-mi)
Affected Environment

(a) Low-income households should be identified using the annual statistical poverty threshold from the

Census Bureau.

December 2006 2-77 NUREG-1811, Volume I

radius of the ESP site, the percentage of minority and low-income populations is compared to

the percentage of minority and low-income populations in Virginia or Maryland, as applicable.(a)

Dominion followed the convention of including census tracts in its assessment. It included the

census tracts where at least 50 percent of their area lay within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site

(Dominion 2006a). The “at least 20 percentage points above the comparison area” criterion

was used to determine whether a census tract should be counted as containing a minority or

low-income population (Dominion 2006a). Because the 20 percentage points is a lower

threshold, the 50 percent criteria was not needed.

The staff followed the convention of employing census block groups. Figure 2-6 shows the

distribution of minority populations (cross-hatched) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. All census

tracts with at least 50 percent of their area within an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the North Anna

ESP site are included in the analysis.

Within 32 km (20 mi) of NAPS, a minority population is concentrated to the southwest of the site

in Louisa County. Black minority populations exist within approximately 24 km to 48 km (15 mi

to 30 mi) east-southeast of the site on Caroline County’s boundary with Hanover County and

extending to King William County. Between approximately 64 km (40 mi) and 80 km (50 mi)

east of the ESP site, minority populations exist in Essex and Westmoreland Counties.

A concentration of minority census block groups exists in Charles County (Maryland) and Prince

William County (Virginia), east-northeast of the NAPS site. Between 64 km (40 mi) and 80 km

(50 mi) southeast of NAPS, there is a concentration of minority census block groups in the

Richmond area, and to the south-southwest a concentration in Buckingham, Fluvanna,

Goochland, and Cumberland Counties. Minority populations also appear in Culpeper County

northwest of the North Anna site. All minority block groups are more than 16 km (10 mi) from

NAPS.

Data from the 2000 census characterize 9.6 percent of Virginia’s and 8.5 percent of Maryland’s

populations as low-income (USCB 2000e). Applying the NRC criterion of “more than 20 percent

greater,” the census block groups were identified to contain low-income populations and are

presented in Figure 2-7. Census block groups containing low-income populations are

concentrated in the City of Richmond.

Also, Henrico and Chesterfield Counties, to the southeast between approximately 65 km and

80 km (40 mi and 50 mi) from the North Anna site, have low-income populations. Other areas

of low-income populations include Buckingham County southwest of the site and Charlottesville. 

| The staff assumed that these relationships would continue through 2065.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-78 December 2006

Figure 2-6. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Minority Populations

(crosshatched areas) Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP

Site
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-79 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 2-7. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Low Income Populations

(crosshatched areas) Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP

Site

2.11 Related Federal Projects

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

issuance of an ESP to Dominion. Any such activities could result in cumulative environmental

impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for

preparation of the EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)).

Federal lands within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the NAPS site include the George Washington

Birthplace National Monument, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park,
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-80 December 2006

Richmond National Battlefield, Shenandoah National Park, Featherstone and Rappahannock

National Wildlife Refuges, Fort A.P. Hill Military Reservation, Marine Corps Base Quantico, and

the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division. There are no national forests, wilderness

areas, or wild and scenic rivers within the region. Several Virginia State Parks exist within the

region. The closest park, Lake Anna State Park, is approximately 8 km (5 mi) northwest of the

NAPS site. The closest Native American reservations, the Mattaponi and the Pamunkey Tribes,

are more than 80 km (50 mi) from the NAPS site. The hydroelectric project operated by Virginia

Power at the North Anna Dam is not licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

because of its small size.

After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of the NAPS site, the staff determined that

there were no Federal project activities that would make it desirable for another Federal agency

to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS.

The NRC is required under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA to consult with and obtain the comments

of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any

environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the EIS. During the course of preparing

this EIS, NRC consulted with the FWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries),

| and the Army Corps of Engineers. Contact correspondence is included in Appendix F.

2.12 References

Note: Because the web pages cited in this document may become unavailable, the staff has

entered the appropriate pages into ADAMS. The accession number of the package containing

the websites used as references in Chapter 2 of the North Anna ESP EIS is ML051150299.

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.”

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.”

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-81 NUREG-1811, Volume I

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32. February 16, 1994. 

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.

| 70 FR 76165. “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

| Redesignation of the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County Ozone

| Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area’s Maintenance Plan.” Federal

| Register, Vol. 70, No. 246. December 23, 2005.

Ahlman, T. and J. Mullin. 2001. Cultural Resource Assessment, North Anna Power Station,

Louisa County, Virginia. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia.

Audubon Society. 2006. 106th | Christmas Bird Count. Lake Anna Virginia, United States. 

| Accessed at http://cbc.audobon.org/cbccurrent/current-Table.html on September 12, 2006.

Bilkovic, D. M., C. H. Hershner, and J. E. Olney. 2002a. “Macroscale Assessment of American

Shad Spawning and Nursery Habitat in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, Virginia.” North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1176-1192; 2002.

| Bilkovic, D. M., J. E. Olney, C. H. Hershner. 2002b. “Spawning of American shad (Alosa

| sapidissima) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers,

| Virginia.” Fishery Bulletin 100: 632-640.

Brooks, J. L. and S. I. Dodson. 1965. “Predation, Body Size, and Composition of Plankton.”

Science 150:28-35.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2000. CA25 – Total Full-time and Part-time Employment

by Industry. Accessed at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ on February 18 and 26,

2004.

| Clean Water Act (CWA) (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 

| 33 USC 1251, et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-82 December 2006

Cooke, P. 1997. Louisa and Louisa County. Arcadia Publishing, Dover, New Hampshire.

Cooke, P. 1993. Louisa County History: A Cooperative Effort. Louisa County Historical

Society, Louisa, Virginia.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

County and City Data Books. 1994. Geospatial and Statistical Data Center. University of

Virginia Library. Accessed at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/ccdb on 

February 25, 2004.

County and City Data Books. 2000. Geospatial and Statistical Data Center. University of

Virginia Library. Accessed at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/ccdbbin/statesort.cgi and

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/ccdbbin/countysort2.cgi on February 18, 2004.

Dames and Moore. 1969. Site Environmental Studies, Proposed North Anna Power Station,

Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric and Power Company. (Included in Units 1 and 2 PSAR

as Appendix A), January 13, 1969.

Dames and Moore. 1971. Site Environmental Studies, North Anna Nuclear Power Station.,

Proposed Units 3 and 4, Louisa County, Virginia, Virginia Electric Power Company, Technical

Report, August 18, 1971.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. Letter in Response to Request for

Additional Information Regarding Environmental Portion of ESP Application (No. 04-318). 

August 2, 2004.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Response to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Comment Letter. 

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. June 28, 2004 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Docket No. 52-006), Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004c. Letter from L. N. Hartz to NRC in

response to August 2004 request for additional information, October 4, 2004.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005. Letter to the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers regarding confirmation of wetlands delineation. November 16, 2005, Glen Allen,

Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

| Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-83 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (Dominion) to

NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

dated May 10, 2006, Accession No. ML061510131.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006c. Letter to the U.S. Army Corps of

| Engineers regarding confirmation of wetlands delineation. September 6, 2006, Glen Allen,

| Virginia, Accession No. ML062760080.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006d. Letters from E. Grecheck to the NRC

| providing certification of compliance with Virginia’s Coastal Zone Program. November 22, 2006,

Glen Allen, Virginia, Accession No. ML063260423 & ML063260445.

Goode, A. and D. Dutton. 1999. Archaeological Resource Management Plan, Lake Anna State

Park. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

Hanover County. 1998. Hanover County Comprehensive Plan – Vision 2017. Transportation

Plan, adopted September 1998. As cited in Dominion (2003), North Anna Early Site Permit

Application, Rev. 0. September 2003, Volume 4.

Hauck, P. W. and M. D. Maxham. 1993. Indian Island in Amherst County. Second Edition,

Warwick Publishing, Lynchburg, Virginia.

Henrico County (Virginia). 2004a. Company Index. Accessed at

http://www.henricobusiness.com/corp_profilesIndex.html on February 24, 2004.

Henrico County (Virginia). 2004b. Virginia Economic Development Partnership. Accessed at

http://virginiascan.yesvirginia.org/thePDF.asp?PDFCode=133 on August 18, 2004.

| Jaksch, J. and M. Scott. 2005. North Anna ESP Site Audit Trip Report – Socioeconomics. 

| 12-8-2003 through 12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2004, 2-26-2005

| through 9-29-2004, and 7-11-2005 through 7-15-2005. Available at

| http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML 062130542.

Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee. 2000. Lake Anna Special Area Plan. Committee

appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties,

March 2000.

The Louis Berger Group. 2001a. Cultural Resource Assessment, North Anna Power Station. 

Report prepared for Dominion Resources. March 2001.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-84 December 2006

The Louis Berger Group. 2001b. Addendum To The Cultural Resource Assessment, North

Anna Power Station. Report prepared for Dominion Resource Services, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Louisa County (Virginia). 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia, Comprehensive Plan.

September 4, 2001.

Louisa County. 2003. Louisa County at a Glance. Accessed at

http://www.louisacounty.com/glance/htm on December 29, 2003.

Louisa County Economic Development. 2004. Local Industries and Employment. Accessed at

http://yeslouisa.org/BusinessData/Employers.htm on February 24, 2004.

MacCord, H. A., Sr. 1981. An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the North Anna –

Louisa 230 kV Line, Louisa County, Virginia. The Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond,

Virginia.

| McCotter, C. C. 2005. Dynamics of Lake Anna. McCotter’s Lake Anna Guide Service Website. 

| Accessed at http://www.mccotterslakeanna.com/lake.htm on September 22, 2005 

Moser, G. A. 1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Recovery Plan. Prepared

by Annapolis Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland.

Mullin, J. 2006. Archeological Survey, Dominion Early Site Permit Project, North Anna Power

Station, Louisa County, Virginia. Report from Louis Berger Group to Dominion Resource

Services, Glen Allen, Virginia.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2003. Storm Events for Virginia, 01/01/1950 through

07/31/2003. Accessed at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ climate/severeweather/extremes.html

on November 20, 2003.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. Hazards/Climatic Extremes for August 2004. 

Accessed at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate/research/hazards/index.html on

September 10, 2004.

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2001. Local Climatological Data,

Annual Summary with Comparative Data (Richmond, Virginia). NOAA Environmental Data

Service. Asheville, North Carolina.

Odenkirk, J. 1999. Large Impoundment Management Report: Lake Anna. Virginia

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-85 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Odenkirk, J. 2001. Large Impoundment Investigations: Lake Anna. Virginia Department of

Game and Inland Fisheries, prepared by John Odenkirk, District Fishery Biologist, DingellJohnson Grant F-111-R-9, Project I, Richmond, Virginia.

Odenkirk, J. 2002. Large Impoundment Investigations: Lake Anna. Virginia Department of

Game and Inland Fisheries, prepared by John Odenkirk, District Fishery Biologist. DingellJohnson Grant F-111-R-10, Project I, Richmond, Virginia.

Omernik, J. 1987. “Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (Scale 1:7500000).” 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.

| Orange County Office of Planning and Zoning. 1999. Orange County Comprehensive Plan.

Orange County Virginia Economic Development Office (Orange County). 2004a. Demographic

and Economic Data. Accessed at

http://www.orangevirginiawelcomesbusiness.com/demographicandecodata.htm#commuterinfo

on February 25, 2004.

Orange County Virginia Economic Development Office (Orange County). 2004b. Business

Community Overview. Accessed at

http://www.orangevirginiawelcomesbusiness.com/business.htm#major on February 25, 2004. 

Paramount’s Kings Dominion Amusement Park (Paramount). 2004. Accessed at

www.kingsdominion.com/visit_calendar.jsp on February 23, 2004.

Paterson, C. G. and C. H. Fernando. 1970. “Benthic Fauna Colonization of a New Reservoir

with Particular Reference to the Chironomidae.” J. Fish. Res. Bd., Canada 27:213-232.

| Ramsdell Jr., J. V. 2004. “Technical Evaluation Report on Design Basis Tornadoes for the

| North Anna ESP Site.” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington,

| Accession No. ML043370303.

Ramsdell, J. V. and G.L. Andrews. 1986. Tornado Climatography of the Contiguous United

States. NUREG/CR-4461, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Reed, J. C. and G. M. Simmons. 1972. An Ecological Investigation of the Lower North Anna

and Upper Pamunkey River System. Prepared for Virginia Electric and Power Company,

Richmond, Virginia.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-86 December 2006

Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the

Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel

Hill, North Carolina.

Saunders, J. R., Jr. 1976. An Initial survey of the North Anna – Louisa Transmission Line,

Louisa County, Virginia. Report on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,

Richmond, Virginia.

| Setzler-Hamilton, E. M., W. R. Boyton, J. A. Milhursky, T. T. Polgar, and K. V. Wood. 1981. 

| “Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Striped Bass Eggs, Larvae, and Juveniles in the Potomac

| Estuary.” Transactions of the American Fishery Society 110:121-136.

Spotsylvania County. 2002. Comprehensive Plan. February 12, 2002. Accessed at

http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/departments/planning/ index.cfm?doc_id on December 29, 2003. 

| Spotsylvania County. 2005a. Business Fast Facts. Accessed at

| http://www.spotsylvania.org/business/fast_facts.html on August 22, 2005.

| Spotsylvania County. 2005b. Business and Industry Directory 2004-2005. Accessed at

| http://www.spotsylvania.org/business/pdf/ business_industry_2005.pdf on August 22, 2005.

| Switchboard. 2005. Hospitals, Mineral, Virginia, on Switchboard Yellow Pages [Sort Results by

| Distance]. Accessed at

| http://www.switchboard.com/Hospitals/Mineral/VA/14/Yellowpages_Results.html on

| July 10, 2005.

Thomas Jefferson Planning District. 1995. Architectural History Identification and Assessment

of Louisa County, Virginia (Revised). Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond,

Virginia.

Traceries. 1996. Historic Architectural Survey of Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Virginia

Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia and Spotsylvania County Department of

Planning, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Trapp, H., Jr. and M. A. Horn. 2000. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Segment 11,

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. In

U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-L.

Truce, R. B. Louisa County, Virginia About 1800. Unpublished map on file at the Louisa county

Historical Museum, Louisa, Virginia.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-87 NUREG-1811, Volume I

| U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). 2006. Letter from B.F. Williams (ACE) to K. Roller

| (Dominion) verifying accuracy of wetlands delineation. September 7, 2006.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 and 2 and Construction of Units 3

and 4, North Anna Power Station. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990. Table QT-H1: Occupancy, Tenure and Age of

Householder: 1990. Henrico, Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

Richmond. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_lang=en&_ts=

on March 22, 2004. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. American Fact Finder. Fact Sheet. Highlights from the

Census Demographic Profile. Mineral, Louisa, Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, Culpeper, and

the City of Richmond. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html on

July 14, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. Table QT-P1. Age Groups and Sex: 2000. Data Set: 

Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100 Percent Data. For Henrico, Louisa, Orange and

Spotsylvania Counties, the City of Richmond, and Virginia. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPeople?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_

cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on on March 21, 2004. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. American FactFinder. Highlights from the Census 2000

Demographics—Henrico, Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania Counties, the City of Richmond and

Virginia.. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

SAFFFacts?geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang

=en&_sse=on on March 28, 2004 and July 13, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. Table QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics: 2000. 

Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. For Henrico, Louisa, Orange

and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=&_

street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on on February 25, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. American Fact Finder. Table GCT-P14 Income and

Poverty in 1999: 2000. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&

geo_id=01000US& _box_head_nbr=GCT P14& ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U& _lang=en&

format=US 9& _sse=on on March 16, 2004.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-88 December 2006

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000f. American FactFinder. Census 2000 Summary File 1

(SF – 1) 100 Percent Data. P4.Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by Race (73) –

Universe: Total population: 2000. Illinois. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTSubjectShowTablesServlet?_ts=100787346421 on 

March 16, 2004.

| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Designated Sole-Source Aquifer in EPA

| Region III: District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. 

| Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/swp/ssa/reg3.html on October 15, 2006.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Threatened and Endangered Species System

(TESS) Listings by State and Territory as of 03/01/2004. Virginia. Accessed at

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/ssa/reg3.html on October 15, 2006.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Letter from K. Mayne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Gloucester, Virginia to NRC containing a list of threatened or endangered species for

the North Anna ESP site and the alternative Surry ESP site, dated October 25, 2004. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Edited by

James A. Miller, Reston, Virginia.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Addendum to the Final Environmental

| Statement Related to Operation of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2. Virginia Electric

| and Power Company. NUREG-0134, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, Washington D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Regarding North Anna Power Station,

Units 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory

Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site, NUREG-1811 Draft, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Procedural Guidance for Preparing

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation Instruction Change Notice, LIC-203, Revision 1, May 24, 2004, Appendix D –

Environmental Justice Guidance and Flow Chart. Washington D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. September 19 through 22, 2005 Trip

| Report, Tour of the North Anna River, Lake Anna, and the Surry Alternative Site, Accession

| No. ML061720366.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-89 NUREG-1811, Volume I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site

Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1835, September 2005. Accession

No. ML05160246.

Van der Leeden, F., F. L. Troise, and D. K. Todd. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia. Lewis

Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 2004. Virginia's Natural

Communities, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. Accessed at

www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/nhrinfo.htm on March 25, 2004.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Authorization to Discharge Under

the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Law,

Virginia Electric and Power Company, North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Permit No.

VA0052451, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, January 2001.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004a. Virginia's Coastal Resources

Management Area. Accessed at http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/thezone.html on

December 29, 2003.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004b. Federal Consistency Reviews. 

Accessed at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/eir/federal.html on October 28, 2004. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004c. 2002 303(d) Report on Impaired

Waters, September 30, 2002. Accessed at www.deq.state.va.us/water/303d.html on

January 2, 2003.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2003. Lake Anna. Accessed at

www.dgif.state.va.us/fishing/lakes/lake_anna/index.html on March 24, 2004.

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004a. Geographic Search. Fish

and Wildlife Information Service. Accessed at vafwis.org/perl/vafwis.pl/vafwis.login. 

(Note: This is a protected website that is accessible only through VDGIF authorization.)

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004b. 060003 wedgemussel,

dwarf, The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service. Accessed at vafwis.org on

March 25, 2004.

| Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2006. Virginia Fish and Wildlife

| Information Service, Species Information. Accessed at http://vafwis.org/WIS/ASP/default.asp

on November 2, 2006.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-90 December 2006

Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS). 2004. Accessed at

http://www.dss.state.va.us/index.html on August 18, 2004.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for North

Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River.

Virginia Power Corporate Technical Assessment, Water Quality Department, Richmond,

Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1989. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

the Lower North Anna River. Annual Report for 1988, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2000. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

the Lower North Anna River. Annual Report for 1999, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCo). 2001. Application for License Renewal for North

Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Appendix E, Environmental Report – Operating License

Renewal Stage. Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002a. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 

North Anna Power Station Units No. 1 and 2. Revision 38, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002b. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 2001 including Summary for 1998-2000,

Richmond, Virginia.

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006a. 2005 Annual Radiological

| Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2005 to December 31,

| 2005). Richmond, Virginia.

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Report

| North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005). Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Employment Commission. 2003. VEC Final Local Population Projections. Accessed at

http://www.vec.state.va.us/pdf/pop_projs.pdf on July 13, 2004. 

Virginia Employment Commission. 2004. Local Area Unemployment Statistics -

December 2003. Accessed at http://www.vec.state.va.us/vecportal/lbrmkt/lmi.cfm

on February 18, 2004.

| Virginia Employment Commission. 2005. Virginia’s Electronic Labor Market Access. Accessed

| at http://velma.virtuallmi.com/analyzer/startanalyzer.asp on July 15, 2005.
Affected Environment

December 2006 2-91 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Virginia State Corporation Commission. 1969. Order of June 12, 1969, Case No. 18869,

p. 353, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Statistical Abstract. 2004. Census Data. Accessed at

http://www.ccps.virginia.edu/Demographics/ statistical_abstract/statabstract.html on

July 13, 2004.

| Virginia Statistical Abstract. 2005. Population Projections for Virginia’s Counties and Cities: 

| 2010-2030. Accessed at

| http:/www.coopercenter.org/demographics/sitefiles/documents/excel/vaabstractsections/populat

| ion/16_13.xls on July 10, 2005.

Virginia Surface Water Management Act of 1989. 9 VAC 25-220-10, et. seq.

Voigt E. 2003. Field Inspection, Early Site Permit (ESP) Project, North Anna Power Station,

Louisa County, Virginia. Letter report from Louis Berger Group to Dominion Resources

Services.

Voshell, J. R. and G .M. Simmons, Jr. 1978. “The Odonota of a New Reservoir in the

Southeastern United States.” Odonatologica 7(1):67-76.

Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. 2004. Intercensal Population Estimates for Virginia

Localities, 1960-1990. Accessed at http://www3.ccps.virginia.edu/demographics/estimates/cityco/city-co.html on July 13, 2004.

Willis, W. R. 1992a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power FBO, April 1992,

Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 1992b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power FBO, October 1992,

Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 1998. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

Biology group, April 1998, Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 1999a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

Biology group, October 1998, Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 1999b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

Biology group, April 1999, Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 2000a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

Biology group, October 1999, Richmond, Virginia.
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, Volume I 2-92 December 2006

Willis, W. R. 2000b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

Biology group, April 2000, Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 2000c. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Virginia Power Environmental

Biology group, October 2000, Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 2001. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology

group, April 2001, Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 2002a. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology

group, October 2001, Richmond, Virginia.

Willis, W. R. 2002b. Corbicula Survey Report, Prepared by Dominion Environmental Biology

group, April 2002, Richmond, Virginia.

Woods, A. J., J. M. Omernik, and D. D. Brown. 1999. Level III Ecoregions of Delaware,

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. National Health and Environmental

Effects Research Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm on March 1, 2004.
December 2006 3-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

3.0 Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

The proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) site is located in Louisa County in

predominately rural northeastern Virginia, and is within the current North Anna Power Station

(NAPS) boundaries. The site is situated approximately 64 km (40 mi) northwest of Richmond,

Virginia. This chapter describes the approach Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion)

used to identify the key plant parameters and site characteristics needed to assess the

environmental impacts of the proposed action (Dominion 2006). The site layout and existing

facilities are discussed in Section 3.1. The plant parameters and power transmission system

are discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively, and references for this chapter are

documented in Section 3.4.

3.1 External Appearance and Site Layout

The proposed North Anna ESP site is located within the existing NAPS site in an area adjacent

to the existing units (Figure 3-1). NAPS consists of two operational pressurized water reactors

(PWRs) furnished by Westinghouse Electric Company, a shared turbine building, a switchyard,

intake and discharge structures, and support buildings. NAPS is located on the shore of Lake

Anna, an impoundment created in 1971 by constructing a dam on the main stem of the North

Anna River to create a source of cooling water for NAPS. The Lake Anna reservoir is divided

into Lake Anna, which serves as the cooling water source for NAPS Units 1 and 2, and the

Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF), which receives the heated discharge. The existing

units use a spray pond for an ultimate heat sink. A radioactive waste disposal system, a

fuel-handling system, an independent spent fuel storage installation, auxiliary structures, and

other onsite facilities necessary for a complete operating nuclear power plant also exist on the

NAPS site. With the exception of a few support buildings that may be relocated, existing

structures at the NAPS site would remain unchanged with the addition of new units. The ESP

site characteristics are listed in Appendix I, Table I-1 of this document. |

For purposes of the ESP application, a specific plant design has not been selected for the

proposed new Units 3 and 4; instead, a set of plant-parameter values was chosen for the staff’s

evaluation of the development of the North Anna ESP site. This plant parameter envelope

(PPE) is based on the addition of two new power generating units, each of which would be a

stand-alone unit with its own support systems. Appendix I, Table I-2 lists the PPE values used

by the staff. Dominion states that the new units would share ancillary support structures such

as maintenance facilities, office centers, and wastewater and water treatment plants. Each new

unit would represent a portion of the total generation capacity to be added, and may consist of

one or more reactors or reactor modules. These multiple reactors or modules (the number of

which may vary depending on the reactor type selected) would be grouped into distinct

operating units. The nuclear generating capacity to be added would not exceed

4500 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)) per unit, or up to a total of 9000 MW(t) for two units. For the 
NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-2 December 2006

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Figure 3-1. Proposed Major ESP Structures (Units 3 and 4) in Relation to Existing Units 1 and 2 Structures

Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

cooling systems, Dominion has proposed using combination wet and dry cooling towers for

Unit 3 and dry cooling towers for Unit 4. The proposed location for the cooling towers is

illustrated in Figure 3-1.

3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope

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

associated facilities, but should provide sufficient values for parameters for the reactor or

reactors and the associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can be made. 

Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a PPE as a surrogate for a nuclear power plant

and its associated facilities.

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

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

The PPE values are surrogates for actual reactor design information. Analysis of environmental

impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the selection of a reactor

design until the construction permit (CP) or combined construction and operating license

(combined license or COL) stage. The PPE reflects the value of each parameter that it

encompasses rather than the characteristics of any specific reactor design.

In its North Anna ESP application, Dominion used a composite of values from seven reactor

designs to develop the PPE for the ESP application. The values in this EIS are not

design-specific; rather, they are used to determine the environmental impacts of a reactor

design that falls within the values used in this report. The reactor designs used to develop the

PPE include the following five light-water reactor and two gas-cooled reactor types: 

 • Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor (ACR-700) – This reactor, developed by Atomic

Energy Canada Limited, is an evolutionary extension of the CANDU 6 plant using very

slightly enriched uranium fuel and light-water cooling.

 • Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by General Electric

Company (GE), is a standardized plant that has been certified under the NRC requirements

in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Appendix A. The ABWR is

fueled with slightly enriched uranium and uses light-water cooling.

 • Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (AP1000) – This is an earlier version of the AP1000

reactor design developed by Westinghouse Electric Company, using slightly enriched |

uranium and light-water cooling. This design is not the standard AP1000 that has been

certified by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D; therefore, this design is referred to as

the “surrogate AP1000.”
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-4 December 2006

 • Surrogate Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This surrogate reactor

design is based on a design developed by GE using slightly enriched uranium fuel and

light-water cooling. Dominion revised its application to reflect a higher power level value of

4500 MW(t) (Dominion 2006). The ESBWR design certification application is currently

under review by the NRC.

 • International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) next generation PWR – This reactor is

under development by a consortium led by Westinghouse Electric Company and is a

modular light-water reactor.

 • Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) – This reactor, developed by General

Atomics, is a modular helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor.

 • Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) – This reactor, developed by PBMR (Pty) Ltd., is a

modular graphite-moderated, helium-cooled gas turbine reactor.

Dominion would not be required to use any of these designs if it elects to proceed with a CP or

COL application; however, a CP or COL applicant referencing an ESP would have to address

whether the characteristics of the reactor ultimately selected fall within the values of the design

parameters specified in the ESP.

Review Approach

NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000), and review standard

RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (NRC 2004), provide guidance to the

NRC staff to help ensure a thorough, consistent, and disciplined review of any ESP application. 

The staff’s June 23, 2003, response to comments received on draft RS-002 (NRC 2003) provide

additional insights into the staff’s approach to the review of an application employing the PPE

approach.

Because PPE values were used as a surrogate for design-specific values, the staff expected

Dominion to provide information sufficient for the staff to develop a reasonable independent

assessment of potential impacts to specific environmental resources. In some cases, the

design-specific information called for in the ESRP was not provided in the Dominion ESP

application because it did not exist or was not available. Therefore, the NRC staff could not

apply the ESRP guidance in those review areas. In such cases, the NRC staff used its

experience and judgment to adapt the review guidance in the ESRP and to develop

assumptions necessary to evaluate impacts to certain environmental resources to account for

this missing information. These assumptions are discussed in the appropriate sections of

this EIS.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Because the Dominion PPE values do not reflect a specific design, they were not reviewed by

the NRC staff for correctness. However, the NRC staff made a determination that the

application was sufficient to enable the staff to conduct its required environmental review and

that the PPE values are not unreasonable for consideration by the staff when making its finding

on the application in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18. During its environmental review, the staff

used its judgment to determine whether Dominion provided information sufficient for the staff to

perform its independent assessment of the environmental impacts of construction and operation

of a new nuclear unit or units. Dominion expects that the PPE values will bound the design

characteristics of a reactor or reactors that might be constructed at the North Anna ESP site. 

At the COL stage, as required by 10 CFR 52.79, the applicant must, in addition to the

information and analysis otherwise required, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that

the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP. If actual reactor

characteristics do not fall within the PPE values on which the staff based its estimate of the

potential environmental impacts resulting from constructing and operating one or more new

nuclear units at the ESP site, the staff will consider whether the difference between the actual

characteristics and the PPE value is significant.

Table 3.1-1 in the ER provides information from various reactor designs that were used to |

develop the bounding site-specific PPE values contained in ER Table 3.1-9. The values in ER

Table 3.1-1 are generic values and not site-specific values (Dominion 2006). Therefore, the |

site-specific values in ER Table 3.1-9 may differ from the generic values in ER Table 3.1-1. ER |

Tables 5.4-6 and 5.4-7 provide bounding PPE values for the radionuclide activities. Therefore,

the PPE values provided in ER tables 3.1-9, 5.4-6, and 5.4-7 are used in the staff’s analysis and |

are reproduced in Appendix I of the EIS unless specifically noted otherwise. |

Throughout the North Anna ESP environmental report, Dominion (2006) provides:

(1) Statements of plans to address certain issues in the design, construction, and operation of

the facility

(2) Statements of planned compliance with current laws, regulations, and requirements

(3) Statements of plans for future activities and actions that it will take should it decide to

apply for a CP or COL

(4) Descriptions of Dominion’s estimate of the environmental impacts resulting from the

construction and operation of a new nuclear unit or units on the North Anna ESP site 

(5) Descriptions of Dominion’s estimates of future activities and actions of others and the

likely environmental impacts of those activities and actions that would be expected should

Dominion decide to apply for a CP or COL.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-6 December 2006

The activities described include, but are not limited to, such actions as:

& Considering the results of testing and monitoring during the development of a CP or

COL application

& Complying with NRC regulations and those of other agencies, including obtaining

appropriate permits from other agencies

& Taking actions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (e.g., best management

practices)

& Addressing certain issues at the CP or COL stage that were not addressed in the ESP

application.

Some of these future actions are those that Dominion would be required to implement because

they are currently required by law, and others are actions that Dominion has indicated that it

would implement without the legal obligation to take such actions. 

The staff performed its evaluation of the impacts of constructing and operating one or more new

nuclear units at the ESP site assuming that these activities and actions would be undertaken by

Dominion and others during future licensing activities. As discussed previously, the staff

developed assumptions necessary to evaluate impacts to certain environmental resources to

account for missing detailed information. In addition to other sources of information obtained

independently, the staff considered future activities and actions, estimates of expected

environmental impacts that were identified by Dominion in its ER, and the PPE values listed in

Appendix I when developing the inputs and assumptions used in the NRC staff’s independent

review of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating one or more new units on the

North Anna ESP site. The staff has identified missing information with respect to particular

resources, the staff’s assumptions in evaluating such resources, and any resulting limitations in

the staff’s conclusions or the environmental impacts to particular resources, where appropriate. 

In addition, as a result of the staff’s environmental review of the Dominion ESP application, the

staff determined that conditions or limitations on the ESP may be necessary in specific areas, in

accordance with 10 CFR 52.24. Proposed permit conditions are set forth in Appendix J of

this EIS.

3.2.1 Plant Water Use

This EIS assesses the impacts of plant water use based on the values of design parameters

provided by Dominion in the ER. At the ESP stage, the staff’s review of the design parameters

is limited to an evaluation of whether the parameter values are not unreasonable. At the CP or

COL stage, a CP or COL applicant referencing the ESP is required to demonstrate that the
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

specific plant design would fall within the design parameters in the ESP. The following sections

describe both the consumptive and non-consumptive water uses of proposed Units 3 and 4 and

the associated plant water treatment systems.

The two proposed ESP units involve considerably different cooling systems with different water

needs. The proposed Unit 3 would use a combined wet and dry cooling system. The proposed

Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers. The proposed cooling systems are described in more

detail in Section 3.2.2.

3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption

This section describes plant water consumption demands, excluding those demands that are

part of the normal and ultimate heat sink cooling system. Consumptive water demands

associated with the cooling systems are discussed in Section 3.2.2. Non-cooling system related

water demands are relatively small compared to the consumptive cooling demands of Unit 3. 

Units 3 and 4 would have identical demands for potable water, demineralized water, and fire

protection water. In the ER (Table 3.3-1), Dominion states that the normal and maximum water |

demands for these systems are 41.3 L/s (655 gpm) and 210 L/s (3340 gpm), respectively. |

Potable water would be provided from groundwater wells, whereas the demineralized water and

fire protection water would be supplied from Lake Anna.

3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment

Because no specific design has been selected, the water treatment systems for the proposed

Units 3 and 4 are not specified. Currently, Lake Anna is the source for Units 1 and 2 condenser

cooling and service water. This water is not treated. Makeup water for the proposed Units 3

and 4 and both ultimate heat sink systems would require treatment with biocides, antiscalants,

and dispersants. Treatment of makeup water for ultra-pure water systems, such as the

condensate and primary cooling systems, would employ technologies such as reverse osmosis

and ultra-filtration. The water quality of effluents from any water treatment would be regulated

by a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit for the units.

3.2.2 Cooling System

The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the operational modes and the

components of the cooling water systems for the proposed Units 3 and 4. See Figure 3-2 for a |

conceptual drawing of the Unit 3 cooling system. Non-cooling system related water |

consumption, including potable, demineralized, and fire protection water demands are

discussed in Section 3.2.1.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-8 December 2006

Figure 3-2. Conceptual Closed Loop Cooling Water Diagram for Unit 3 |
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The two proposed units employ considerably different cooling systems with different water

needs (Dominion 2006). The proposed Unit 3 would use a closed-cycle, combination wet and

dry cooling tower system.

The plant would primarily use wet towers to cool Unit 3 during periods of relative water surplus,

which are defined as periods when the water surface elevation of Lake Anna is at or above

elevation 76.2 m (250 ft) above mean sea level (MSL). In the ER, this cooling mode for Unit 3 is

termed the Energy Conservation (EC) mode.

During periods when the elevation of Lake Anna is below 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL for a period of

seven or more consecutive days, Unit 3 would be cooled with a closed-cycle, combination wet |

and dry cooling tower system to limit consumptive water use. Dominion terms this cooling mode |

for Unit 3 as the Maximum Water Conservation (MWC) mode. In this mode, all or part of the |

excess heat generated by Unit 3 operation would be dissipated using a dry cooling tower. If |

atmospheric conditions were such that Unit 3 dry cooling towers could not completely cool the

circulating water, Dominion would employ wet towers to dissipate the remaining excess heat. 

The heat from the turbine generator is transferred to the cooling water in the surface condenser. 

The cooling water passes through the dry cooling tower and, in the MWC mode, transfers a

minimum of one-third of the heat to the atmosphere. The dry cooling towers would be designed |

to remove at least one-third of the excess heat from Unit 3 under worst-case atmospheric |

conditions. Cooling water leaving the dry towers would then pass through the wet towers to

remove the balance of condenser/heat exchanger rejected heat by spraying the water into a

forced or induced air stream. After passing through the cooling towers, the cooled water would

be recirculated back to the surface condenser to complete the closed-cycle cooling water loop.

Make-up water to the circulating water system and service water cooling system would be

obtained from Lake Anna. Blowdown (recirculating water removed from the cooling system to

reduce the buildup of contaminants, such as dissolved solids) from the cooling systems would

be discharged to the existing plant WHTF discharge canal.

Unit 4 would use a dry cooling system that transfers heat directly from the condenser to an air |

cooled heat exchanger without the use of Lake Anna cooling water. |

3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes

The operating modes for the proposed Units 3 and 4 under normal operating and emergency/

shutdown conditions are described in the following paragraphs. In the ER, Dominion states that |

the minimum lake level for operation of the proposed units would be an elevation of 73.8 m

(242 ft) MSL. The calculated minimum lake level under drought conditions is 74.74 m |

(243.5 ft) MSL. |
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-10 December 2006

Unit 3 Normal Cooling

Dominion states that the bounding thermal power generated by Unit 3 would be 4500 MW(t),

and that the bounding heat rejection rate to the environment would be 3020 MW

(1.03 x 1010 Btu/hr). Excess heat generated by the unit would be dissipated through the use of

a series of closed-cycle cooling towers that can operate in two modes: EC and MWC modes. 

The EC mode of rejecting excess heat generated by Unit 3 would be employed when surplus

water is available from Lake Anna. Surplus water would be considered available when

(1) the lake level elevation of Lake Anna is at or above 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL or (2) the lake level

elevation is below elevation 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL for a period of less than seven consecutive

days.

In the EC mode, excess heat generated by Unit 3 would be dissipated by closed-cycle wet

cooling towers. Makeup water would be supplied from Lake Anna at a maximum flow rate of

1405 L/s (22,268 gpm). The blowdown flow rate and the related evaporation rate associated

with the wet cooling towers would vary depending on thermal output from the unit and

environmental conditions. In its PPE, Dominion states that the maximum evaporation rate

would be 1053 L/s (16,695 gpm) and the maximum blowdown discharge would be 351 L/s

(5565 gpm) in the EC mode.

The MWC mode of rejecting excess heat generated by Unit 3 would be employed when water

levels in the lake drop below elevation 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL for a period of one week or more. 

Under favorable meteorological conditions, the entire excess heat load from Unit 3 would be

dissipated using closed-cycle dry cooling towers. These towers would be sized so that under

the worst-case conditions (i.e., full power operation and a hot and humid atmosphere at tower

level), a minimum of one-third of excess heat from Unit 3 would be dissipated via the dry tower |

system. The remaining excess heat would be dissipated by the wet tower system. Therefore,

although the MWC mode uses less water than the EC mode, it is possible that up to two-thirds

of the total heat load would be dissipated by wet cooling.

In the MWC mode, the maximum makeup flow rate from Lake Anna to the wet tower system

would be 971 L/s (15,384 gpm). The maximum blowdown discharge and evaporation rate from

the wet towers are 245 L/s (3844 gpm), and 728 L/s (11,532 gpm), respectively. 

Unit 4 Normal Cooling

During normal operation, the proposed Unit 4 would use a system of closed-loop dry cooling

towers. The makeup water flow rate to the circulating water system would be negligible (on the

order of 0.06 L/s [1 gpm]). No blowdown would be generated by these towers.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Ultimate Heat Sink

For safety-related cooling, an ultimate heat sink (UHS) would be constructed to provide water

for reactor cooling and safety-related components of Units 3 and 4. The same UHS design

would be used for each unit. Each UHS would be composed of a mechanical draft cooling

tower with a 71.6 m wide by 107 m long by 15.2 m deep (235 ft wide by 350 ft long by

50 ft deep) engineered underground basin constructed beneath each tower (Dominion 2004). 

These basins would be large enough to store a water volume of 1.16 x 105

 m3 (3.06 x 107 gal),

which is adequate to hold a 30-day supply of emergency cooling water (Dominion 2006). 

During periods when the ultimate heat sink cooling towers are in operation, the towers would

withdraw a maximum makeup flow of 110 L/s (1700 gpm) from the two basins. The blowdown

from the UHS towers would be discharged into the WHTF. 

During periods of normal plant operation, a negligible volume of makeup water would be used to

offset any water losses from the UHS basins. This water would originate from Lake Anna

(Dominion 2006).

3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions

The following sections describe the intake, discharge, and heat dissipation systems for

proposed Units 3 and 4. Pursuant to Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, an

applicant for a CP or COL referencing an ESP for the North Anna ESP site would be required to

obtain approval from the Commonwealth of Virginia by documenting plant design and

conducting site-specific analyses regarding the impacts of the thermal discharges and operation

of the intake systems on the Lake Anna aquatic environment.

Intake System

The proposed location of the intake structure for Unit 3 is shown in Figure 3-1. Any makeup

water required for Unit 4 could be obtained from the Unit 3 intake. The location of the intake

would be in the same approximate location as the intakes planned for the two additional power

reactor units proposed at the time that NAPS Units 1 and 2 were licensed. The size of the

proposed intake structure to support Unit 3 operation is 21 m (70 ft) long and 21 m (70 ft) wide.

The intake system for Unit 3 would consist of a structure next to the lake with trash racks,

traveling screens, and pump bays, similar to the design currently in use by Units 1 and 2. 

Dominion expects no major modifications to the shoreline or the existing intake channel. The

existing cofferdam would be modified to allow water access from Lake Anna. |
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-12 December 2006

Discharge System

Blowdown discharge from the wet towers associated with Unit 3 would enter the WHTF via the

discharge canal currently used by the existing units. The PPE maximum blowdown discharge

from Unit 3 would be 351 L/s (5565 gpm). There would be no blowdown discharge from Unit 4. 

The discharge canal and WHTF canal system were designed to convey approximately

230,000 L/s (8000 cfs), and the maximum flow rate from the existing units is approximately

120,000 L/s (4300 cfs). The discharge canal and WHTF system could therefore easily

accommodate the extra water discharged by the proposed units. Dominion stated that it may |

combine the blowdown flow from Unit 3 with the discharge from the existing NAPS units and

use the current Unit 1 and 2 discharge structure, or utilize the partially completed discharge |

structure planned for the two additional power reactors proposed at the time NAPS Units 1 and

2 were licensed (see Figure 3-1) (Dominion 2006).

Heat Dissipation Systems

The normal cooling needs of Unit 3 would be provided by a closed-cycle, combination wet and

dry tower system. The percentage of excess heat dissipated by the dry towers would depend

on the availability of water from Lake Anna and ambient environmental conditions. If excess

water were available, Unit 3 would be cooled entirely by use of the wet towers. Under times of

relative drought and favorable meteorological conditions, the majority of the Unit 3 waste heat

would be dissipated by the dry towers. 

The normal cooling needs of Unit 4 would be provided solely by a closed-cycle dry tower

system. Unit 4 would have a negligible consumptive water demand on Lake Anna.

Wet cooling tower systems rely primarily on evaporative heat transfer to the atmosphere to

dissipate the rejected thermal load. Dry cooling tower systems rely entirely on sensible heat

transfer between the fluid circulating in the condenser loop and the ambient air. Dry towers are

completely closed systems and therefore use negligible amounts of makeup water and produce

negligible blowdown water. Dry cooling towers use large fans to keep air flowing over their

radiators, so there is an associated high energy cost that significantly reduces plant efficiency. 

The efficiency penalty of dry cooling towers can exceed 12 percent (EPA 2001). Dominion’s

combination wet and dry cooling system would have an energy efficiency penalty of 1.7 to

4 percent (Dominion 2006).

For safety-related cooling, the UHS for each of the proposed Units 3 and 4 would provide water

to the reactor cooling systems and safety-related components. As proposed, both plants would

use the same UHS design, which would be composed of a mechanical draft cooling tower with

an engineered basin constructed underground beneath it (Dominion 2006). The basin would

have a storage capacity adequate to hold a 30-day supply of emergency cooling water.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System

Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect

and treat the radioactive materials that are produced as a by-product of operating the proposed

Units 3 and 4 on the North Anna ESP site. These systems would process radioactive liquid,

gaseous, and solid effluents to maintain releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA) before being released to the environment. Waste processing

systems would be designed to meet the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I

(Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the

Criterion “As Low as is Reasonably Achievable” for Radioactive Material in Light Water-Cooled

Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents). Radioactive material in the reactor coolant would be the

primary source of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in LWRs. Radioactive fission

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

products would be contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small quantities could escape the fuel

rods and contaminate the reactor coolant. Neutron activation of corrosion products in the

primary coolant system would also contribute to coolant contamination.

Dominion did not identify specific radioactive waste management systems for the North Anna

ESP site. The PPE concept was used to provide an upper bound on liquid radioactive effluents,

gaseous radioactive effluents, and solid radioactive waste releases (Dominion 2006) (See

Appendix I).

Adequate design information to estimate liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents was available |

for four of the seven reactor designs considered in establishing PPE values. The four reactors |

were LWRs and included the certified ABWR, the surrogate AP1000 PWR, the ACR-700 |

light-water-cooled, heavy-water moderated reactor, and the surrogate ESBWR. Limited |

information was available for liquid and gaseous effluent releases from the gas-cooled reactor |

designs.

In its FSER, the staff proposed permit condition number 4, which would require that any new |

unit’s radioactive waste system design contain features to preclude any and all accidental |

releases of radionuclides into the liquid pathway (NRC 2006). |

Solid radioactive wastes produced from operating the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna

ESP site would be either dry or wet solids. The solid waste management system would receive,

collect, and store solid wastes prior to onsite storage or shipment offsite. Dominion indicated

that low-level waste storage for the ESP site would be coordinated with storage from the

existing NAPS Units 1 and 2. The bounding solid radioactive waste activity was from one ABWR

reactor or one ESBWR reactor (Dominion 2006).
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-14 December 2006

3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

Dominion describes the nonradioactive waste systems for the proposed Units 3 and 4 in

Section 3.6 of its ER (Dominion 2006). Nonradioactive waste system parameters are not

addressed by the PPE; however, effluents from liquid, gaseous, and solid nonradioactive waste

systems are regulated by cognizant State and Federal agencies.

Chemicals and biocides may be employed in water treatment for various water uses at the

proposed Units 3 and 4. Effluents containing chemicals and/or biocides would be regulated by

the VPDES permit. Sanitary effluents would be expected to increase because of the increased

workforce, and sanitary effluents would be regulated by the VPDES permit. Dominion states

that the sanitary wastes would be treated onsite using a permanent, self-contained sanitary

waste treatment system (Dominion 2006).

Dominion states that gaseous wastes (e.g., diesel backup generators) and solid wastes

(e.g., sewage sludge, construction debris) would be handled in compliance with appropriate

State and Federal regulations (Dominion 2006).

3.3 Power Transmission System

The existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 have three 500-kV transmission lines and one 230-kV

transmission line leaving the site from the switchyard. Each transmission line occupies a

separate right-of-way. Table 3-1 presents the lengths, widths, and areas of the rights-of-way,

which range from 37 to 84 m (120 to 275 ft) in width and from 24 to 66 km (15 to 41 mi) in length

and cover a total of approximately 1174 ha (2900 ac) (AEC 1973; NRC 2002). The rights-ofway extend from the NAPS site to the north, south, east, and west terminating in Morrisville,

Midlothian, Ladysmith, and at the South Anna non-utility generator (NUG) (Figure 3-3). The

existing transmission lines and rights-of-way were constructed between 1973 and 1984, and no

additional construction of transmission lines would be expected for Units 3 and 4

(Dominion 2006).

In the ER, Dominion indicates the existing transmission system (three 500-kV lines and one

230-kV line) has the capacity to handle the output from the existing Units 1 and 2 plus the

anticipated output from the proposed Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2006). Detailed system load

studies for the proposed new units would be performed by Dominion once the in-service date

for the units has been established, to confirm the current transmission system is capable of

handling the output of all units.

Dominion owns approximately 1 percent of the rights-of-way and has easements for the

remaining 99 percent (NRC 2002). Dominion has procedures to ensure that all chemical and

mechanical vegetation controls are conducted in ways that minimize adverse impacts. 
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Vegetation in the rights-of-way is currently managed through a combination of mechanical and

herbicide treatments conducted on a 3-year cycle. Mowing is the primary mechanical treatment,

while Accord® and Garlon® are the primary herbicides used in the rights-of-way. In some areas,

such as wetlands or dense vegetation, hand-trimming is used. Rare and sensitive plant species

areas are identified and avoided, or modified treatment practices are used to avoid adverse

impacts. These modified vegetation treatments are developed in cooperation with the Virginia

Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Natural Heritage Program (NRC 2002). In

addition, wildlife food plots and Christmas tree plantations are located along the rights-of-way

and are supported through cost sharing by Virginia Power (NRC 2002).

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

Substation kV

Length Direction

from

NAPS

Width Area

Construction

km (mi) m (ft) Date

hectares

(acres)

Morrisville 500 53 (33) N 72 (235) 366 (905) 1973

Midlothian(a) 500 66 (41) S 72 (235) 469 (1160) 1979

Ladysmith 500 24 (15) E 84 (275) 192 (475) 1976

South Anna

non-utility

generation

230 50 (31) W 30 - 37 (100 - 120) 146 (360) 1984

Total 193 (120) 1174 (2900)

(a) The transmission line to the Midlothian Substation runs an additional 26 km (16 mi) in a shared right-of-way with a

non-NAPS line.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-16 December 2006

Figure 3-3. Location of Transmission Lines for North Anna Power Station, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

December 2006 3-17 NUREG-1811, Volume I

3.4 References

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). PL 92-500.

33 USC 1251, et seq.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. Letter Response to Request for

Additional Information Regarding Safety Portion of ESP Application, No. 04-318, Glen Allen,

Virginia, August 2, 2004.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia, July 31, 2006.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Continuation of Construction and Operation of Units 1 and 2 and the construction of Units 3

and 4, North Anna Power Station. U.S. AEC, Washington, D.C.

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Technical Development Document for

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. EPA-821-R-01-036,

Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1

and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. NRC

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Response to Comments on Draft RS-002,

Processing Applications for Early Site Permits. Available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML031710698.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, Volume I 3-18 December 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits. RS-002, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML040700236.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site |

Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1835, September 2006, Accession |

No. ML062210405. |
December 2006 4-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

This chapter examines the environmental impacts of construction associated with potential site

preparation activities and construction of the proposed North Anna Power Station (NAPS)

Units 3 and 4 as described in the application for an early site permit (ESP) submitted by

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). As part of its application, Dominion submitted

an Environmental Report (ER)(Dominion 2006a) and a site redress plan (Dominion 2006b). 

The ER provided the plant parameter envelope (PPE) as the basis for the environmental review. 

The parameters included in the PPE and their values are listed in Appendix I. The site redress

plan allows for specific site preparation activities to be conducted with approval of an ESP. 

These activities evaluated are those permitted by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) 52.25(a) and 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). In the event the ESP application is approved and

Dominion conducts site preparation activities but does not build the plant, Dominion would be

required to implement its site redress plan.

This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 4.1 through 4.9 discuss the potential impacts

on land use, meteorology and air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems,

socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, environmental justice, nonradiological and

radiological health effects, and applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse

impacts of station construction. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, impacts have been

analyzed, and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE or

LARGE) has been assigned to each analysis. Negligible impacts are listed as SMALL impacts. 

Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is presented in Section 4.10,

followed by a description of the site redress plan in Section 4.11. A summary of the

construction impacts is presented in Section 4.12. Full citations for the references cited in this

chapter are listed in Section 4.13. Cumulative impacts of construction and operation are

discussed in Chapter 7. The technical analyses in this chapter support the results, conclusions,

and recommendations in Chapters 9 and 10.

The staff relied on the mitigation measures and the required Federal, State, and local permits

and authorizations presented in the ER in reaching its conclusion on the significance level of the

adverse impacts. Appendix J was added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) |

and includes representations made by Dominion that the staff relied on during the preparation of

the EIS. With regard to the environmental impacts associated with construction of proposed

Units 3 and 4, Dominion made a number of representations in its application. The staff’s

determinations of significance levels are based on the assumption that mitigation measures

identified in the ER or activities planned by various State and County governments, such as

infrastructure upgrades and school expansions, as discussed in this chapter are implemented.

As listed in this appendix, the staff relied on these representations and staff-developed

assumptions in assessing the environmental impacts associated with construction of Units 3

and 4. As such, fulfillment of these representations and assumptions provide part of the basis

for the final impact assessment. Should an applicant for a construction permit (CP) or combined
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-2 December 2006

construction permit and operating license (COL) reference the ESP, and the staff ultimately

determines that a representation or an assumption has not been satisfied at the CP/COL stage,

that information would be considered new and potentially significant, and the affected impact

area could be subject to re-examination. 

4.1 Land-Use Impacts

This section provides information regarding land-use impacts associated with site preparation

activities and construction of proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. Topics

discussed include land-use impacts at the site, in the vicinity of the site, and in transmission line

rights-of-way and offsite areas.

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

The ESP site is located entirely within the existing NAPS site, which is zoned for industrial use

by Louisa County. All construction activities for proposed Units 3 and 4, including

ground-disturbing activities, would occur within the existing NAPS site boundary. According to

Dominion (2006a), approximately 52 ha (128 ac) would be affected on a long-term basis as a

result of permanent facilities. An additional 27.5 ha (67.9 ac) would be disturbed on a

short-term basis as a result of temporary activities and construction of temporary facilities and

laydown areas. Dominion represented that it would conduct any ground-disturbing activities in

accordance with Federal, State and local regulatory requirements (Dominion 2006a)

(see Appendix J). The planned power block area is relatively level. Undulating surfaces in the

area of the planned cooling towers would be leveled to accommodate the towers. Dominion has

submitted a site redress plan, which is evaluated in Section 4.11 of this EIS.

No new highways or railroad lines would be needed to support the construction of Units 3 and 4. 

Clearing and removal of trees growing within the North Anna ESP site would be required. No

agricultural lands would be directly affected by construction activities.

A few small wetland areas and two intermittent streams exist on the ESP site. Dominion

represented that it would avoid watercourses and wetlands to the extent practicable during

construction (Dominion 2006a) (see Appendix J). Any work that has the potential to impact a

wetland would be performed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

The floodplain along the Lake Anna shoreline was determined by Dominion using the Federal

Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (Dominion 2006a). Any flooding

that might occur during construction of Units 3 and 4 would be limited to areas adjacent to the

lake shoreline (i.e., below elevations of 255 feet above mean sea level). Preliminary

construction activity would occur within the lake floodplain for the construction and installation of

a new water intake structure.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Some offsite land-use changes as a result of construction activities would be expected. Likely

changes are the conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments

(e.g., apartment buildings, single family condominiums and homes, manufactured home parks,

and recreational vehicle parks) to accommodate construction workers and the addition of new

retail developments. All counties surrounding the NAPS site have comprehensive land-use

plans in place as required by Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia.

Based on the counties’ comprehensive land-use plans for the surrounding vicinity, the site

redress plan, Dominion’s representations, and NRC’s independent review, the staff concludes

that the land-use impacts of construction would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

In the evaluation provided in the ER, Dominion concluded that no additional electrical

transmission lines or rights-of-way would be required to transmit the power generated by the

proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4 to the regional power grid (Dominion 2006a). Construction

would be limited to providing the new units’ switchyards and interconnections with the existing

operating units. All planned construction activities would occur on the NAPS site. Because

Dominion represented that construction would be limited to onsite work, and no additional land

would be needed to connect the new units to the grid, the staff concludes that land-use impacts

resulting from construction in transmission line rights-of-way would be SMALL, and mitigation is

not warranted.

4.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

During construction activities on the North Anna ESP site, some minor air quality impacts would

be expected to occur. The likely sources of these air quality impacts would be fugitive dust

emissions from general construction activities and the potential for elevated ambient air quality

levels caused by transportation emissions from the vehicles and equipment used by the |

workforce used in construction. These impacts are discussed further in the following sections.

4.2.1 Construction Activities

The impact of construction activities on local air quality conditions would primarily be governed

by the influence of additional building structures on the dispersion of normal effluent releases

from either the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 or from Units 3 and 4 during construction.

Equipment emissions and fugitive dust from operation of earth-moving and material-handling

equipment are sources of air pollution from construction activities. Also, operation of other |

equipment for hauling debris, equipment, and supplies on unpaved roads would produce

additional fugitive dust. The pollutant emission of concern would be PM10 particulate matter |

(less than 10 microns in diameter), reactive organic gases, and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur,
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-4 December 2006

and carbon monoxide from construction equipment engines. All activities would be conducted

in accordance with Virginia Administrative Codes 9 VAC 5-50 (Visible and Fugitive Dust

Emissions) and 9 VAC 5-40-5680 (Emission Standard for Mobile Sources – Vehicles). 

In addition, if construction activities include burning of construction materials, Dominion would

need to obtain a permit from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and

contact Louisa County officials to determine if compliance with local ordinances is required

(VDEQ 2004).

The ER identified additional mitigation including Dominion’s representation that it would develop

and implement a dust control plan to mitigate the impacts of emissions from construction

activities (Dominion 2006a) (see Appendix J). Potential measures to be included in the plan

would be the following:

& limit the speed of construction equipment on unpaved roads

& remove dirt spilled onto paved roads on the construction site

& cover haul trucks during unloading and loading activities

& cease grading and excavation activities during periods of high wind speeds or extreme

air pollution episodes

& phase construction activities to minimize daily emissions

& phase grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils

& perform proper maintenance activities on construction vehicles to minimize emissions

& revegetate road medians and slopes in accordance with the site redress plan

Based on its independent evaluation of the requirements set forth in Virginia Administrative

Codes, and Dominion’s representation that it would develop and implement measures to control

dust during construction, the staff concludes that air quality impacts from construction, both

onsite and beyond the plant boundary, would be temporary and SMALL, and further mitigation

beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

4.2.2 Transportation

In its ER, Dominion represented that the 5000 construction workers would be divided between

two 10-hour shifts (Dominion 2006a) (see Appendix J). Using an assumption of 1.8 workers per

vehicle, 2800 additional vehicles per day would travel to and from the site (Dominion 2006a). 

Depending on the actual location of the workers, some of the roadways leading to the site would

likely experience congestion unless upgrades recommended in the land-use plan are

implemented. This situation would impact the local ambient air quality levels because of

emissions from vehicles both during normal operation and during periods of traffic congestion

when vehicles are stopped with their engines idling. The overall impact is difficult to estimate at

this time because of the timing of construction activities and actual location of the workers that

would be employed during construction, but five existing roads would be expected to be

impacted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

In the ER, Dominion represented that it would develop and implement a traffic management

plan to increase the number of construction workers per vehicle by developing methods for

enhancing the use of multi-person vans (see Appendix J). Dominion represented that it would

also attempt to schedule shift changes for operating personnel, outage workers, and

construction workers to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any given time. All of

these techniques would mitigate the impact of vehicular traffic on air quality.

Based on Dominion’s commitment to develop and implement a traffic management plan, and |

NRC’s own independent review, the staff concludes that the impact on the local air quality from

the increase in vehicular traffic related to construction activities would be temporary and

SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

4.3 Water-Related Impacts

Water-related impacts involved in the construction of a nuclear power plant would be similar to

impacts that would be associated with any large industrial construction project. Prior to initiating

construction, including any site preparation work, Dominion would be required to obtain the

appropriate permits regulating alterations to the hydrological environment. These permits would

likely include:

& Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit. This permit would be issued by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (ACE), which governs impacts of construction activities on wetlands

or waters of the United States and management of dredged material. |

& Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the

Commonwealth of Virginia and would ensure that the project does not conflict with water

quality management programs in the Commonwealth.

& Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) construction and industrial storm water permit. This permit would regulate

point source storm water discharges. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) 1990 Phase 1 Storm Water Regulation (40 CFR 122.26) established requirements

for storm water discharges from various activities including construction activities

disturbing an area of at least 2.0 ha (5.0 ac). EPA has delegated the authority for

administering the NPDES program to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

& Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Section 307 Consistency Determination (and

15 CFR Part 930). Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA [16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)] requires

that applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an activity in a coastal zone are to

provide to the licensing agency a certification that the proposed activity is consistent with |

the enforceable policies of the State’s coastal zone program. While the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers the CZMA, the authority to concur

with or object to the consistency determination has been delegated to the VDEQ.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) Best management practices are recommended site management, maintenance or monitoring activities

that have been shown to work effectively to mitigate impacts. Government agencies sometimes use

BMPs to specify standards of practice where a regulation may not be sufficiently descriptive.

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-6 December 2006

4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

Excavation, fill, and grading operations at the North Anna ESP site would alter two ephemeral

streams and possibly one or more wetlands. Many of the possible reactor designs considered

in the PPE would require that dewatering systems be installed during construction of the

foundation of the reactor and various other buildings. Dewatering systems used during

construction would depress the water table in the vicinity. However, any drawdown in the water

table would be limited by the proximity of Lake Anna and the discharge canal.

These impacts would be localized temporary construction impacts. Wetland delineations and

jurisdictional determinations of the upland landscape and submerged lake areas that would be

impacted by construction would be required in order to submit an application for a Section

404 Permit application to ACE. The ACE permitting process ensures that impacts of

construction are limited by requiring the appropriate construction best management practices

(BMPs).(a) Dominion currently has not obtained a Section 401 certification from Virginia for

construction activities at the North Anna ESP site.

Dominion proposed a 21 m (70 ft) long and 21 m (70 ft) wide intake structure to support the

combination wet and dry cooling tower for Unit 3 (Dominion 2006a). Dominion expects no major

modifications to the shoreline or the existing intake channel. The existing cofferdam would be

| completely or partially removed or tunneled through to allow water access from Lake Anna. 

Implementing BMPs for dredging would minimize the sediment that would enter the lake during

| modification of the cofferdam. Any impacts of dredging would be localized and temporary. 

Before initiation of any shoreline modification or dredging activities, Dominion would be required

to obtain a 404 Permit from the ACE.

Because the impacts of hydrologic alterations resulting from construction activities would be

localized and temporary, and the NPDES storm-water permits, 401 Certification and

ACE Section 404 Permit processes would minimize impacts, the staff concludes that the

impacts of hydrologic alterations would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions

stated would not be warranted.

4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

Water-use requirements for construction activities would be similar to other large industrial

construction projects. Additional potable water supplies for the construction workforce would

be required. Water for various standard construction activities, such as dust abatement, would
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

be provided from Lake Anna. Groundwater dewatering systems may preclude existing onsite

wells from supplying water during construction, particularly potable water needs. If additional

water is required, water could be imported from offsite during periods when the dewatering

system is active.

Based on these considerations, and because they would be localized and temporary, the staff

concludes that water-use impacts caused by construction activities would be SMALL, and

mitigation is not warranted.

4.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts

Water-quality impacts for the construction activities would be similar to those associated with

other large industrial construction projects. Construction BMPs are generally used to ensure

that accidental spills and storm water runoff will have minimal impact on surface water and

groundwater quality. Even if Dominion were to apply for and receive a construction permit (CP)

or a combined license (COL) referencing an ESP for the NAPS site, or if it were to conduct site

preparation activities under such an ESP, an NPDES permit would be required from the

Commonwealth of Virginia before construction activities could commence. In view of the ability

of standard engineering construction practices to limit water quality impacts and the localized |

and temporary nature of any impacts, the staff concludes that water-quality impacts caused by

construction activities would be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted.

4.4 Ecological Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts of construction on the ecological resources at the

North Anna ESP site and discusses terrestrial ecosystems impacts, aquatic ecosystem impacts,

and threatened and endangered species.

4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts

The total area of the North Anna ESP site is approximately 81 ha (200 ac) of which

approximately 49 ha (120 ac) have been developed for industrial use. Construction activities

are not expected to have noticeable impacts on ecological resources within the developed

portions of the North Anna ESP site. Construction of Units 3 and 4 would result in the removal

of approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of forested habitat within the site. The North Anna ESP site

does not contain any old growth timber or unique or sensitive plant species or communities.

Therefore, construction activities would not noticeably reduce the local or regional diversity of

plants or plant communities.

There are no important terrestrial animal species or habitats (as previously evaluated by the

NRC [NRC 2002]) on the North Anna ESP site. A few small wetland areas and two intermittent

streams exist on the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2006a). Dominion has completed a |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-8 December 2006

wetland delineation that identified 2.7 hectares (6.68 acres) of wetlands within the vicinity of the

| ESP site (Dominion 2006c). The delineation also identified approximately 1676 m (5500 linear

| feet) of streams that cover an area of approximately 0.19 hectares (0.46 acres), and

| approximately 1.0 hectares (2.49 acres) of open water within a beaver pond at the western

| edge of the ESP area near the end of the unnamed arm of Lake Anna. In a September 2006

| letter, ACE verified this delineation (ACE 2006). Neither ACE or the VDEQ can determine the

| type of permit(s) required (e.g., CWA Section 404 Permit, Virginia Water Protection Permit, or

| NPDES construction site storm water permit) or limitations or requirements, if any, that would be

| attached to the permit(s) until a more detailed site design and development plan is available. 

| Dominion represented that it would avoid watercourses and wetlands to the extent practicable

| during construction, and Dominion would be required to comply with any wetland protection or

mitigation measures attached to any permits issued by ACE or the VDEQ (see Appendix J). 

To minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife, Dominion represented that it would adhere

to Commonwealth of Virginia permit conditions, which could restrict the timing of certain

construction activities (Dominion 2006a). 

In anticipation of construction, topsoil would be removed from the construction site footprint,

stored, rolled, and seeded, if necessary, to minimize erosion. Some disturbed areas may be

graveled, paved, or compacted to prevent erosion. These and other soil preparation activities

would minimize impacts to the aquatic environment from earth-moving activities. For areas that

had been temporarily disturbed during construction, Dominion represented that it would grade

and contour the land, cover it with topsoil, and seed it with native vegetation (Dominion 2006a)

(see Appendix J).

Land clearing associated with construction would be conducted according to Federal and State

regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, and construction and other established

BMPs (e.g., directed drainage ditches and silt fencing would be employed). Fugitive dust

emissions would be minimized by watering the access roads and construction site as

necessary. Therefore, impacts from dust on terrestrial ecosystems would be minimal.

To minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife, Dominion represented that it would adhere

to State permit conditions that may restrict the timing of certain construction activities

(Dominion 2006a). As the site undergoes clearing and grading, disturbance and loss of

forested habitat would displace mobile animals such as birds and larger mammals. Species

that can adapt to disturbed or developed areas (e.g., raccoon [Procyon lotor], opossum

[Didelphis virginiana], mockingbird [Mimus polyglottus], northern cardinal [Cardinalis cardinalis])

may recolonize portions of the site where suitable habitat remains or is replanted following

construction activities. Species more dependent on forested habitat may be permanently

displaced. Clearing and grading activities may directly result in the loss of some individuals,

particularly less mobile animals such as toads, lizards, turtles, snakes, moles, voles, and mice.

The construction-related impacts of forested habitat loss to local wildlife populations cannot be

quantified because population data for species on and adjacent to the NAPS site are not
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

available. However, relatively large tracts of forest to the north, west, and south of the North

Anna ESP site are available to displaced wildlife. The approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of forested

habitat at the ESP site represents a small portion of the available undeveloped land in the site

vicinity; therefore, the impacts of construction-related mortality and temporary displacement of

wildlife are expected to be minimal. In addition, construction activities likely would not reduce

the local or regional diversity of plants or plant communities.

The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludoviciana), which appears as a threatened species on the

State list, has been observed near the North Anna ESP site, but has not been reported to nest

in the vicinity (Dominion 2006a). Site preparation and construction could result in some habitat

loss for this species, but it usually does not use forested areas, preferring forest edges and

open areas. Several other State-listed species may occasionally pass through the vicinity, but

do not rely on habitat at the North Anna ESP site.

Movement of construction workers, materials, and equipment, and the operation of construction

equipment (e.g., earth-moving equipment, portable generators, pile drivers, pneumatic

equipment, and hand tools) would generate noise. Noise from human activities can affect

wildlife by inducing physiological changes, nest or habitat abandonment, and behavioral

modifications, or it may disrupt communications required for breeding or defense (Larkin 1996). 

However, it is not unusual for wildlife to adapt to noise from human activities (Larkin 1996). 

Although short-term noise levels from construction activities could be as high as approximately

110 decibels (e.g., impulse noise during pile-driving activities), these noise levels would not

extend far beyond the boundaries of the ESP site. At a distance of 120 m (400 ft) from the

construction site, noise levels would range from approximately 60 to 80 decibels from these

activities. These noise levels are below the 80-to-85-decibel level at which birds and small

mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Thus, noise from construction

activities would not be likely to disturb wildlife beyond 120 m (400 ft) from the construction site. 

Additionally, construction of Units 3 and 4 would occur adjacent to the existing operating Units 1

and 2, where wildlife have presumably become accustomed to typical existing operating facility

noise levels of approximately 50 to 60 decibels at the NAPS security fence (Dominion 2006a). 

Therefore, noise-related impacts during construction would be minor.

The use of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling systems for Unit 3 and the dry |

cooling system for Unit 4 introduces additional structures and, therefore, the potential for avian |

collisions. Collisions with utility structures are not a biologically significant source of mortality for

thriving populations of birds with good reproductive potential (EPRI 1993). The staff previously

reviewed monitoring data concerning avian collisions at nuclear power plants with large cooling

towers and determined that the overall avian mortality is low (NRC 1996). No avian collisions

with existing structures at the NAPS site have been reported (Dominion 2006a). The number of

construction-related bird collisions with onsite structures is expected to be inconsequential.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-10 December 2006

In the ER, Dominion represented that it would implement construction mitigation measures

including instituting construction BMPs for erosion and dust control, noise abatement, proper

equipment maintenance, restricting the timing of activities to minimize impacts to resources

| such as breeding birds, and adherence to applicable permit conditions (see Appendix J). 

| Dominion delineated the wetlands and streams on the ESP site and would adhere to any permit

| conditions or mitigation requirements developed by the ACE or VDEQ. The staff reviewed the

potential impacts of constructing Units 3 and 4 on terrestrial ecological resources, including loss

of habitat, loss of wetlands, noise, dust emissions, and avian collisions. Based on NRC’s

independent review, and Dominion’s representation that it would implement mitigation

measures, the staff concludes that the overall impact of construction-related activities on

terrestrial ecological resources would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions

stated above is not warranted.

4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts

This section discusses the potential impacts to the aquatic ecology in the vicinity of the North

| Anna ESP site during construction. The information summarized here is extracted from

summaries prepared for the license renewal of NAPS Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2002) and Dominion’s

ER (Dominion 2006a). The information in these documents was reviewed by NRC staff and

| NRC consultants. 

Construction of the new cooling water intake structure and channel for Units 3 and 4 would be

| the primary source of construction impacts on the aquatic environment in the reservoir. 

Construction would involve modifications to an existing partially completed intake structure

| constructed in the 1970s for two additional power reactor units that were proposed at the time

the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 were licensed. Section 3.2.2 provides a description of the

proposed plant cooling water use and structures, including a flow diagram in Figure 3-2.

The cooling water intake structure would be approximately 21 m (70 ft) long and 21 m (70 ft)

wide and would house the trash racks, traveling screens, and intake pumps (Figures 4-1

| and 4-2). Dominion expects no major modifications to the shoreline or short intake channel. 

| The existing cofferdam would be modified (completely removed, partially removed, or tunneled

| through) to allow water access from Lake Anna. Any dredged material would be disposed of in

accordance with regulatory requirements and permit conditions.

In anticipation of construction, topsoil would be removed from the construction site footprint,

stored, rolled, and seeded, if necessary, to minimize erosion. Some disturbed areas may be

graveled, paved, or compacted to prevent erosion. These and other soil preparation activities

| would minimize impacts to the aquatic environment from earth-moving activities. For areas

| that have been temporarily disturbed during construction, Dominion represented that it would

| grade and contour the land, cover it with topsoil, and seed it with native vegetation (Dominion

2006a) (see Appendix J).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 4-1. Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the North Anna ESP Site
NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-12 December 2006 Figure 4-2. Schematic View of Pump Intake for the North Anna ESP Site

Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

A temporary loss of benthic habitat and the displacement or loss of benthic organisms would be

expected as a result of construction activities (Dominion 2006a). Fish and benthic organisms

inhabiting the intake channel and the lake near the intake channel may temporarily migrate from

the area during cofferdam modification. To minimize the impacts to benthic and fish populations |

in Lake Anna, Dominion represented that it would conduct facility construction and

environmental protection activities in accordance with State regulations and permit

requirements (Dominion 2006a) (see Appendix J). Prior to any in-water activities associated

with the construction of the intake structure, Dominion would be required to obtain a Clean |

Water Act Section 404 Permit from ACE. The permit could place restrictions on any activities |

conducted in Lake Anna during the proposed construction. These restrictions would further

lessen any impact to benthic or aquatic communities. 

Dredging could also cause increased turbidity, thus leading to a temporary reduction in primary

productivity caused by reduced light penetration and the smothering of periphyton and aquatic

macrophytes in the intake channel. After construction, primary productivity would be expected

to return to previous levels, and macrophyte recolonization would occur (Dominion 2006a). |

Dominion represented that it would install a barrier (e.g., a turbidity curtain or sheet piling), or |

some form of protection between the intake bay for Units 3 and 4 and the lake, to reduce the |

potential for sediment entrainment through the existing units to the Waste Heat Treatment |

Facility (WHTF) (Dominion 2006a) (see Appendix J). This mitigation measure is expected to |

reduce the possibility for adversely impacting primary production in the WHTF.

As a matter of practice, VDEQ would likely require that sedimentation and erosion-control BMPs

or effective storm-water management practices or both would be used to maintain water quality

and protect aquatic resources in Lake Anna and the WHTF. After construction is completed, |

benthic and aquatic organisms would be expected to repopulate the area. Prior to any

construction activities that could result in discharges from the site that might effect the aquatic |

environment, Dominion would be required to obtain a Commonwealth VPDES Construction Site |

Stormwater Permit. |

Because Dominion may use the existing discharge canal for Units 1 and 2 or the partially

completed canal originally intended for two additional units proposed at the time NAPS Units 1

and 2 were licensed, construction impacts would be minimal.

If dredging were performed to improve access to the water intake for Units 3 and 4, the dredging |

could cause heavy metals in sediment from Contrary Creek to be resuspended and potentially |

impact aquatic biota. Potential impacts would be considered in the Clean Water Act Section

404 Permit and the Section 401 Certification process. |

The staff assessed the potential impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on aquatic

ecological resources including modifying the existing partially competed intake structure,

constructing a new intake structure, and modifying the cofferdam. The applicant is expected |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-14 December 2006

to follow sedimentation and erosion control BMPs and to comply with the VDEQ

stormwater management plan as well as any restrictions or requirements contained in the

ACE Section 404 Permit. No planned construction activities would be expected to impact the

fisheries or any of the biological communities of the North Anna River. Any impacts to the

aquatic resources in Lake Anna in the vicinity of the intake channel would be minor and

temporary.

| Dominion stated that the potential for fuel or other fluid spills could exist throughout the

| construction phase and that the State agencies would likely require that controls to prevent

| contaminants from entering the aquatic system from spills would be handled according to an

| approved Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (Dominion 2006a).

The cooling towers for Units 3 and 4 could be located near an intermittent stream on the NAPS

site. If so, construction of these towers could result in temporary soil erosion and silt entry into

the stream. Renovation of an existing rail spur or the construction of a new spur also could

occur near the stream. Intermittent streams in this area are not known to provide habitat for any

important fish species.

The staff reviewed the potential impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on aquatic ecological

| resources including constructing a new intake structure and channel, the construction of a new

| discharge structure, or the modification of the existing discharge canal originally designated for

| two new units during the licensing of Units 1 and 2. The impacts are expected to be localized

| and temporary. Additionally, no planned construction activities would be expected to impact the

| fisheries or any of the biological communities of the North Anna River. Based on its

| independent review and Dominion’s representation to implement mitigation measures, the staff

concludes that the overall impact of construction-related activities on aquatic ecological

resources would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not

warranted.

4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

As described in Sections 2.7.2 and 2.7.4, no Federally listed threatened or endangered species

are known to occur at or near the North Anna ESP site except the bald eagle (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus), which is occasionally observed perching or foraging on the shore of Lake Anna. 

The closest known bald eagle nesting site is located more than 4 km (2.5 mile) from the North

Anna ESP site. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, a 0.25-mile (0.4-km) buffer zone is usually

preserved to limit construction activities (FWS and VDGIF 2000). Dominion follows the bald

eagle nesting guidelines (Dominion 2006c). Site preparation and construction for Units 3 and 4

| would have no effect on existing bald eagle nests, and are not likely to alter eagle foraging

| behavior on Lake Anna. There are no areas designated as critical habitat for threatened or

| endangered species located near the NAPS site.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River since

the early 1970s to evaluate the response of these populations to the operation of NAPS Units 1

and 2. No Federally listed fish species have been collected in any of these monitoring studies, |

nor have any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional special studies

conducted by Virginia Power biologists and affiliated researchers. Lake Anna and the North

Anna River are not in the range of any Federally listed fish species. No listed fish species are |

believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline,

Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties).

According to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) and the Virginia

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) (Division of Natural Heritage) databases,

two Federally listed mussel species occur in counties that border Lake Anna or the North Anna |

River. Neither of these species has been found in Lake Anna, the North Anna River, or other |

local streams.

The staff reviewed the potential impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on threatened and

endangered species. It is unlikely that any aquatic or terrestrial Federally listed threatened or |

endangered species exist on the North Anna ESP site. Based on its independent review, and |

because there are no records of Federally listed species, except for an occasional bald eagle, in

the proposed project area, the staff concludes that the effect of construction on threatened and

endangered species would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. The evaluation assesses impacts of

construction and demands on the surrounding region that could result from the larger workforce. 

Construction activities are assumed to last up to 5 years and need up to 5000 workers. The

evaluation also assesses the visual impacts of constructing the new plant structures.

Dominion expects the workforce to be maintained for most of the construction period. This

construction workforce would be in addition to the 850 personnel currently employed at the site |

(Dominion 2006a) and intermittent outage crews. |

4.5.1 Physical Impacts

Construction activities at the North Anna ESP site could cause temporary and localized physical |

impacts including, but not limited to, noise, odor, vehicle exhaust emissions, and fugitive dust. 

Dominion does not expect significant vibration and shock impacts during construction because

of the strict restriction or control of such activities onsite (Dominion 2006a). This section

qualitatively addresses those potential impacts that may affect people, buildings, roads, and

recreational facilities (such as Lake Anna).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-16 December 2006

4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

The NAPS site is located in an area zoned for industrial use. The site is bounded by light

industrial and commercial zones to the north and west, a recreational area (Lake Anna) to the

east, and residential housing to the south. All construction activities are expected to be located

within the NAPS site boundary (Dominion 2006a). Offsite areas supporting construction

activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, disposal sites) are assumed to be permitted and

operational. As such, impacts by those offsite facilities from constructing Units 3 and 4 at NAPS

are considered small incremental impacts associated with their normal operation.

The estimated population within 16 km (10 mi) of the North Anna ESP site is 15,500 people

(Dominion 2006a). The area surrounding the site is predominately rural and is characterized by

farmland and wooded tracts. The exception is the residential development surrounding Lake

Anna. No other significant industrial or commercial facilities exist around the site, and it is the

goal of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to preserve the rural character of Louisa County

(Louisa County 2001).

People who work or live around the NAPS site could be subjected to noise, fugitive dust, and

gaseous emissions resulting from construction activities. The staff expects that the 

construction workforce and the NAPS Unit 1 and 2 workforce would be the most impacted,

followed by individuals working or living immediately adjacent to the site. Least impacted would

be transient populations, such as temporary employees, recreational visitors to Lake Anna, and

tourists passing through the area.

Onsite impacts to construction workers would be mitigated through adequate training and use

of personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures

(Dominion 2006a). Emergency first-aid care and regular health and safety monitoring of

construction personnel could also be undertaken to reduce onsite impacts of construction

activities.

Dominion expects that individuals working onsite or living near the North Anna ESP site would

not experience physical impacts greater than those considered to be an annoyance or a

nuisance. In the event of atypical or noisy construction activities (e.g., pile driving), prior public

announcements or notifications of such activities or both would be provided. In the ER,

Dominion represented that these activities would be performed in compliance with Federal,

State, and local regulations, and the site-specific permit conditions specified in its ER (Dominion

2006a) (see Appendix J).

Fugitive dust and odors could be generated from normal construction activities. Various

mitigation measures, such as paving disturbed areas, using water to suppress dust, and

reducing material-handling activities, as stated in Section 4.4.1 of the ER, could be undertaken

| to minimize these impacts. Dominion represented that it would undertake additional mitigation

control measures to address any nuisance issues on a case-by-case basis (Dominion 2006a)

(see Appendix J).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-17 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion stated that noise and exhaust emissions from construction equipment would have no

discernable impact on the local noise level and air quality (Dominion 2006a). All equipment

would be operated in accordance with Federal, State, and local emission requirements

(Dominion 2006a).

In the ER, Dominion identified mitigation measures such as training workers, developing a

fugitive dust plan, and complying with the conditions specified in State and local permits. 

Based on NRC’s independent review and Dominion’s represented that it would undertake

mitigation measures, the staff concludes that the overall physical impacts to workers and the

local population are SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the mitigation actions stated above is

not warranted.

4.5.1.2 Buildings

Construction activities are not expected to impact any offsite structures. The building(s) most

exposed to shock and vibration from pile driving are those located on the NAPS site; however, 

Dominion has constructed the onsite buildings to safely withstand shock and vibration impacts

resulting from construction activities (Dominion 2006a).

Because the nearest offsite building is about 910 m (3000 ft) from the North Anna ESP site, the

staff concluded that the overall physical impacts to offsite buildings would be SMALL, and

mitigation is not warranted.

4.5.1.3 Roads

The transportation network in Louisa County and at the ESP site is well developed. In 2001,

most of the roadways within Louisa County were operating at acceptable levels-of-service

(LOS) (see Table 2-14 for relevant definitions of LOS). As shown in Table 2-7, the population in

Louisa County, the county most impacted by the presence of the proposed Units 3 and 4, is

projected to increase from approximately 25,627 to 29,100 or approximately 13.6 percent

between 2000 and 2010 (VEC 2003). It is expected to increase by another 15 percent between

2010 and 2020 (Louisa County 2001) even without the influx of construction workers for Units 3

and 4. While such growth would put pressure on the local road system, it is not expected to

overwhelm the system. An adequate transportation system exists, and a number of

improvements are planned in Louisa County over the next 15 years for primary and secondary

roads to maintain a level of service “C” rating (Louisa County 2001). Many of these |

improvements have been delayed because of insufficient funding for new construction (Coffey |

and Hatter in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Dominion stated that no new public roads would be required as a result of construction

activities, nor would public roads be altered (e.g., widened) as a result of construction activities. 

Dominion indicated that some minor road repairs and improvements (e.g., patching cracks and

potholes, adding turn lanes, reinforcing soft shoulders) would be necessary to enable
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-18 December 2006

equipment accessibility and minimize safety risks (Dominion 2006a). Construction site exits

onto public roads would be marked clearly with signs and maintained. Damage to public roads,

markings, or signs caused by construction activities would be repaired to pre-existing conditions

or better by Dominion (Dominion 2006a).

Dominion stated that a new access road on the NAPS site would support construction activities

and would be private and fully contained within the existing NAPS site boundary. The road

would be maintained by Virginia Power personnel as needed (Dominion 2006a). However, the

staff evaluation found that State Route (SR) 700 leading into NAPS from SR 618 to SR 652 is

| very narrow and paved (SR 700 has been upgraded from SR 652 to the plant site). It is unlikely

that this road could accept heavy construction traffic and the transportation of construction

materials without substantial upgrading. There could be congestion at shift changes at the

| intersection of SR 700 and SR 652, particularly if the construction, operating, and outage

| personnel leave and enter the plant site at the same time. In addition, construction at the North

Anna ESP site could increase traffic loads in and around Lake Anna itself. The roads around

Lake Anna are already congested.

| In the ER, Dominion represented that it would develop and implement a traffic management

| plan to increase the number of construction workers per vehicle by developing methods for

| enhancing the use of multi-person vans (see Appendix J). Dominion also represented that it

| would attempt to schedule shift changes for operating personnel, outage workers, and

| construction workers to reduce the number of vehicles on the road at any given time.

SR 618 through the town of Mineral would need to be evaluated with respect to potential

construction at the NAPS site. Also, the existing rail spur into the site could be employed to

bring in heavier equipment and construction materials, thereby reducing some of the burden on

the local roads. The rail spur may require upgrading to accommodate the heavier loads.

Dominion stated that no public roads would need to be altered because of construction of new

facilities; however, local officials believe this would need to be evaluated prior to the start of

construction. Based on the Dominion’s representation that it would develop and implement a

traffic management plan, and its independent review, the staff concludes that the overall

physical impacts to local roadways would be temporary and SMALL, and additional mitigation

beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

4.5.1.4 Aesthetics

Created in 1971, Lake Anna is the main source of cooling water for NAPS Units 1 and 2.

Significant residential development has occurred around the lake with many permanent

year-round and part-time residences being built. The lake is a major economic development

resource for Louisa and Spotsylvania counties and, to a lesser extent, Orange County. The

lake has public access and its use by the public includes recreational boating, fishing, camping,

and picnicking. Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative own, and Virginia Power

controls, the land that forms Lake Anna, both above and beneath the water surface, up to the
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The multiplier effect describes the situation in which each dollar spent on goods and services by a

construction worker becomes income to the recipient who saves some but spends the rest on

consumption. This spending becomes income to someone else, who in turn saves part and spends

the rest. The number of times the final increase in consumption exceeds the initial dollar spent is

called the “multiplier.”

December 2006 4-19 NUREG-1811, Volume I

expected high-water marks. The aquatic resources of Lake Anna are managed cooperatively

by Virginia Power and State natural resource agencies, including the VDGIF and VDCR.

From a visual perspective, the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3

and the dry cooling system for Unit 4 are expected to be approximately 46 m (150 ft) tall, which

is less than the 71 m (234 ft) PPE height value for the containment building. As these

structures reach completion, they likely will be visible above the treeline by offsite viewers. The |

current North Anna structures are already visible from Lake Anna and from other selected

locations; it is not expected that the visual impact would be appreciably different than the

current visible structures in those locations. Recreational users of Lake Anna would be able to

observe construction activities occurring on the NAPS site; however, such activities would take

place on a site zoned “industrial” and already containing NAPS Units 1 and 2. 

Because visual impacts of construction, such as water turbidity from localized dredging and

fugitive dust, would be temporary and would be controlled pursuant to State regulations and

Dominion’s representation that it would develop and implement a dust control plan (see Section

4.2.1), and the points from which they could be observed from the lake would be limited, the

staff concludes that the visual impacts of construction on Lake Anna and the surrounding area

would be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted.

4.5.2 Demography

The population in the region within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site is projected to grow at an

average annual rate of 1.75 percent between 2000 and 2020 (i.e., from 1,538,156 in 2000 to

2,160,921 in 2020), as shown in Table 2-5. The economy in the region is considered strong

and growing.

In the ER, Dominion stated that 80 percent of the peak 5000-person construction workforce for |

Units 3 and 4 would come from within the region and commute to the NAPS site. The remaining

1000 workers could commute from outside the region to the site or move into the region. Thus,

increases in population directly attributable to the construction workforce for Units 3 and 4 would

be minimal.

Some new jobs may result from the multiplier effect(a) attributable to the construction workforce. 

But these increases, when compared to the total population base in the region, would be

minimal as well.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-20 December 2006

Should a larger than expected number of construction workers decide to relocate to Louisa or

Orange Counties, there could be a noticeable, but not excessive, increase in population. Based

on 2000 census data, a 1000-person increase caused by the relocation of construction workers

would only represent a 3.9 percent increase in total population (in either county). Any multiplier

effects resulting from construction worker expenditures would most likely mean that residents of

the two counties could obtain new or higher paying jobs as a result of the increased economic

activity.

Based on its representation that (1) most construction workers would be expected to come from

within the region and (2) the number of construction workers who might relocate to the region

would be a small percentage of the larger population base, the staff concludes that the impacts

of construction on increases in population within the region would be SMALL, and mitigation is

not warranted.

4.5.3 Community Characteristics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

constructing Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. The evaluation assesses impacts of

construction and demands placed by the larger workforce on the surrounding region. 

Construction activities are assumed to last up to 5 years and employ up to 5000 workers. 

Dominion expects this size workforce to be maintained for most of the construction period

| (Dominion 2006a). This construction workforce would be in addition to the 850 personnel

currently employed at the site (Dominion 2006a).

4.5.3.1 Economy

The impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on the local and regional economy are dependent

on the region’s current and projected economy and population. The impacts on the economy of

constructing Units 3 and 4 would generally be positive within the region. The degree of this

beneficial impact would vary throughout the region, with Louisa County receiving the greater

benefit.

Some insight can be obtained on the projected economy and population by consulting county

comprehensive plans and data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The North Anna ESP, if granted,

| could be in effect for up to 20 years after approval. Safety-related construction activities would

| be authorized by a CP or a COL. Before a CP or COL is issued, limited construction activities

| and site preparation activities authorized under the site redress plan could start at any time.

Therefore, the positive economic benefits of construction could begin before the start of major

construction activities. The economic impacts, given the 20-year time horizon, are qualitatively

discussed.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-21 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion projects that up to 5000 workers would be needed to construct Units 3 and 4. The

employment of this large workforce for an extended period of time would have economic and

social impacts on the surrounding region. Louisa County would be impacted the greatest. The

impacts on Orange County are expected to be less, and the impacts become more diffuse as a

result of interacting with the larger economic base of the surrounding counties and the City of

Richmond. Impacts would affect transportation, taxes, aesthetics and recreation, housing,

public services, and education, all of which are discussed separately below. The magnitude of

the impacts depends on the percentage of the workforce that would come from within the 80-km

(50-mi) region around the NAPS site and, thus, would commute to the site. In addition, the

magnitude depends on the percentage of the workforce that might relocate to the area and

whether workers relocate to Louisa and Orange Counties or Henrico County and the City of

Richmond.

The staff assumed that about 1000 new workers would move into the region for construction

and more jobs would be created in the region because of the multiplier effect of direct

employment as a result of the expenditures of the construction workforce and Dominion in the

region for products and services.

Another consideration is whether there would be a sufficient number of construction workers to

supply the estimated 5000-person workforce and whether the available workers would have the

requisite skills, especially in light of a tight labor market as evidenced by the very low

unemployment rates in the area (see Tables 2-9 and 2-11). In its ER (Dominion 2006a),

Dominion refers to a labor study that showed there would be sufficient construction labor from

the greater Richmond area to meet its demands.

Relying on information obtained from the interviews conducted during the December 2003 site

visit, the staff confirmed that a sufficient number of construction workers would be available to

meet the expected demand (Jaksch and Scott 2005). Many construction workers commute |

from the Fredericksburg area to jobs in Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C.; for example, for

the Fredericksburg region, it is estimated that out of a workforce of 122,000, 48,300 workers

(almost 40 percent) commute from the Fredericksburg region to their jobs (Fredericksburg

2003). Also, if workers were given the opportunity to reduce or eliminate their commute by

working closer to home, they would be expected to do so. As a result, the staff concludes that

there would be few impediments to recruiting the requisite construction workforce (from the local

labor pool and with regional imports) to support the construction of Units 3 and 4 at the North

Anna ESP site.

The staff reviewed the impacts of construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 on the economy of

the region and concludes that the magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the

larger economic bases of Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond. The

economic impacts would be more noticeable for the smaller economic bases of Orange and

Louisa Counties. Based on the positive aspects of the proposed construction on the regional
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-22 December 2006

economies and the workforce availability, the staff concludes that the impacts on the economy

are mostly positive. In terms of representing adverse effects, the staff concludes that the impact

| would be SMALL BENEFICIAL to up to MODERATE BENEFICIAL for Louisa and Orange

| Counties, and mitigation is not warranted.

4.5.3.2 Transportation

Current transportation patterns, existing road traffic congestion, and planned road upgrades in

the region were examined in Section 2.8.2.2 of this EIS. This section summarizes the potential

impacts of construction on the transportation system as a whole.

The main impacts to the transportation system resulting from construction of Units 3 and 4

would be on the roads leading to and from the NAPS site. Several impacts could occur. First,

there could be the potential congestion on some of the major Federal highways and SRs

leading to the NAPS site. Second, there could be the crowding and congestion at the entrance

to NAPS during shift changes. SR 700 between SR 652 and NAPS has been upgraded to

accommodate heavier vehicles, thus reducing the potential damage to roads from heavy haul

traffic (Jaksch and Scott 2005) This impact could be alleviated by using the existing rail spur to

bring in supplies and construction equipment. The rail spur itself may need to be upgraded to

accommodate the increased traffic and weight of some of the material being hauled. However,

the transport of heavy construction equipment into the site is expected to be an occasional-torare occurrence.

Depending on the routes used, a peak workforce of 5000 construction workers commuting to

and from the NAPS site could potentially impact other parts of the transportation system. Not all

5000 workers would commute to the site at the same time, and their arrival and departure times

would most likely be spread throughout the 24-hour period in two shifts.

SR 700 (LOS B) (see Table 2-14 for relevant definitions of LOS) is the only road that leads

directly to the North Anna ESP site, and the traffic east of the intersection on SR 652 is normally

related to activities at NAPS. This would also be the case during the construction of Units 3

and 4. Construction worker access to the ESP site would be via an access road that Dominion

| would build on the north side of SR 700 on Virginia Power property. This new access road

would intersect with SR 700 several hundred yards west of the access road to the existing units

(Dominion 2006a). Dominion indicated that the potential for congestion exists at SRs 700 and

652 if construction and plant shift changes are not managed. To mitigate this potential problem,

Dominion represented that it would develop, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of

Transportation, and implement a traffic management plan as a construction mitigation measure

(see Appendix J). However, this action may not fully alleviate the congestion. Beginning at the

intersection of SR 700 and SR 652, the increased construction traffic would begin to disperse

onto local roads; however, congestion could develop at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652

during construction shift changes even if the shift changes for construction and operation are
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-23 NUREG-1811, Volume I

staggered (Dominion 2006a). Both SRs 700 and 618 into Mineral are of concern to Louisa

County officials in light of the additional vehicular traffic placed on the roads as a result of

construction (Williams and Buckler, and Coffey in Jaksch and Scott 2005). |

Accounting for the current permanent workforce of 850 employees, the planned outages that |

double the workforce (at least four outages would occur during the construction of Units 3 and 4

with workers divided over three shifts), and 5000 construction workers working two 10-hour |

shifts per day would place a total of approximately 3900 vehicles per day on the roads

(Dominion 2006a). This represents a major increase in traffic at the intersection of SRs 700 and

652, which historically has been able to handle a peak of around 2000 workers without creating

a major traffic problem on the local roads (Dominion 2006a). The potential cumulative increase

in the number of vehicles during a combined outage, construction, and permanent workforce

egress and ingress into the site would require the traffic management plan and other |

improvements to mitigate impacts. |

In its ER, Dominion identified several mitigating measures that could be undertaken to partially

mitigate congestion at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652 and on the local road systems,

particularly SR 700 between US 522 and SR 652, which is a paved country lane |

(Dominion 2006a). These mitigating actions include:

& Develop a traffic management plan for the local road system prior to construction startup

to alleviate congestion at the intersection of SRs 700 and 652.

& Encourage the use of car and van pooling to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads

leading to the plant.

& Schedule shift changes for all employees so arrivals and departures are staggered over

a 24-hour period. Dominion states it plans to do this, but recognizes the need to hand

off work from the outgoing to the incoming shift workers may complicate this scheduling

effort for construction and when an outage occurs.

& Upgrade the intersection of SRs 700 and 652 by installing turn lanes and traffic lights at

the intersection.

Another alternative would be for the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen SR 700 at

U.S. 522 near the town of Mineral. As previously mentioned, SR 700 is paved, but is not

designed to handle large amounts of vehicular traffic or the transport of heavy loads.

The Lake Anna Advisory Committee, a three-county planning group composed of

representatives from Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, already recommended that

planners in each of the three counties upgrade their local roads around Lake Anna (Lake Anna

Special Area Plan Committee 2000). The recommended upgrades would provide a
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-24 December 2006

circumferential roadway system around the lake with lanes for towed boats and bicycles. 

Should the upgrades occur, they would alleviate congestion on local roads, such as SR 608 and

U.S. 522, caused by the influx of construction workers. Many of the roads around the upper

end of Lake Anna have not been upgraded since the 1970s. Transportation choke points in the

area now are SRs 700 and 652 at the NAPS site entrance and SR 208 to Fredericksburg.

Currently, in Orange County, the transportation system is adequate; however, with new

development, the system would become constrained.

Spotsylvania County contemplates planning to widen SR 606 west of I-95 to four lanes and has

included this project in its comprehensive plan (Spotsylvania County 2002), but there are no

active plans to do so. This project, if completed, should reduce the additional impacts of a large

| number of construction workers commuting on SR 606 to the NAPS site. SR 208 currently is

being widened to just north of the historic Courthouse District. Although much of the right-of-

| way has been purchased, extending this construction south to SR 606 has been delayed. 

When completed, this new road would bypass the Courthouse District with a through road

| (Vogel and Goss 2005 in Jaksch and Scott 2005). SR 208 south is a two-lane road with a

| bridge over Lake Anna west of the North Anna ESP site. Spotsylvania County eventually plans

| to upgrade the smaller two-lane roads around Lake Anna by widening them and including

| shoulders (Dominion 2006a). In Louisa County, SR 700 from SR 652 to NAPS and parts of SR

| 652 have been upgraded and can accommodate heavy construction traffic. Part of SR 208

| south of Louisa is undergoing improvement, but there are no other active plans to improve the

| other roads near the North Anna ESP site, either immediately or in the near future, because

| most of the local roads currently carry comparatively light traffic and highway funds are limited

| (Coffey and Hatter in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

In Hanover County, U.S. 33 currently carries modest volumes of traffic and needs to be widened

(Hanover County 2003). A schedule for widening U.S. 33 has not been established because

the source of funding has not been identified. If U.S. 33 is not widened before the start of

construction of Units 3 and 4, construction workers commuting from the City of Richmond would

cause increased congestion (Dominion 2006a). The magnitude of the congestion impacts

would depend, to some extent, on the shift schedule for the construction of Units 3 and 4,

relative to the normal commuting schedule of other road users (Dominion 2006a).

The most likely commuting routes taken by the construction workers from Richmond would be

U.S. 33 through Hanover County or I-64 through northwest Henrico County and along the

southern boundary of Louisa County. I-64 west from Richmond has a LOS no worse than B

(Dominion 2006a). Dominion represented that commuting construction workers from the

greater Richmond area using SR 208 or U.S. 522 would not cause congestion problems

(Dominion 2006a). While these are well-maintained, lightly traveled, two-lane roads at present,
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-25 NUREG-1811, Volume I

adding up to 3900 vehicles per day could result in congestion. These impacts could be |

mitigated by staggering the shift changes, encouraging car pooling, etc., or by upgrading the

roads in the future.

Construction workers traveling south on I-95 from Spotsylvania County or points further north

toward Washington, D.C., would most likely take SR 606 west or the U.S. 1 exit (exit 126) to |

Route 208, and then south on SR 208 (Courthouse Road) to reach the NAPS site |

(Dominion 2006a). The SR 606/Interstate 95 interchange is already congested, generally at

LOS D or worse. I-95 is not the most direct route to the NAPS site from Richmond; therefore,

I-95 north from Richmond through Hanover County would not be as adversely impacted by

construction workers commuting from the greater Richmond area. The capacity of I-95 is

generally adequate to serve current and projected needs; however, there are periods of

extreme congestion during morning and afternoon weekday hours and during peak weekend

travel times (Hanover County 2003). There are active plans to upgrade Route 208 with a |

bypass of the Spotsylvania Courthouse area (construction to be bid in 2007). |

In conclusion, traffic congestion would be a problem if the road systems are not updated or

properly maintained. Ongoing growth in the area and recreation at Lake Anna is currently

putting pressure on the roads around Lake Anna. Increased congestion could impact the

recreational use of Lake Anna with consequential economic impacts to the area. Adding a

construction workforce to an existing permanent workforce, plus workers associated with

planned outages, would further exacerbate traffic congestion unless mitigation measures, as

described above, are undertaken. Even then, these mitigation measures may not fully alleviate

the congestion, especially on SR 700 leading to the NAPS site and at the intersection of SRs

700 and 652.

Based on its independent review and Dominion’s representation that it would develop and |

implement a traffic management plan, the staff concludes that if the planned upgrades and |

improvements to the road systems in the region are implemented, then the temporary impacts

of construction on transportation in the region would be SMALL to MODERATE, and further

mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted. 

4.5.3.3 Taxes

The type of reactor selected would impact the size of the required workforce and, thus, the

amount of taxes paid. Because reactor selection would only occur if Dominion decides to

proceed with a CP or a COL, only a qualitative assessment of the impacts to the surrounding

area and region can be provided at this time.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-26 December 2006

Tax revenues from several types of taxes would be generated by the construction of Units 3

and 4 and its workforce: income taxes on wages and salaries paid and corporate profits, sales

and use taxes on purchases, and property taxes on the physical facility itself. Each of these tax

types is briefly discussed below.

Income Taxes

Virginia has a personal income tax with a 5.75 percent top marginal rate for taxable income

exceeding $17,000. It also has a corporate income tax, which is 6 percent of corporate taxable

income. Both the corporate and personal tax return is based on the Federal return, so

generally, income that is taxable at the Federal level is also taxed by Virginia Department of

Taxation (VTAX) (2003). Therefore, construction workers and employees of Dominion would

pay taxes on their wages and salaries to Virginia, if their residence is in Virginia, as would

corporations based in or doing business in Virginia. While the exact amount of tax payable to

Virginia is not known, the absolute amount could be substantial over a 5-year construction

period, but small when considered in relation to total amount of income taxes Virginia would

collect over that period.

Sales and Use Taxes

Virginia has two types of sales and use taxes. A 4 percent tax is levied on selected food items

with 3 percent of the revenue paid to the Commonwealth and 1 percent to the local jurisdiction

where it is collected (VTAX 2000). In addition, a 4.5 percent sales tax is levied on other goods

and services sold, with the Commonwealth receiving 3.5 percent of the revenue and the local

jurisdictions receiving 1 percent (VTAX 1987). The current combined sales and use tax rate for

Louisa County is 4.5 percent: 3.5 percent of the revenue is paid to the Commonwealth and

1 percent to the local jurisdiction where it is collected (Dominion 2006a).

Virginia and the counties surrounding the North Anna ESP site would experience an increase in

the amount of sales and use taxes collected from construction materials and supplies

purchased for the project. Additional sales and use taxes would be generated by retail

expenditures of construction workers.

Dominion estimates that about half of the day-to-day expenditures during construction would

occur in the region (Dominion 2006a). At this point it is difficult to assess which counties and

local jurisdictions would be most affected by the expenditures and resultant sales and use taxes

collected. But, as with income taxes, the total amount of sales and use taxes collected, while

large, would be small when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by the

Commonwealth and local governments. The exception might be Louisa County where a larger

percentage of expenditures that generate sales and use taxes could be expected to take place. 

In sum, the taxes collected would benefit the Commonwealth and local jurisdictions.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-27 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Because the absolute amount of sales and use taxes paid to the Commonwealth and to local

entities would be small when compared to the total amount of sales and use taxes collected, the

staff concludes that the overall impacts of construction on sales and use taxes collected would

be small and beneficial. In the case of Louisa County, the impacts might be moderate and

beneficial because of the preponderance of construction activities in the county.

Property Taxes

Louisa County would benefit from additional property tax revenue associated with the

construction of Units 3 and 4. The first source of revenue would be the tangible personal

property taxes paid by contractors during construction of the additional units. This tax is based

on the value of property owned by the contractors that acquire taxable status in Louisa County

during the construction period. Currently, the county calculates the assessed value of the

property at 10 percent of the original cost, which is then taxed at the rate of $1.90 per $100 of

value (Dominion 2006a).

The second source of revenue would be from the real property taxes levied for the incremental

increase in value to the entire site from the additional units. While under construction, the tax

would be levied only on the value of the tangible personal property to become part of the

additional units. Currently, the Virginia State Corporation Commission is responsible for the

valuation of the property both during construction and following completion of the additional

units. The current tax rate for this property is $0.67 per $100 of value (Dominion 2006a).

Louisa County is expected to be the primary beneficiary of the property taxes paid by Dominion

during the construction period. For the period 1995 to 2003, property taxes paid by Dominion

for NAPS averaged about 46 percent of the total property revenue of Louisa County, and

approximately 22.5 percent of the county’s total annual budget (see Section 2.8.2.3 for a more

detailed discussion).

The staff considers the overall impacts from real and personal property taxes resulting from

construction of Units 3 and 4 to be moderate and beneficial for Louisa County. Construction

would take place at the North Anna ESP site, which is in Louisa County. Louisa County

receives the preponderance of property tax revenue collected on the existing NAPS Units 1

and 2, which represents a significant portion of the total property tax revenues collected by the

county. This would be expected to continue with the construction of Units 3 and 4.

Summary of Impacts on Taxes

The staff reviewed the income taxes generated on wages and salaries of Units 3 and 4

construction workers and Dominion corporate profits as well as sales and use taxes, most of

which represent beneficial sources of income for the Commonwealth and some of which would

benefit the counties in the region. Property tax paid by contractors and by Dominion would
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-28 December 2006

directly benefit Louisa County. The overall impacts from real and personal property taxes, on

| the region would be SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE BENEFICIAL for Louisa County, and

mitigation is not warranted.

4.5.3.4 Recreation

As discussed previously under physical impacts, construction at the North Anna ESP site would

have limited visual impacts on users of Lake Anna or from points outside the site boundaries. 

Water-quality impacts of construction of a new water intake structure would be subject to

applicable Federal and State regulations, and any noticeable effects would be transitory. 

Impacts on recreational users of Lake Anna as a result of these activities would be minimal.

Congestion on roads around Lake Anna could be exacerbated with the addition of the

construction workforce, and recreational use of Lake Anna would increase as a result of

expected increased use by the construction workforce, potentially causing temporary

overcrowding. The increased congestion on the roads and use of the lake could lessen the

recreational experience of current users of the lake and could discourage some recreational

users of the lake, particularly those users visiting from outside the region such as Northern

| Virginia. Reduction in the number of visitors from outside the area would most likely reduce

| recreational spending on items such as gas for boats, food, and lodging, resulting in negative

| economic impacts to local merchants around the lake.

Based on the expectation that the mitigative measures discussed earlier (e.g., traffic

management, road improvements, and best construction management practices to minimize

water quality impacts) are implemented, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on

the recreational use of Lake Anna would be SMALL to MODERATE, and further mitigation is not

warranted.

4.5.3.5 Housing

Impacts on housing from the construction workforce are dependent on how many workers come

from within the region (80 km [50 mi]) and, therefore, already have housing, and how many

workers might need to relocate to the area and would require housing. Dominion states in its

ER that the majority of the construction workforce would come from within the region

(Dominion 2006a). Interviews with local county and economic development officials and data

from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis support this assumption. In 2000, there were

473,033 full- and part-time workers in Henrico, Louisa, Orange and Spotsylvania Counties and

the City of Richmond, or 10.7 percent of the Virginia workforce (see Table 2-11). Of the total,

27,242 workers were employed in construction across the four counties and the City of

Richmond (see Table 2-13). This number does not include construction workers who may

commute to jobs outside the area of their residence.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-29 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion estimates it would need a construction workforce of up to 5000 over a 5-year period

to construct Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2006a). If the entire workforce is derived from within the

80-km (50-mi) radius, there would be no or little impact on housing. However, Dominion’s prior

experience on projects of similar size indicates that up to 20 percent of the workforce would

come from beyond the 80-km (50-mi) radius (Dominion 2006a). It is not unusual for

construction workers to drive 80 km (50 mi) or more from their place of residence to a job site. 

Even if 1000 or more workers came from outside the region, all 1000 would not necessarily

require housing within the region.

Nevertheless, if current trends hold into the future, it appears that adequate rental housing is

available within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of NAPS, particularly in Henrico County and the City of

Richmond (see Tables 2-18 and 2-19) and to a lesser extent Spotsylvania County, assuming

that approximately 1000 workers would come from outside the region, may need housing in the

region, and would be willing to live in Henrico or Spotsylvania Counties or the City of Richmond

and commute to the NAPS site. However, if these assumptions are not fully realized, housing

availability could be impacted, particularly in Orange and Louisa Counties where there is a

shortage of rental housing (see Table 2-19). If too many workers attempt to move into these

two counties, there would likely be an increase in rental fees. The staff concludes that impacts

to Orange and Louisa Counties could be moderate if significantly more workers than expected

locate to these counties where a shortage of rental housing currently exists. The building of a

significant number of new rental units in anticipation of construction activities at the North Anna

ESP site is not expected because of the short duration of construction. If rents increase, some

low-income populations could find it more difficult to secure rental housing.

Such upward pressures on rental fees is less likely to occur in a larger metropolitan area where

there is a greater supply of rental housing. In addition, if a number of construction workers were

to utilize modular or mobile trailer units during their period of employment, they would likely

compete with recreational users of Lake Anna for spaces at existing recreational vehicle/trailer

parks, resulting in upward pressure on the prices or rents charged for such spaces.

Increased demand for recreational vehicle/trailer spaces could lead to an increase in the

number of spaces being made available. During the construction of NAPS Units 1 and 2,

temporary recreational vehicle parks were established in Louisa to accommodate some of the

workers. Discussions with Louisa County officials indicated that they would consider

establishing such temporary recreational vehicle parks again, if needed (Lintecum and Williams

and Buckler in Jaksch and Scott 2005). The availability of adequate water and sewer services

would have to be addressed (discussed in the next section).

Because of the overall availability of housing in Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the City

of Richmond and assuming that the housing pattern follows past experience, the staff concludes

that the overall impacts of construction on housing in these areas would be SMALL, and

mitigation is not warranted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-30 December 2006

| The staff further concludes that housing impacts to Orange and Louisa Counties could be

| MODERATE if significantly more workers than expected move to these counties where a

| shortage of rental housing currently exists. Increased housing construction to meet this

| potential need is not likely because of the short duration of construction of Units 3 and 4 would

| take place.

4.5.3.6 Public Services

Water Supply and Waste Treatment Facilities

Even without the construction of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site, the water and sewer

infrastructure is now a concern in Louisa County, particularly around the I-64 corridor, in the

vicinity of Gum Springs because of current growth and demand. The county is considering a

separate system for this area. Water supply reservoirs are also a concern because a recent

drought has exacerbated a shortage in the availability of water supplies. An influx of

construction workers to the county could further exacerbate the current situation. According to

the Director of Planning and Community Development and the Director of Planning and Zoning,

| there are currently no growth restrictions in Louisa County (Williams and Buckler in Jaksch and

Scott 2005).

There were some water supply problems in Orange County during the recent drought. Also, in

the Gordonsville to town of Orange corridor, water and sewer services are near or at capacity;

therefore, any new population growth would require upgrades of both systems. Moreover, the

water and sewer systems at the eastern end of the county, where many current NAPS

employees live, are close to capacity. In the event of an influx of construction workers to the

eastern end of the county, shipping water from the west end of the county to the east end would

be a possible, albeit expensive, solution. Currently, there are no growth restrictions in Orange

| County (Livengood and Kendall in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

In its ER, Dominion stated that there are no public water or sewer systems in the vicinity of the

North Anna ESP site except those of incorporated towns, where it is unlikely that new

recreational vehicle/trailer courts would be allowed (Dominion 2006a). This would require

extending services from the incorporated areas to such facilities or locating them closer to

Henrico County and the City of Richmond, where public water and sewer systems are available.

As previously discussed, Dominion expected that 80 percent, or approximately 4000, of the

construction workers to live within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the NAPS site, with the remaining

1000 workers commuting from outside the area or moving into the area. Given the shortage of

rental units in Orange and Louisa Counties, Dominion expected that most of those workers

moving into the region would locate in the larger population centers of Henrico and Spotsylvania

Counties and the City of Richmond. Existing or planned expansions to the infrastructure would
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-31 NUREG-1811, Volume I

mitigate the impacts to Orange and Louisa Counties. However, during an interview on

December 8, 2003, officials in Orange and Louisa Counties expressed the view that the existing

water supply and sewer infrastructure are nearly at capacity (Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Because of the overall availability of water supply and treatment facilities in Henrico and

Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, the staff concludes that the overall impacts of

construction on water supply and waste treatment facilities for these areas would be small. 

These governments have either added capacity to the infrastructure recently, or are planning

additional upgrades or expansion or both. The staff further concludes that the impacts to

Orange and Louisa Counties could be moderate if significantly more workers than expected

locate in these counties where there is little available capacity in both water supply and waste

treatment facilities.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

In Orange County, there are two outpatient clinics but no hospitals. The fire departments are

made up of volunteers, and rescue services are composed of both volunteer and paid

employees. In the future, as new facilities are established, the county is considering hiring

full-time paid staff. An increase in the number of construction workers locating to the county

could put pressure on the police, fire, and medical infrastructure (Kube in Jaksch and |

Scott 2005). |

There is no hospital in the town of Louisa or in Louisa County. In Louisa County, general fire,

police, and rescue services are considered adequate to meet current needs. Louisa County

staff periodically evaluate the adequacy of services based on growth and would include growth

as a result of the construction of Units 3 and 4. It is possible that such growth would require

expansion of the police department and the fire department (currently a volunteer service) in the

town of Louisa. The fire department may have to transition to a fully paid, full-time status

(Hayfield in Jaksch and Scott 2005). |

A population increase caused by the construction workforce working at the North Anna ESP

site, with some workers potentially relocating to Louisa and Orange Counties, would require

some upgrades to existing services in these counties. In part, these needs are expected to be

offset to some degree because of the additional tax dollars available from additional taxpayers |

and economic activity (Lingo, Kube, Melton, Candeto, Williams and Buckler, Gibson, and |

Hayfield in Jaksch and Scott 2005). |

In the larger metropolitan areas of the City of Richmond and in Henrico and Spotsylvania

Counties, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be significantly affected by any new

construction workers relocating to the area.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-32 December 2006

Social Services

This section focuses on the potential impacts of construction on the social and related services

provided to disadvantaged segments of the population in Louisa and Orange Counties, and is

distinguished from issues surrounding environmental justice (discussed in Section 4.7).

Generally, construction of Units 3 and 4 at NAPS is viewed as economically beneficial to the

disadvantaged population segments served by the Department of Social Services for Louisa

and Orange Counties. Construction of the new units may enable the disadvantaged population

to improve their social and economic position by taking better-paid construction and

| non-construction jobs, potentially lessening the demand for social services by this segment of

the population. At a minimum, the expenditures of the construction workforce in the counties for

| goods and services would have a positive effect on the number of jobs that could be filled by the

| disadvantaged population (Lingo, Oswell and McLaughlin in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

There may be an initial increase in demand for social services by construction and other

workers moving to the area until they establish employment, but this is considered manageable

| (Oswell and McLaughlin in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Summary of Public Services

Based on the current availability of services and additional taxes that would affect the financial

demand for additional services, the staff concludes that the impact on the demand for public

and related services as a result of construction would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.

4.5.3.7 Education

Orange County is currently in the process of expanding its school infrastructure and, as a result,

could accommodate modest growth increases in student population. Growth is taking place in

the eastern end of the county closer to the NAPS site and Lake Anna. One middle school is

located in the eastern end of the county and, if growth continues in this area, a new elementary

school would be needed. Construction of the two proposed units at the NAPS site would

require additional investment in the public school system, particularly given the ongoing growth

in the eastern end of the county. At issue is how to accommodate any increased enrollment

resulting from construction laborers locating to the county – whether through permanent

| construction or the use of modular trailer units (Baker in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

In an interview on December 10, 2003, the Superintendent for Louisa County schools indicated

that the county schools are currently overcrowded, with enrollment growing at 2 percent a year

| (Melton in Jaksch and Scott 2005). Tax rates in the county have not been increased in 6 years;

therefore, while the schools are being maintained, there has been no new construction to
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-33 NUREG-1811, Volume I

accommodate the increased enrollment. Growth is occurring in the county as a result of its

lower taxes as compared to the surrounding counties (Louisa County has the NAPS facility in its

tax base [see Table 2-15]). Increases in student population resulting from construction workers

and their families relocating to the county would most likely be handled with modular units. 

Louisa County purchased property to build a new elementary school in 2004, and construction

is scheduled to begin in 2007 (Lintecum in Jaksch and Scott 2005). Property has also been |

purchased for a new middle school.

It is expected that a maximum of 1000 workers would establish new residences within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the NAPS site and that most of these would locate in the larger population

centers because of the existing shortage of available housing in Louisa and Orange Counties. 

Given that the workers would be scattered throughout the metropolitan region of Henrico and

Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, the effects of increased enrollment of students

as a result of their relocation on school infrastructure in those areas is expected to be minimal.

Housing is more widely available in Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

Richmond than the other counties in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. Most construction

workers are expected to already be located in these areas, and the majority of new construction

workers from outside the region would most likely to locate to these areas as well. Under these

assumptions, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on school infrastructure are

considered small in Orange County, which has expanded its school infrastructure and currently

has excess capacity. The schools in Louisa County currently are overcrowded. Property has |

been purchased for a new elementary school, with construction to begin in 2007. The county is |

planning to build new schools, which will alleviate the current crowded conditions. However, if

the numbers of construction workers locating in Louisa County is significantly greater than

suggested by previous trends, the new capacity would not be sufficient to provide services, and

the impact could rise to MODERATE.

Based on the overall availability of educational facilities in Henrico, Spotsylvania, Orange, and

Louisa Counties and the City of Richmond and assuming that the housing pattern follows past

experience, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on educational resources would

be SMALL to MODERATE, and mitigation is not warranted. |

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account

the potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The review process mandated

by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations promulgated by the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation and codified in 36 CFR Part 800. Evaluating the suitability of a potential

ESP site within the existing NAPS site for construction, operation, and decommissioning of new

power units is an undertaking that could possibly affect either known or potential historic

properties that may be located at the North Anna ESP site. Therefore, in accordance with the
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-34 December 2006

provisions of NHPA, NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties

in the area of potential effects. If no historic properties are present or affected, NRC is required

| to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer of this finding before proceeding. If it is

determined that historic properties are present, NRC is required to assess and resolve possible

adverse effects of the undertaking.

In the case of the North Anna ESP site, Dominion has indicated that construction of additional

units would involve land disturbance within a designated ESP plant construction area (currently

a mostly disturbed area), the ESP cooling tower area, and in a spoils and overflow storage area. 

Both the cooling tower area and spoils storage areas exhibit less previous ground disturbance

than the area where Units 3 and 4 would be constructed. Additionally, temporary parking,

module fabrication areas, and laydown area would involve some ground disturbance. Following

construction activities, disturbed support areas would be landscaped and replanted to match the

overall site appearance.

Dominion commissioned studies to assist in recording and protecting known cultural resource

sites, as in the case of the five historic period cemeteries located on the NAPS site. As part of

the cultural resource assessment effort, the entire NAPS site has been classified into one of

three categories, based on the potential for presently undiscovered historic properties to be

present, including recommendations for responding to inadvertent discovery and preventing

| possible adverse effects to resources (Voigt 2003). These three categories are:

& Areas with No Potential for Historic or Cultural Resources. These areas include lands

where past disturbances related to construction of the power station and appurtenant

(associated) facilities have taken place to such an extent that any once-extant cultural

resources are no longer present. No further archaeological investigations are

recommended for these areas.

& Areas with Low Potential for Historic or Cultural Resources. Lands within the ESP site

that fall into this category are those that are relatively undisturbed but that possess

characteristics that would normally indicate a low possibility for most types of cultural

resources to occur. For the most part, these lands have a degree of slope greater than

15 percent. For most of these areas, further archaeological work would not be

necessary, although there could be smaller areas within the larger zone where specific

ground conditions could require investigation.

& Areas with Moderate-to-High Potential for Historic or Cultural Resources. These areas

are classified as those that are relatively undisturbed by past activities and have a

likelihood for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites according to local models of

prehistoric and historic land-use and settlement patterning. Archaeological investigation

is recommended prior to undertaking any ground-disturbing activities in these areas.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-35 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The eastern part of the proposed project area, where proposed Units 3 and 4 are expected to |

be located, was extensively altered during ground-disturbing activities related to the original

construction of the power plant and associated facilities. Therefore, it is classified as having No

Potential for Historic and Cultural Resources (Voigt 2003). |

The western sector of the proposed project area includes the cooling tower area, spoils and

overflow storage areas, and parking and laydown areas. It includes lands that have been

designated as Low and Moderate-to-High Potential for historical and cultural resources

(Voigt 2003). |

Two known historic cemeteries are located in proximity to the proposed project area. 

Site 44LS221 is situated in a wooded area near the proposed cooling tower area. The site was

marked and avoided during original site construction activities. It would be protected by similar

measures during any future site preparation and construction activities and would not be

impacted. Site 44LS222 is located near the cooling tower area, but outside the ESP

construction boundary. This cemetery is a known site and would be avoided to prevent

construction activities from impacting the site.

As a result of recently completed consultation between NRC and VDHR, Dominion conducted |

an archaeological survey for ten individual survey areas, including approximately 6.0 acres |

(2.4 hectares) within the western sector of the North Anna ESP APE that fell into one of two |

categories: (1) acreage that has not been previously disturbed during construction of the original |

power station and (2) areas that required subsurface testing and pedestrian survey based on |

the results of the previous field inspection of the ESP APE (Voigt 2003). With the exception of |

the two previously recorded historic period cemeteries mentioned above, no artifacts, cultural |

features, or cultural deposits were identified during the field survey (Mullin 2006). |

To date, literature reviews and consultations with regional Native American tribes have not

identified any traditional cultural properties or other culturally significant resources that might

occur in the vicinity of the proposed construction area.

Based on the findings of the field survey for the ESP APE, NRC concludes that construction |

would have no adverse effect upon historic properties. The VDHR stated that if the sites are |

avoided, there would be no negative impact on the resources (VDHR 2006). Although field |

studies to date have not revealed any historic properties that would be adversely impacted, |

Dominion would include the NAPS cultural resource-specific written directions in its site-wide

Excavation and Backfill Work Procedures (North Anna Power Station NSS Work Procedure WPC01) involving an immediate stop work order should archaeological, historic, or other cultural |

resources be discovered during excavation (Dominion 2006a). The construction supervisor is

responsible for ensuring the work stoppage and for notifying the Environmental Compliance

Coordinator of an inadvertent discovery. Dominion would then consult with VDHR regarding the |

need for and types of necessary cultural resources investigations. |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines “minority” as American

Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; or Black races; or Hispanic

ethnicity (“other” may be considered a separate minority category.) The 2000 census included multiracial data (NRC 2004).

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-36 December 2006

| Based on the results of previous cultural resources field investigations at the North Anna ESP

| site and the presence of a well-managed cultural resources program at the NAPS site, which

includes the existence of written procedures to provide immediate reaction and notification in

the event of inadvertent discovery of historic and cultural resources, and its cultural resource

analysis and consultation, the staff concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural

resources would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) or low-income populations. On

August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental

justice matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040). Figures 2-6 and 2-7 (Section 2.8.4) show the

locations of minority and low-income populations around the NAPS site and within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius.

The staff identified the pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with the

construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site could affect human populations. The staff then

evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by

these impacts. In its December 2003 site audit, the staff interviewed local government officials

and the staff of social welfare agencies concerning potentially disproportionate impacts to low

| income and minority populations (Jaksch and Scott 2005). The staff found no unusual resource

dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which

the populations could be disproportionately impacted by construction of Units 3 and 4 at the

North Anna ESP site and that would result in those populations being adversely affected. In

| addition, the staff did not identify any health-related or location-dependent disproportionately

| high and adverse impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations. In addition, no

| disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income groups were identified

| during the scoping process, from comments on the DEIS or SDEIS, or from other public

| outreach activities.

Based on information provided by Dominion, and NRC’s independent review, the staff

concludes that offsite impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site to minority and

low-income populations would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-37 NUREG-1811, Volume I

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

In its ER, Dominion (2006a) indicated that the physical impacts of construction, including public

health, occupational health, and noise, would be small. The impacts were discussed

qualitatively. The area around the North Anna ESP site is predominantly rural with a population

of approximately 15,500 people within 16 km (10 mi) of the site. No significant industrial or

commercial facilities are currently located or planned in this area.

4.8.1 Public Health

Dominion indicated that individuals living near the North Anna ESP site should not experience

any physical impacts greater than those that would be considered an annoyance or nuisance. 

In the event of atypical or noisy construction activities (e.g., pile driving), prior public

announcements or notifications of these activities would be provided or both. Dominion has

stated that these activities would be performed in compliance with Federal, State, and local

regulations, and conditions specified in site-specific permits (Dominion 2006a).

Fugitive dust emissions and odors could be generated as a result of normal construction

activities. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, Dominion represented that it would develop and |

implement a dust control plan to minimize fugitive dust. Dominion indicated that noise and |

exhaust emissions from construction equipment should have no discernable impact on the local

noise level and air quality (Dominion 2006a). All equipment would be operated in accordance

with Federal, State, and local emission requirements (Dominion 2006a).

Based on Dominion’s representation that it would develop and implement measures to control |

dust during construction, the required permits and authorization, and NRC’s own independent |

review, the staff concludes that the nonradiological health impacts to the local population would

be SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

4.8.2 Occupational Health

In general, human health risks for construction workers and personnel working onsite would be

expected to be dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, asphyxiation) to |

workers engaged in activities such as construction, maintenance, and excavation. Historically, |

actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average U.S.

industrial rates. Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC |

and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards, practices, and |

procedures. Appropriate State and local statutes must also be considered when assessing the |

occupational hazards and health risks associated with construction. The staff assumes strict |

adherence to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards, practices, and procedures during

construction activities.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-38 December 2006

| Other nonradiological impacts to construction workers and personnel working onsite include

noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from construction activities. Onsite

| impacts to construction workers would be mitigated through training and using personal

protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures. Emergency first-aid

care and regular health and safety monitoring of construction personnel could also be

undertaken.

Dominion stated that atypical or noisy construction activities should be performed in compliance

with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, and conditions specified in site-specific

permits (Dominion 2006a).

Fugitive dust emissions and odors could also be generated during normal construction

activities. Various measures could be undertaken to mitigate these impacts such as paving

disturbed areas, using water to suppress dusts, and reducing material-handling activities. 

Dominion represented that it would undertake additional mitigation control measures to address

any nuisance issues on a case-by-case basis.

Dominion stated that noise and exhaust emissions from construction equipment should have no

discernable impact on the local noise level and air quality (Dominion 2006a). All equipment

would be operated in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local emission

requirements (Dominion 2006a).

Based on Dominion’s representation that it would develop and implement measures to address

nuisances during construction, the required permits and authorizations, and its own

independent review, the staff concludes that the overall nonradiological impacts to workers from

construction activities would be SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions stated

above is not warranted.

4.8.3 Noise Impacts

Large construction projects involve many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing

noise from construction activities are generally limited to worker health and safety. Federal

regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR Part 1910 and 40 CFR Part 204. 

The regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally govern the noise levels of air compressors, while

the regulations in 29 CFR 1910.95 deal with noise exposure in the construction environment. 

| The Commonwealth of Virginia does not have noise regulations or guidelines.

| The North Anna ESP site is zoned industrial. Louisa County has a noise ordinance that limits

| daytime noise levels in industrial zones to 75 dBA and nighttime noise levels to 65 dBA (Louisa

| County 2006). Spotsylvania County has only a general prohibition of “Unreasonably loud,

| disturbing and unnecessary noise.” Noise customarily emitted from construction activities and

| industrial establishments is exempt from this prohibition during daytime hours (6:00 a.m. to

| 10:00 p.m.) (Spotsylvania County 2006).
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-39 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Activities associated with construction of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site would

generate noise levels typical of larger construction projects. Noise levels for common

construction activities are typically about 90 decibels at a distance of 3.5 m (10 ft). At 35 m

(100 ft), the noise level would be about 70 decibels, and at a distance of 350 m (1000 ft), the

noise level would be 50 decibels. A 10-decibel decrease in noise level is generally perceived as

a halving the loudness. A few activities (e.g., jack hammers) have noise levels of about

110 decibels.

Many of the construction activities at the North Anna ESP site would take place near the

existing Units 1 and 2. It is unlikely that noise from the location would be discernible at the

exclusion area boundary or offsite. Construction activities may take place within 21 m (70 ft) of

the western edge of the exclusion area boundary. The land to the west of the site is zoned for

light industrial use; however, no uses for it have been established.

The following mitigation measures could be undertaken by Dominion, if necessary to reduce the

noise during construction of Units 3 and 4:

& routinely inspecting and maintaining equipment to include noise aspects

& restricting loud noise-related activities, such as pile driving or blasting, to daylight hours

& developing and implementing a plan to manage and respond to citizen concerns about

noise.

Considering the temporary nature of construction activities and the remote location of the North

Anna ESP site, the staff concludes that the noise impacts from construction would be SMALL,

and additional mitigation beyond the action stated above is not warranted.

4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The staff evaluated health impacts to the public and construction workers. It is expected that |

health risks to workers would be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the average |

U.S. industrial rates. |

Based on Dominion’s representation that it would operate the construction equipment within |

local noise and air quality limits and implement dust and nuisance control plans, and its own |

independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction on nonradiological

health would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the above actions is not warranted.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-40 December 2006

4.9 Radiological Health Impacts

The sources of radiation exposure to site preparation workers (i.e., construction workers)

include direct radiation exposure, exposure from gaseous radioactive effluents, and exposure

from liquid radioactive waste discharges from routine operations at NAPS Units 1 and 2 during

the site preparation and construction phase of additional units. Dominion (2006a) noted that all

major construction activities are expected to occur outside of the NAPS Units 1 and 2 protected

area boundary but inside the restricted site boundary (exclusion area as shown in Figure 2-1).

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

Dominion identified two principal sources of direct radiation exposure from NAPS Units 1 and 2. 

These sources are (1) the boron recovery tank and (2) the low-level contaminated storage area,

both located directly south of the two operating units. Another source of direct radiation is the

independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), which is located south of the construction

site. The staff did not identify any additional sources of direct radiation.

Dominion estimated direct radiation exposure to site preparation workers by using

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) that measure direct radiation levels at locations in and

around the NAPS protected area and by dose rate surveys (Dominion 2006a). The TLDs used

for this evaluation are the same ones used for evaluating public dose in controlled areas; the

TLDs were read quarterly. The TLD located closest to the proposed site for Units 3 and 4 at the

protected area boundary was on the west protected area fence for Units 1 and 2. Dominion

used the measurements from this TLD to estimate one component (from the boron recovery

tank and the low-level contaminated storage area) of the direct radiation exposure to site

preparation workers. The maximum measured dose rate for the 7-year period from 1996

through 2002 at this TLD location was 0.74 mSv/yr (74 mrem/yr) and the average annual dose

rate for all the TLD readings at this location for the 7-year period was 0.56 mSv/yr (56 mrem/yr)

(these dose rates are for continuous exposure at the TLD location). The staff assumes that

workers involved in site preparations would be west of this protected area fence, several

hundred feet farther away from the operating Units 1 and 2 than where the TLDs were located. 

Using the average annual TLD reading of 0.56 mSv/yr (56 mrem/yr) over the 7-year period, and

adjusting the TLD exposure time to 2080 hr/yr, which is the estimated maximum time a worker

would be exposed, Dominion calculated an annual worker whole body or total effective dose

equivalent (TEDE) dose of 0.13 mSv/yr (13 mrem/yr) from this component of direct radiation. 

Adjustments for background dose were not made for the assessment of dose to the site

preparation workers.

The TLD reading at the west protected area fence of the existing Units 1 and 2 included the

ISFSI dose contribution based on the ISFSI loading at the time of the measurements. However,

to provide a more conservative dose estimate, Dominion calculated an additional dose
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-41 NUREG-1811, Volume I

component to the site preparation workers assuming a fully loaded ISFSI. Dominion calculated

this additional dose to be 4.7 x 10-5 mSv/hr (4.7 x 10-3 mrem/hr). With an occupancy rate of

2080 hr/yr, this is equivalent to an annual worker whole body or TEDE dose of 9.8 x 10-2 mSv/yr

(9.8 mrem/yr). When this ISFSI dose of 9.8 x 10-2 mSv/yr (9.8 mrem/yr) is added to the

estimated dose from the boron recovery tank and the contaminated storage area of 0.13 mSv/yr

(13 mrem/yr), Dominion calculated a total dose to the site preparation workers of 0.23 mSv/yr

(23 mrem/yr).

The staff reviewed the potential locations for exposures and recent records of dose rates, the

locations of the TLDs, the method to estimate doses to members of the public in controlled

areas, and other recent data. The staff determined that the method used to estimate the dose

from direct exposure was acceptable.

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

Dominion used data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 (VEPCo 2002) to |

estimate the whole body dose and dose to the critical organ for a site preparation worker from

gaseous effluents. Dominion stated that the annual releases for 2001 are typical for the existing

units (Dominion 2006a). For the year 2001, Dominion calculated the whole body dose of

4.6 x 10-4 mSv/yr (4.6 x 10-2 mrem/yr) and 1.5 x 10-3 mSv/yr (1.5 x 10-1 mrem/yr) to the critical

organ for the maximally exposed member of the public from release of gaseous effluents from

the operating units. These doses are based on continuous occupancy; therefore, for estimating

doses to the site preparation worker, the doses were adjusted to an occupational exposure time

of 2080 hr/yr. These doses are calculated for the maximally exposed member of the public

located at or beyond the plant site boundary.

Because the workers involved in site preparation are located inside the plant boundary and are,

therefore, closer to the effluent release point, Dominion assumed that the gaseous effluent dose

to these workers would be higher than the dose to the maximally exposed member of the public

at or beyond the site boundary. To arrive at a factor of how much larger these doses would be,

Dominion took a ratio of the atmospheric dispersion factors (Ȥ/Q) for routine releases from the

existing units at the exclusion distance and at a point 0.40 km (0.25 mi) to the west of the

existing units (approximately the same distance from the existing units as the construction site).

On this basis, Dominion conservatively assumed that the gaseous effluent dose to the site

preparation worker would be no more than 10 times higher than the dose to the maximally

exposed member of the public. Therefore, Dominion multiplied the gaseous effluent dose to the

maximally exposed member of the public by a factor of 10 to arrive at the estimated dose to the

site preparation worker from gaseous effluents. The resulting doses are 1.1 x 10-3 mSv/yr

(1.1 x 10-1 mrem/yr) for the whole body dose and 3.5 x 10-3 mSv/yr (3.5 x 10-1 mrem/yr) for the
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-42 December 2006

critical organ. From International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 30

(ICRP 1979), applying a weighting factor of 0.3 to the organ dose and adding the whole body

dose provided a TEDE of 2.1 x 10-3 mSv/yr (2.1 x 10-1 mrem/yr) for the site preparation worker

from gaseous effluents (ICRP 1979).

The staff reviewed the data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 (VEPCo 2002)

and for more recent years and determined that the method to estimate dose from gaseous

effluents was acceptable.

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

Dominion used data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 to estimate the whole

body dose and dose to the critical organ for a site preparation worker from liquid effluents

(Dominion 2006a). Dominion stated that the annual releases for 2001 are representative of the

typical releases for the existing units. For the year 2001, Dominion calculated a whole body

dose of 3.1 x 10-3 mSv/yr (3.1 x 10-1 mrem/yr) and 3.5 x 10-3 mSv/yr (3.5 x 10-1 mrem/yr) to the

critical organ for the maximally exposed member of the public from release of liquid effluents

from the operating units. These doses are based on continuous occupancy; therefore, for

estimating doses to the site preparation worker, the doses were adjusted to an occupational

exposure time of 2080 hr/yr. Dominion also multiplied this dose by a factor of 10 to account for

uncertainty regarding the location of the worker compared to the maximally exposed member of

the public. The resulting doses are 7.3 x 10-3 mSv/yr (7.3 x 10 -1 mrem/yr) for the whole body

dose and 8.4 x 10-3 mSv/yr (8.4 x 10-1 mrem/yr) for the critical organ. From ICRP Publication

30, applying a weighting factor of 0.3 to the organ dose and adding the whole body dose

provided a TEDE of 9.8 x 10-3 mSv/yr (9.8 x 10-1 mrem/yr) for the site preparation worker from

liquid effluents (ICRP 1979).

The staff reviewed the data from the Annual Radioactive Effluent Report for 2001 and for more

recent years and determined that the method to estimate dose from liquid effluents was

acceptable.

4.9.4 Total Dose to the Site Preparation Workers

To obtain the dose per year to the site preparation workers, Dominion added the annual dose

from the three pathways – direct radiation, gaseous effluents, and liquid effluents – and

multiplied the total by the estimated number of workers (5000) to determine an estimated

maximum annual collective dose to site preparation workers of 1.20 person-Sv

| (120 person-rem). This compares to the approximately 15 person-Sv (1500 person-rem) the

| site preparation workers would receive from natural background radiation (i.e., 5000 workers

| times 300 mrem/yr [NCRP 1987]).

In summary, Dominion estimated an annual dose to a site preparation worker of 0.24 mSv

(24 mrem). The dose is primarily from the direct exposure pathway, with the doses from liquid
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-43 NUREG-1811, Volume I

and gaseous effluents being small. This estimate is well within both the dose limits to individual

members of the public found in 10 CFR 20.1301 and occupational dose limits to workers found

in 10 CFR 20.1201. The annual dose limit to an individual member of the public is 1 mSv

(100 mrem) TEDE. The annual occupational dose limit to workers is 0.05 Sv (5 rems) TEDE.

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

Based on the Dominion estimate of dose to site preparation workers and NRC’s independent

review, the staff found the doses to be well within NRC exposure limits designed to protect the

public health, even if workers exceed the 2080 hrs/yr occupancy factor, and concludes that the

impacts of radiological exposures to site preparation workers would be SMALL, and mitigation is

not warranted.

4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

Construction Activities

In its evaluation of environmental impacts during construction activities for the proposed new

North Anna units, the staff relied on Dominion’s compliance with the following regulatory

requirements:

& Compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations

intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste

management, ground-disturbing activities including erosion and sediment control and |

threatened and endangered species, air emissions, noise control, storm-water |

management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management). This |

includes testing any soil suspected of contamination from radioactive waste or other |

contaminants |

& Compliance with applicable requirements of existing permits and licenses (e.g., VPDES

permit, operating license) for the existing units and other permits or licenses required for

construction of the new units (for example, Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit, VDEQ

wetlands permit)

& A permit from VDEQ and compliance with county ordinances if burning of construction

materials is required

& A VPDES permit related to accidental spills and storm-water runoff |

In the ER, Dominion tabulated its representation of “feasible and adequate measures/controls” |

in Table 4.6-1, “Summary of Impacts and Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts |

During Construction” (Dominion 2006a). This tabulation includes measures and controls that |

Dominion would be required to implement by applicable Federal, Commonwealth, local statutes |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-44 December 2006

| and regulations, and permit requirements, terms, and conditions. The staff relied on these

| measures and controls in its evaluation of environmental impacts during construction of the

| proposed new units and th North Anna ESP site; for those issues where Dominion indicated that

| a study, process, or capability “would be considered,” the staff relied upon the study, process,

| or capability as implemented or conducted. 

| In addition to the foregoing measures and controls tabulated in the ER Table 4.6-1, the staff

| also relied on the following general plans or specific mitigation measures:

| & Incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts (ER Section 4.6)

& Avoid watercourses and wetlands to the extent possible during any construction

(ER Sections 4.1.1.6.2, 4.3.1.2)

& Develop a dust control plan to mitigate the impacts of emissions from construction

activities (ER Section 4.4.1.4)

& Develop a construction traffic management plan to include several traffic mitigating

measures (ER Section 4.4.2.2.1)

| & Mitigate potential impacts for materials delivery. Methods include (1) avoiding routes

| that could adversely affect sensitive areas (e.g., housing, hospitals, schools, retirement

| communities, businesses) to the extent possible and (2) restricting delivery times

| activities to daylight hours. (ER Section 4.4.1.1.3)

|

| & Repair any damage to public roads, markings, or signs caused by construction activities

| to pre-existing condition or better (ER Section 4.4.1.1.3)

|

| & Build and maintain new access road on the NAPS site to support construction activities

| (by Virginia Power personnel as needed). (ER Section 4.4.1.1.3)

& Minimize emissions from heavy construction equipment by scheduled equipment

maintenance procedures (ER Section 4.3.1.2)

& Prevent contaminants from entering the aquatic system through use of a Spill Prevention

Control and Countermeasure Plan (ER Section 4.3.2)

| & Manage nuisances and concerns from adjacent residents, business owners, or

| landowners on a case-by-case basis through a Dominion prepared concern resolution

| process (ER Section 4.4.1)
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-45 NUREG-1811, Volume I

& Coordinate with the VDHR regarding the potential presence of historic and cultural

resources within planned disturbed areas and notify VDHR in the event of any

unanticipated discovery (ER Section 4.1.3)

In addition, the staff relied upon the following Dominion statements: 

& Dominion stated it could construct/modify the intake structure in accordance with State

and permit regulations. It noted that it may install a barrier between the ESP site and the

lake to reduce the potential for silt and soil entrainment through the existing units to the

WHTF (ER Section 4.3.2)

& Dominion stated it could institute controls to minimize potential noise impacts including

inspection and maintenance of equipment and restrict noise-related activities to daylight

hours. (ER Section 4.4.1.3) |

& Dominion stated it would provide safety training and personal protective equipment to

construction workers to minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures; provide

regular health and safety monitoring (ER Section 4.4.1.1.1)

& Dominion stated it would follow construction best management practices for erosion

control in Lake Anna, the WHTF, and potentially impacted streams (ER Section 4.2.1).

4.11 Site Redress Plan

Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities

In its ESP application, Dominion requested that it be allowed to conduct site preparation

activities at the North Anna ESP site as authorized by 10 CFR 52.17(c) and 10 CFR 52.25, and

enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). In its application, as provided by 10 CFR 52.17(c), |

Dominion included a site redress plan that would be implemented if site preparation activities

were performed, but the ESP expired before the issuance of a CP or COL by the NRC

(Dominion 2006b). The objective of the site redress plan is to ensure that the ESP site would

be returned to an environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable condition suitable for

non-nuclear uses consistent with Louisa County zoning requirements. Under the site redress

plan, locations that are permanently disturbed would be stabilized and contoured to conform

with surrounding areas. Revegetation of disturbed lands would be conducted.

In a letter dated October 6, 2005, Dominion requested that the ESP be conditioned to prohibit |

activities that could result in a discharge to navigable waters until a Section 401 Certification is |

either obtained or waived by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Dominion 2005). In a letter dated |

June 16, 2006, the Commonwealth agreed on the need for this permit condition (VDEQ 2006). |

The staff included this as a recommended permit condition in Table J-3. |
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-46 December 2006

| In its site redress plan, Dominion committed to:

& Create a record of the existing site conditions within the proposed ESP site by way of

photographs, surveys, listings of existing facilities and structures, or other

documentation. This record would establish the baseline for redressing the site in the

event that ESP site preparation activities were undertaken, but the ESP was not

| referenced in a CP or COL while the ESP remained valid.

& Obtain Commonwealth and local permits and authorizations necessary to perform the

site preparation activities.

& Obtain the appropriate regulatory approvals of an agreement between Virginia Power

and Dominion. This agreement would authorize Dominion to conduct the

pre-construction activities subject to Dominion’s obligation to perform such site

redress as may be required to comply with the Site Redress Plan approved by the NRC.

& Provide to the NRC a guaranty by Dominion Resources, Inc. of $10 million as a financial

assurance for Dominion’s obligation to comply with the Site Redress Plan. Dominion is

an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc.

When these prerequisites have been achieved, planned site preparation and preliminary

construction activities may proceed and may include none, some, or all of the activities

discussed below pursuant to 10 CFR 52.25 and 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). If the ESP is approved,

Dominion may perform the following site preparation activities for the proposed Units 3 and 4 at

the North Anna ESP site:

& Prepare the site for construction of the facilities (including such activities as clearing,

grading, construction of temporary access roads, and preparation of borrow areas

& Install temporary construction support facilities (including items such as warehouses,

shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and

construction support buildings)

& Excavate for facility structures

& Construct service facilities (including items such as roadways, paving, railroad spurs,

fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, switchyard interconnects, and sanitary

sewage treatment facilities)
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-47 NUREG-1811, Volume I

& Construct structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the

consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and

safety of the public, including but not limited to:

 - cooling towers

 - intake and discharge structures

 - circulating water lines

 - fire protection equipment

 - switchyard and onsite interconnections

 - microwave towers

 - underground utilities.

The environmental impacts of site preparation activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) are

bounded by environmental impacts for construction of the entire facility. In many cases, the

impacts of both the site preparation activities and construction may be similar, but the impacts

resulting solely from site preparation activities would be of a shorter duration. In the preceding

sections in this chapter, the staff presented impacts of construction that bound the impacts of

site preparation. Should the ESP expire before an application for a CP or COL referencing the

ESP is received under 10 CFR 52, Subpart C, and site preparation and preliminary construction

activities have occurred, then the site redress plan would be implemented to return the ESP site

to an environmentally stable and aesthetically acceptable condition suitable for future alternative

use (presumably non-nuclear) that conforms with local zoning laws, thus minimizing the longterm environmental impacts.

Site Redress Plan

Dominion provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP application in the event that site

preparation and preliminary construction work did not proceed to full construction

(Dominion 2006b). The plan identifies the overall objective as providing “an environmentally

stable, self-draining, self-maintaining, aesthetically acceptable site that can be left unattended.” 

In its plan, Dominion states that redress activities would reflect applicable land use and zoning

requirements and identifies the following general redress activities for consideration:

& recontouring, revegetation, and replanting of cleared areas

& restoration of sensitive water resource features disturbed for intake and/or discharge

structures

& habitat replacement
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-48 December 2006

& use of constructed facilities for alternative purposes, or their removal

& remediation of contamination resulting from site preparation and preliminary construction

or site redress activities.

The staff reviewed the list of allowed site preparation and preliminary construction activities in

the event that the ESP is granted for the North Anna site and reviewed the full site redress plan

submitted by Dominion. As a result of its own independent review, the staff, in accordance with

| 10 CFR 52.25(a), concludes that the potential site preparation and preliminary construction

activities described in Dominion’s site redress plan would not result in any significant adverse

| environmental impacts that could not be redressed. In addition, consistent with

| 10 CFR 52.25(a), the staff recommended the inclusion of the site redress plan as an ESP

| condition in Table J-3.

4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts

Impact level categories denoted in Table 4-1 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE were

assigned to each resource area based on the staff’s evaluation and conclusions regarding

expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. A brief statement explains the basis for the

impact level. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from Dominion for the local

economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community, and are noted as such.

Table 4-1. Characterization of Impacts from Construction of the Closed-Cycle Cooling System

for Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP Site

Category Comments Impact Level

Land-use impacts --

 The site and vicinity Construction activities would take place within

existing site boundaries.

SMALL

 Transmission line rights-of-way No new transmission line rights-of-way would be

needed.

SMALL

Air quality impacts Construction activities would be conducted in

accordance with applicable Virginia

administrative codes, and dust and emissions

would be minimized through a dust control plan.

SMALL
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-49 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 4-1. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

Water-related impacts --

 Hydrological alterations Impacts would be localized and temporary. 

Construction activities would be conducted in

accordance with applicable Virginia

administrative codes and ACE permit processes;

hydrological impacts would be minimized though

application of best management practices.

SMALL

 Water use Minimal water usage during construction. SMALL

 Water quality Construction would be conducted using best

management practices to control spills and storm

water runoff.

SMALL

Ecological impacts --

 Terrestrial ecosystems No important terrestrial species would be

affected by construction at the NAPS site.

SMALL

 Aquatic ecosystems Construction impacts to benthic habitats would

be temporary.

SMALL

 Threatened and endangered

 species

There are no Federally listed species in the

vicinity.

SMALL

Socioeconomic impacts --

 Physical impacts

 Workers/local public Construction takes place within existing plant

boundaries, so impacts to the public would be

minimal. Impacts to workers would be mitigated

with training and protective equipment.

SMALL

 Buildings Construction would not affect any offsite

buildings, and onsite buildings were constructed

to withstand vibration from construction activities.

SMALL

 Roads Growth would put pressure on local road

systems, but traffic control and management

measures would protect any local roads during

construction.

SMALL

 Aesthetics Construction activities would be temporary, and

observation points would be limited because of

site location.

SMALL

 Demography Percentage of construction workers relocating to

the region would be small. Most would already

live within the region.

SMALL

 Community characteristics
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-50 December 2006

Table 4-1. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

 Economy Economic impacts of construction overall are

beneficial to local economies, in this case

ranging from small to moderately beneficial.

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

 Transportation Planned upgrades and traffic management plans

would reduce temporary construction

transportation impacts. Impacts could be

moderate in some areas without planned

upgrades.

SMALL to

MODERATE

| Taxes

|

|

|

Depends on residence location; generally,

impacts are beneficial, especially for property

taxes and employment, ranging from small to

moderate (Louisa County).

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

| MODERATE

| BENEFICIAL

 Recreation Visual impacts of construction would be limited

and temporary. Recreational use of Lake Anna

would be expected to increase, and traffic

mitigation would keep impacts small. Impacts

could be moderate if mitigation measures are not

undertaken.

SMALL to

MODERATE

 Housing Adequate housing is available in Henrico and

Spotsylvania Counties and in the City of

Richmond to handle construction workers. If

more construction workers than expected locate

in Orange and Louisa Counties, the impact could

be moderate.

SMALL to

MODERATE

 Public services Public services are adequate for any temporary

influx of workers resulting from construction at

the NAPS site.

SMALL

| Education If no additional school capacity is added, then the

impact in Louisa County could be moderate. If

Louisa County builds new schools to

accommodate the temporary influx of

construction workers, then all counties would

have room for additional students. 

SMALL to

| MODERATE

Historic and cultural resources Most of the proposed construction area is

previously disturbed, and Dominion has a wellmanaged cultural resource program in place at

NAPS.

SMALL

Environmental justice No unusual resource dependencies in the area. SMALL
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-1. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

December 2006 4-51 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Nonradiological health impacts Emission controls and remote location of the

NAPS site would keep nonradiological health

impact small.

SMALL

Radiological health impacts Exposures to site preparation workers would be

below annual occupational and public dose

limits.

SMALL

4.13 References

Note: Because the web pages cited in this document may become unavailable, the staff has |

entered the appropriate pages into ADAMS. The accession number of the package containing |

the websites used as references in Chapter 4 of the North Anna ESP EIS is ML051150091. |

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.”

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade,

Part 930, “Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.”

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, “Occupational Safety and

Health Standards,” Subpart G, “Occupational Health and Environmental Control.”

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, |

“EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” |

40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204,

“Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment.”
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-52 December 2006

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004.

Clean Water Act (CWA) (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 

33 USC 1251, et seq.

| Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005. Letter Response to Request for

| Additional Information dated July 20, 2005. Glen Allen, Virginia. October 6, 2005. 

| Accession No. ML052790657.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

| Application - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. North Anna Early Site Permit

| Application - Part 4 - Programs and Plans. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006c. Letter to the U.S. Army Corps of

| Engineers regarding confirmation of wetlands delineation. September 6, 2006, Glen Allen,

| Virginia. Accession No. ML062760080.

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006d. E-mail from T. Banks (Dominion) to

| J. Cushing (NRC) regarding eagle management guidelines. November 6, 2006.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility

Structures. International Workshop. EPRI TR-103268. EPRI, Palo Alto, California.

Fredericksburg Regional Alliance (Fredericksburg). 2003. 2003 Fredericksburg Regional

Commuter/Labor Study. Prepared for The Fredericksburgh Regional Alliance. Prepared by

S. S. Fuller and J. C. McClain. The Center for Regional Analysis, School of Public Policy. 

George Mason University. Fairfax, Virginia.

Golden, J., R. P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P. N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact

Data Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hanover County. 2003. Hanover County Comprehensive Plan - Vision 2022. Transportation

(Section 4), adopted June 2003. Accessed at

http://www.co.hanover.va.us/planning/coexsum.htm on March 24, 2004.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1979. Limits for Intakes of

| Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 30, Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-53 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Jaksch, J. and M. Scott. 2005. North Anna ESP Site Audit Trip Report – Socioeconomic |

12-8-2003 through 12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2004, 2-26-2004 |

through 9-29-2004, and 7-11-2005 through 7-15-2005. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- |

rm/adams.html. Accession No. ML052170374. |

Lake Anna Special Area Plan Committee. 2000. Lake Anna Special Plan. Committee

appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, Virginia.

Larkin, R. P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. USACERL

Technical Report 96/21. U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Lab. Champaign,

Illinois. Accessed at http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/ noise_and_wildlife.txt on

September 21, 2004 

Louisa County (Virginia). 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia, Comprehensive Plan.

September 4, 2001.

Louisa County. 2006. Code of Ordinances County of Louisa, Virginia. “Chapter 51 Noise.” 

Accessed at http://library2.municode.com/mcc/DocView/12480/1/64 on October 27, 2006.

Mullin, J. 2006. Archaeological Survey, Dominion Early Site Permit Project, North Anna Power |

Station, Louisa County, Virginia. Report from Louis Berger Group to Dominion Resources |

Services. |

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987. Ionizing Radiation |

Exposure of the Population of the United States. Report No. 93. Bethesda, Maryland. |

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

Spotsylvania County. 2002. Spotsylvania County Approved 2002 Comprehensive Plan.

February 12, 2002. Accessed at 

http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/departments/planning/index.cfm?doc_id=233 on March 24, 2004. 

Spotsylvania County. 2006. Code of Ordinances County of Spotsylvania, Virginia. “Chapter 14

Offenses-Miscellaneous.” Accessed at http://library2.municode.com/mcc/DocView/12105/1/109

on October 27, 2006.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). 2006. Letter from B.F. Williams (ACE) to K. Roller

(Dominion) verifying accuracy of wetlands delineation. September 7, 2006. |

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 and 2 and the Construction of Units 3

and 4, North Anna Power Station. Washington, D.C.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 4-54 December 2006

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS and

VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Accessed at

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf on March 23, 2004.

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

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan: 

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555. 

Vol. 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Supplement 7 Regarding North Anna Power Station,

Units 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations

| Office Instruction Change Notice. LIC-203, Revision 1, Procedural Guidance for Preparing

| Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, May 24, 2004,

| Appendix D, Environmental Justice Guidance and Flow Chart, Washington, D.C.

Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 9 VAC 5-50 (Visible and Fugitive Dust Emissions).

Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 9 VAC 5-40-5680 (Emission Standards from Mobile

Sources – Vehicles).

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for

North Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna

River. Virginia Power Corporate Technical Assessment, Water Quality Department, Richmond,

Virginia.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004. Letter from Ellie L. Irons,

Program Manager, VDEQ, to Ms. Pamela F. Faggert, Dominion, dated February 10, 2004,

regarding request for Federal Consistency Certification under the Coastal Zone

Management Act.

| Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2006. Letter from J.A. Steers, Regional

| Director, VDEQ, Northern Regional Office, to Jack Cushing, NRC, dated June 16, 2006,

| regarding Section 401 Certification under the Clean Water Act.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). 2006. Letter from R.W. Kirchen (VDHR) to

J. Cushing (NRC) regarding the 2006 archeological survey at the North Anna ESP site,

October 20, 2006.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 4-55 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Virginia Department of Taxation (VTAX). 1987. 41⁄2% Virginia Sales Tax Table for Combined

State Tax at the Rate of 3.5 % and Local Tax at the Rate of 1%. For Use on and After

January 1, 1987. Accessed at

http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl45xx12_00.pdf on March 17, 2004.

Virginia Department of Taxation (VTAX). 2000. 4% Virginia Sales Tax Table. To Be Used For

Qualifying Food Effective 1/1/2000 for Combined State Tax at the Rate of 3% and Local Tax at

the Rate of 1%. Accessed at http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl40xx1_00.pdf

on March 17, 2004.

Virginia Department of Taxation (VTAX). 2003. Tax Rate Table. Accessed at

http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/taxtable.pdf on March 17, 2004.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report. (January 1, 2001 Through December 31, 2001). Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

Report for the North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. 

Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). 2003. VEC Final Local Population Projections –

2010. Accessed at http://www.vec.state.va.us/pdf/pop_projs.pdf on July 13, 2004.

Voigt, E. 2003. Field Inspection, Early Site Permit (ESP) Project, North Anna Power Station, |

Louisa County, Virginia. Letter report from Louis Berger Group to Dominion Resources |

Services. |
December 2006 5-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.0 Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

This chapter examines environmental issues associated with operation of the proposed Units 3

and 4 at the North Anna ESP site, for a 40-year period as described in the early site permit

(ESP) application submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). As part of this

application, Dominion submitted an Environmental Report (ER) that discusses the environmental impacts of station operation (Dominion 2006a). The ER provided the plant parameter

envelope (PPE) as the basis for the environmental review.

This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.11 discuss the potential

operational impacts on land use, meteorology and air quality, water, terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, environmental justice,

nonradiological and radiological health effects, postulated accidents, and applicable measures

and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station operation during the 40-year

operating period. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51,

impacts have been analyzed, and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL,

MODERATE or LARGE) has been assigned to each analysis. Appendix J was added to this |

Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) and includes representations made by |

Dominion that the staff relied on during the preparations of the EIS. With regard to the |

environmental impacts associated with operation of proposed Units 3 and 4, Dominion made a |

number of representations in its application. The staff’s determination of significance levels is |

based on the assumption that the mitigation measures identified in the ER or activities planned |

by various Commonwealth and county governments, such as infrastructure upgrades, as |

discussed throughout this chapter are implemented. As listed in Appendix J, the staff relied on |

Dominion’s representations and staff-developed assumptions in assessing the environmental |

impacts associated with operation of the units. As such, fulfillment of these representations and |

assumptions provide part of the basis for the final impact assessment. Should a construction |

permit (CP) or combined construction permit and operating license (COL) applicant reference |

the ESP, and the staff ultimately determines that a representation of assumption has not been |

satisfied at the CP/COL stage, that information would be considered new, and potentially |

significant, and the affected impact area could be subject to re-examination. Failure to |

implement these upgrades may result in a change in significance level. Possible mitigation of |

adverse impacts is also presented, where appropriate. A summary of these impacts is

presented in Section 5.12. The references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 5.13. The

technical analyses in this chapter support the results, conclusions, and recommendations in

Chapters 9 and 10.

5.1 Land-Use Impacts

Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 contain information regarding land-use impacts associated with

operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. Section 5.1.1 discusses
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-2 December 2006

land-use impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 discusses land-use

impacts with respect to transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas. 

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

Some offsite land-use changes can be expected as a result of operational activities. Possible

changes include the conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments

(e.g., apartment buildings, single family condominiums and homes, and manufactured home

parks) and retail development to serve plant workers. Property tax revenue from the new plants

could also lead to additional growth and land conversions in Louisa County as a result of

infrastructure improvements (e.g., new roads and utility services). However, any growth could

be managed because all counties surrounding the North Anna ESP site have comprehensive

land-use plans in place as required by Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223, Comprehensive Plan. 

Based on the existence and projected implementation of land-use plans, the information

provided by Dominion, and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the land-use

impacts of operation would be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted.

5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

In its ER, Dominion stated that any two of the three existing 500-kV transmission lines along

with the existing 230 kV line are expected to have sufficient capacity to carry the total output of

the existing units and two additional units (Dominion 2006a). Dominion represented that it

would perform a system study (load flow) modeling these lines with the new units’ power

contribution at the COL stage (Dominion 2006a) (see Appendix J). The staff based its

evaluation on the assumption that the existing transmission lines are adequate and that new

transmission lines would not be needed. If Dominion decides to build new transmission lines at

the COL stage, then it will be considered new information. |

In Supplement 7 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

Regarding North Anna Units 1 and 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determined

that the impact of transmission lines was SMALL, and no mitigation was warranted

(NRC 2002b). This conclusion would not change with the additional new units at the North

Anna ESP site because the existing transmission lines would be used. Based on the

information provided in the ER, that no additional electrical transmission lines or rights-of-way

would be needed, and on the staff’s evaluation, land-use impacts to other offsite areas would be

SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

The proposed cooling systems for North Anna include a closed-cycle, combination wet and a

dry cooling system for Unit 3 and dry cooling towers for Unit 4. The meteorological and air
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

quality impacts from operation of the new units would be limited to those resulting from cooling

of Unit 3 and periodic pollutant emissions from auxiliary boilers and generators supporting both

units.

Lake Anna would provide the makeup water to the wet cooling towers. Because warm, moist air

would be emitted to the atmosphere from the operation of the wet cooling towers, elevated

plumes would at times extend above the cooling towers and be visible off site. There would

also be the potential for fogging and icing at ground level as the plume loses buoyancy and for

drift deposition on the local surroundings. In addition, there is the potential for ice buildup on

the transmission lines and other structures within the plant boundary. The greatest impacts

would occur during conditions of high humidity and low ambient temperature when the Unit 3

circulating water system is operating in the Energy Conservation (EC) mode. Microclimatic

impacts would include an increase in humidity in the vicinity of the towers as well as a slightly

reduced level of solar radiation in areas in the shadow of the plume, consistent with wind

direction frequency. 

The SACTI (Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts) system of computer programs,

initially compiled by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) (ANL 1984) for the Electric Power

Research Institute was used to estimate the impact of operating the cooling towers. The

version used by Dominion is dated November 1, 1990. A brief description of the application and

limitations of the SACTI code regarding aesthetic aspects of the cooling tower plume is

included Section 5.5.1.4. The input meteorological data used to estimate the impacts

encompassed the period of 1998 through 2000. It included data collected onsite as well as site

representative data collected at the National Weather Service sites in Richmond, Virginia, and

Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia. For this analysis, the cooling towers were assumed to be

operating in the EC mode, which results in the greatest evaporation rates from the wet cooling

towers and, therefore, the greatest level of impacts (Dominion 2006a).

The results of the staff’s independent analysis indicated that for all seasons, the plume would

extend to a maximum height of 980 m (3200 ft) and to a length of 4900 m (16,000 ft) from the

tower. The annual duration of plume fogging (i.e., the plume remaining at the ground level)

would be about 70 hr (excluding hours of natural fog), with a majority of fogging occurring at

about 300 m (1000 ft) to the south-southeast from the cooling towers. Fogging would, however,

occur as far as 1600 m (5200 ft) from the tower. Fogging is estimated to occur during all

seasons except summer. Dominion and the staff’s analyses indicates that icing is unlikely to |

occur in conjunction with ground-level fogging (Dominion 2006a; NRC 2006a). 

Deposition of salts from cooling tower drift would occur in all directions from the towers out to

1525 m (5000 ft), but would occur predominately in the areas to the north through northeast as

well as to the south through southeast of the towers. The maximum estimated amount of

deposition would be 12.6 kg/km2

/month at 175 m (575 ft) north-northeast of the cooling towers. 

The vast majority of the drift deposition would occur within 300 m (1000 ft) of the towers. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-4 December 2006

Significant chemical interaction of the cooling tower plume and pollutants emitted onsite or in

the vicinity of the plant is not anticipated. Generally, the approach to minimize the potential for

contact with cooling tower drift is to limit parking or work activities in the vicinity of the cooling

towers. The impacts of salt deposition on terrestrial resources are discussed in Section 5.4.1.1.

Air quality impacts from routine releases other than the cooling system would be limited to

nonradiological pollutants emitted during the operation of auxiliary boilers and emergency

generators, and emissions from onsite service vehicles. Impacts of transmission lines on air

quality were reviewed elsewhere by the NRC in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement of

License Renewal at Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996). With regard to air quality

impacts for criteria pollutants, given the distance from the Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Class I areas (see the Clean Air Act, Section 169A, and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P) and the

short time duration of emissions, the resulting impacts on local ambient air quality levels or

visibility in the Class I areas are estimated to be negligible. 

Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality were reviewed in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996). Small

amounts of ozone and smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced by transmission

lines. The analysis found the small amounts of these gases to be insignificant for 745-kV lines

(the largest lines in operation) and for a prototype 1200-kV line. In addition, the staff

determined that potential mitigation measures would not be warranted given any small benefit

that could be accrued at great cost. The largest existing line in the transmission and distribution

system servicing the North Anna ESP site is a 500-kV line, which is well within the range of

lines considered in NUREG-1437. Given the distance from Class I areas and the small amount

and duration of emissions, the resulting impact on local ambient air quality levels or visibility in

the Class I areas is estimated to be insignificant. Based on these factors, the staff concludes

that the potential impacts of releases from vehicles, auxiliary boilers, emergency generators,

cooling systems, and energized transmission lines would be SMALL, and mitigation beyond

those normally taken in the operation of plant equipment is not warranted.

5.3 Water-Related Impacts

This section discusses the water-related impacts on Lake Anna and the Waste Heat Treatment

Facility (WHTF) from the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system proposed for

Unit 3. The proposed Unit 4 dry cooling system would have negligible impacts on the water

supply. Therefore, only Unit 3 is considered in relation to water-related operational impacts.

The Lake Anna reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water, Lake Anna and the WHTF, |

which is composed of three waste heat treatment lagoons (Figure 2-4). The lagoons have a

total surface area of approximately 1400 ha (3400 ac) and are separated from the rest of Lake

Anna by a series of dikes. The main body of the lake is approximately 27 km (17 mi) long with

435 km (272 mi) of irregular shoreline and approximately 3900 ha (9600 ac) of water surface.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

During normal operation at full power, and based on Dominion’s PPE values, the primary

cooling system for Unit 3 would reject 3020 MW (1.03 x 1010 Btu/hr) to the environment. Unit 3

would reject this heat load to the atmosphere through its closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

cooling system. Unit 3 would employ a cooling tower system that can function in different

modes which consume different amounts of water depending on the meteorological and water

supply conditions. During times of relative water abundance, the Unit 3 cooling system would

operate in the EC mode, which increases water consumption while decreasing energy

consumption. During times of limited water availability ( i.e., whenever the lake level elevation

of Lake Anna falls below 76.2 m (250 ft) mean sea level (MSL) for a period of seven or more

consecutive days), the Unit 3 cooling system would operate in the Maximum Water

Conservation (MWC) mode, which reduces water consumption while increasing energy

consumption. The maximum water withdrawal rates in EC and MWC modes are 1405 and

971 L/s (22,268 and 15,384 gpm), respectively. During full load operation, the maximum

blowdown rates in EC and MWC modes are 351 and 245 L/s (5565 and 3844 gpm),

respectively. (Blowdown is the removal of recirculating water from the cooling system to reduce

the buildup of contaminants, such as dissolved solids.)

Management of water resources involves balancing the tradeoffs among various and often

conflicting uses. The water uses at Lake Anna and the North Anna River downstream of Lake

Anna include recreation, visual aesthetics, fishery management, and a variety of consumptive

uses of water, such as municipal water supplies and industrial uses (e.g., cooling water for

power generation). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (ACE), and the Commonwealth of Virginia have jurisdiction for regulating water use

and water quality through Federal and State laws; some authorities have been delegated from

Federal agencies to the Commonwealth. Water resource management incorporates the

uncertainty of projections of the future supply and demand for water that results from natural

climate variability and man-made demands. The ability to manage the water supply to balance

periods of excess supply with periods of excess demand is limited by the available water

infrastructure. While the water supply is regularly being replenished by precipitation, conflicts

over water resources typically grow along with population.

Both Dominion and the staff independently analyzed changes in the water supply available from

Lake Anna that would result from operating proposed Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP site. In

performing their respective analyses, Dominion and the staff employed different approaches

and relied on different data sources. These approaches are briefly described below; however, a

more complete description of the Dominion analysis can be found in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 of

the ER (Dominion 2006a). A more complete description of the staff’s analysis (NRC 2006b) can

be found in Appendix K of this EIS. |

The staff has reviewed long-term precipitation and evaporation data from Richmond, Virginia, to

characterize typical-year and critical-year conditions. Based on annual values, precipitation

exceeds evaporation during typical-year conditions. Using average monthly estimates,
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-6 December 2006

however, evaporation exceeds precipitation by more than 20 percent in June. Over a typical

12-month period, runoff from areas draining into Lake Anna offset any decreases in the lake

level elevation resulting from natural evaporation. However, even minimum releases of 1.1 m3

/s

(40 cfs) from Lake Anna would result in decreases in lake level elevation during the months of

July, August, and September. Therefore, Lake Anna lake level elevations would decline during

both typical- and critical-years during those months. Historical summer flows in the North Anna

River near Partlow, Virginia, before construction of North Anna Dam were occasionally much |

smaller than even the minimum release of 0.57 m3/s (20 cfs) established under the Lake Level

Contingency Plan. Because the inflows typically exceed the regulated outflows to Lake Anna,

the staff concludes that it is reasonable to expect that Lake Anna would experience lake level

elevation decreases during the late summer months for most years. |

During the period from October 2001 through December 2002, an extreme drought occurred in

the region extending from Georgia to northern Virginia. As a result of this climatic anomaly,

Lake Anna experienced the lowest lake level elevations and lowest estimated inflows in its

history. During this period of drought, Dominion implemented the Lake Level Contingency Plan

(a condition of the North Anna Power Station [NAPS] Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System [VPDES] permit issued by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality [VDEQ 2001]),

and releases from North Anna Dam were reduced from the normal minimum of 1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs)

to 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs). Low water conditions were quickly alleviated when normal precipitation

levels returned to the region. This period of extreme drought was determined to be the critical

period in the analyses of both the applicant and the staff.

Both the staff’s assessment and Dominion’s water budget model of Lake Anna are based on a

simplified representation of the conservation of mass for the lake. The principle of conservation

of mass can be stated specifically for water as the change in storage of water at any time is

equal to the water inflow less the water outflow. In both water budget assessments, changes in

lake storage over time were equal to the differences between the inflows and the outflows. 

Inflows included the drainage from the basin upstream of the lake and the precipitation

occurring directly on the lake. Outflows included both natural and induced (i.e., forced because

of the combined operation of Units 1 and 2, plus Unit 3) evaporation and releases from the dam. 

Groundwater can either flow from the aquifer into Lake Anna, or Lake Anna water can recharge

the aquifer. Based on groundwater elevation measurements, the only time Lake Anna is

expected to recharge the adjacent aquifer would be after refilling the lake following an extended

period of low lake elevations. The change in storage is reflected by a change in the pool

elevation.

Dominion’s representation and the staff assumptions to estimate the inflow to Lake Anna were

different. Because of the limited record of tributary flow measurements, there is no direct

means to estimate the total inflow into Lake Anna from its tributaries. The outflow from North

Anna Dam was estimated by Dominion from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge

downstream from the dam at Partlow, Virginia, and from the gate settings at the dam after the |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Partlow gauge was discontinued in 1995. Dominion did not use precipitation data in its water |

budget analysis; it used the sum of precipitation, groundwater, and tributary inflows to offset the

imbalance between the estimated evaporative losses and dam releases and the changes in

lake water volume. The change in lake water volume was based directly on observed records

of lake level elevation.

The staff found that relatively small departures in the pool elevation measurements using

Dominion’s model can result in significant variations in the precipitation, groundwater, and

tributary inflow estimates. For example, an adjustment of only 2.5 cm (1 in.) between daily lake

elevation measurements translates into a change of about 14 m3

/s (500 cfs); this can also result

in negative inflow estimates that are inconsistent with conservation of mass principles. 

Dominion reduced the frequency of occurrence of negative inflow estimates by smoothing (i.e.,

using weekly averages instead of daily values). Dominion’s historical evaporation estimates |

were based on calculations using a lake temperature model developed by Massachusetts |

Institute of Technology (Ho and Adams 1984). Dominion’s discussions and conclusions were

based on the weekly averaged results.

The staff estimated inflows from the watershed upstream of Lake Anna by using data from the

adjacent Little River drainage basin adjusted for differences in the size of the drainage areas. 

The rationale for using an adjacent drainage basin is that too few of the tributaries flowing into

Lake Anna are gauged for the observed data set to be useful in constructing an inflow

sequence. The Little River drainage is 277 km2

 (107 mi2) and is adjacent to the North Anna |

drainage; measurements from Little River span from October 1961 to the present. Based on a

review of streamflow records from USGS Gauge 01671100 (Little River near Doswell, Virginia),

the staff selected the period from June 2000 through April 2003 as the critical water period. The

direct precipitation to the lake was based on precipitation records from the National Weather

Service meteorological station at the Richmond, Virginia, airport.

The staff estimated lake outflows based on the current operating rules for North Anna Dam. 

Releases were generally performed to maintain a lake level elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. 

Under this condition, the staff calculated flow over the dam based on lake level. When the lake

level elevation dropped below 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL, the release was maintained at the normal |

minimum flow of 1.1 m3/s (40 cfs). If the lake level elevation declined below 75.6 m (248 ft)

MSL, releases were assumed to decrease to 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) immediately. Once inflows and

outflows were calculated, the staff calculated the rate of evaporation from the Lake Anna

reservoir, factoring in the difference between the flows.

Because makeup water for ultimate heat sink (UHS) cooling towers for Units 3 and 4 would be

stored in an engineered basin and is much less than the water demand for the circulating water |

system during normal operation, the water demand when operating in UHS mode was |

considered to be bounded by the water demand for normal operations.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-8 December 2006

5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

The Unit 3 operational activity identified by the staff that would result in a detectable

hydrological alteration in Lake Anna occurs when the lake elevation would be below 76.2 m

(250 ft) MSL and the wet cooling towers are operating. Discharges to the North Anna River

downstream of the North Anna Dam could also be affected by operation of the wet cooling

towers, which would increase the duration of reduced discharges, that is 1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs) when

the lake elevation is between 75.6 m (248 ft) and 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL, and 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs)

when the lake is below 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL).

When the lake elevation is above 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL, no hydrological effect would be

detectable in the lake because water available for the Unit 3 cooling system would have

otherwise been discharged from the North Anna Dam. The operation of Unit 3 would also result

in a net decrease of water available to the North Anna River equal to the consumptive water

loss (see also Section 5.3.2).

The staff’s independent water budget analysis assumed the NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the

proposed Unit 3 would operate continuously. In non-drought years, the projected incremental

decline of the lake level attributable to Unit 3 was relatively minor. The staff determined that the

operation of Unit 3 would decrease the fraction of time that the lake level elevation was above

75.6 m (248 ft) MSL by 5 percent, from 94 percent to 89 percent of the time. With the operation

of Unit 3, the percentage of time the lake would be at or below elevation 75.0 m (246 ft) MSL

would increase by 0.9 percent, from 1.1 percent to 2.0 percent. The staff also analyzed the

differences in lake level elevation between the baseline (Units 1 and 2 in operation) and

proposed (addition of Unit 3) scenarios to examine the impacts of Unit 3 on downstream flows. 

Considering the entire simulation period, including the critical drought period, the incremental

decline in lake level elevation resulting from the operation of Unit 3 was less than 7.6 cm (3 in.)

70 percent of the time, less than 15 cm (6 in.) 86 percent of the time, and less than 30 cm (1 ft)

94 percent of the time.

The staff projected that the lowest lake level elevations and greatest incremental decrease

would occur during the month of October. When modeling lake level elevations during the

critical period of record, specifically targeting the minimum elevation occurring during early

October 2002, the staff analyzed the minimum lake level elevations for the following scenarios:

! Units 1 and 2 (baseline conditions): 74.74 m (245.2 ft)

! Units 1 and 2 plus Unit 3 (proposed conditions): 74.22 m (243.5 ft)

While the addition of Unit 3 would cause further declines in the level of Lake Anna, the staff’s

analysis of long-term conditions using the water budget model indicates that the lake level

elevation would not drop below 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL during periods of normal or above average

precipitation. During low-water conditions, the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the proposed
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Unit 3 would be allowed to operate until the elevation of the lake reaches 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL. 

Both the staff and Dominion estimate that during the critical period (June 2000 through

April 2003), the elevation of the lake would have remained above 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL assuming

that Unit 3 had been operating.

At the request of VDEQ (referenced in VDEQ 2006), Dominion also evaluated the impacts of |

raising normal operating lake level 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) above 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL on

shoreline areas. VDEQ could elect to require such actions to mitigate impacts on down-river |

flows. Increasing the lake level by approximately 18 cm (7 in.) would eliminate changes in the |

frequency of the 0.57 m3/s (20 cfs) minimum instream flow (Dominion 2006a). The staff’s

independent assessment (described in Appendix K) estimated that the frequency of 0.75 m3

/s

(20 cfs) flows would be unchanged if the normal lake level were raised 25 cm (10 in.). Dominion

conducted map reconnaissance, helicopter flyovers, and ground-truthing from boats and

concluded that there would be some shifting of wetland areas, particularly in gradually sloping

uplake tributary areas, if lake levels were raised. In addition, Dominion concluded that raising

the lake level could increase localized flooding potential and downstream flows, and would likely

affect use of some residential and marina boat ramps and docks, including those at Lake Anna

State Park. On May 3, 2006, the staff conducted a field visit by boat on Lake Anna and |

independently verified that there would be a shifting of wetlands with changes in water levels, |

but there would be an insignificant affect on the docks and their availability for recreational |

purposes (NRC 2006c) |

Information on operational practices and procedures was not provided in the ESP application. 

The operation of the cooling system presented in the application was not unreasonable for

analysis purposes to assess hydrologic impacts. The actual procedures controlling the

operation of the cooling system will be determined by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the

Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which is not

needed until the CP or COL stage. Based on the staff’s independent assessment described |

above and detailed in Appendix K, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation on

hydrological effects would be SMALL, and that mitigation is not warranted.

5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

Lake Anna, which was created as a source of cooling water for NAPS, has become a popular

recreation area, and the dam provides downstream flood control. The lake is not used as a

source of potable or industrial water, except for NAPS Units 1 and 2. The existing NAPS units

are the largest users of water in the region, and the addition of a third unit would add to this use. 

Most of the water used at NAPS for Units 1 and 2 is drawn directly from Lake Anna for

condenser cooling. This use is non-consumptive, and the water is entirely returned to the lake,

albeit at a warmer temperature. Although there is no consumptive use of water between the

intake and discharge, the elevated discharge temperature induces increased evaporative losses

from the remainder of the WHTF and Lake Anna resulting in a consumptive use of water.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-10 December 2006

Unlike the existing NAPS units, the majority of the water withdrawn from Lake Anna for Unit 3

condenser cooling would be consumed by the wet cooling towers. Although there is some

blowdown from the wet cooling towers, the discharge rate to the WHTF would be small (the full

load maximum would be 351 L/s [5565 gpm]). Consumption of water by the wet cooling towers

would reduce the overall volume of water in the lake, thereby impacting the quantity of water

released at North Anna Dam. Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers and, therefore, would have |

no impact on Lake Anna level or the North Anna River downstream of the dam. |

Because the North Anna Dam discharge rate is related to the Lake Anna surface level

elevation, the lake level elevation analysis discussed above was used to estimate the impact on

downstream flows in the North Anna River. The net total discharge from North Anna Dam

would be reduced if Unit 3 operates as proposed. If water conditions become severe, then the

Commonwealth of Virginia has the regulatory authority to require Dominion to derate or

terminate operation of one or more of the North Anna units. The staff determined that the

percent of time the dam would discharge 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) increased from approximately

6 percent (Units 1 and 2 only) to 11 percent. The separate analyses performed by the staff and |

Dominion resulted in different estimates of the frequency that the level of Lake Anna would drop |

below 75.6 m (248 ft) with Unit 3 operating. Without Unit 3, the staff and Dominion estimated |

that Lake Anna would drop below 75.6 m (248 ft) 5.7 percent of the time and 5.2 percent of the |

time, respectively. However, with Unit 3 operating the staff and Dominion estimated that Lake |

Anna would drop below 75.6 m (248 ft) 11 percent of the time and 7.3 percent of the time, |

respectively. The staff has concluded that there are two primary causes for this difference in |

the frequency estimates with Unit 3 operating. First, the staff used an evaporation rate of |

47,462 m3/day (8707 gpm) over any 365 day period compared to Dominion’s representation of

47,462 m3

/day (8707 gpm) at a 96 percent capacity factor. Second, the staff applied the |

average evaporation rate of 47,462 m3/day (8707 gpm) throughout the period, while Dominion |

applied an evaporation rate that varied depending on temperature. |

|

The staff’s analysis relied exclusively on the specific consumptive water use (evaporation) |

estimates that Dominion committed to in its plant parameter envelope (PPE). The PPE provides |

the bounding parameters used by the staff to analyze the impacts. However, in its analysis, |

Dominion made additional representations that were not in its PPE. For instance, as mentioned |

above, Dominion considered the relationship between the weather and the estimated

consumptive water use for Unit 3. In its analysis, Dominion indicated that Unit 3 would use no |

water for condenser cooling (i.e., the condenser heat load for Unit 3 would be serviced entirely |

by the dry tower) if the air temperature was below 67(F. This temperature value is not a |

parameter that Dominion committed to in the PPE. Also, Dominion estimated the daily |

consumptive water losses for both the condenser and service water cooling systems based on |

air temperature and relative humidity. The staff concluded that the consumptive water use |

estimates used by Dominion are not unreasonable if the representations described above are |

fulfilled. However, because the bases for these values were not included in Dominion’s PPE, |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

the staff performed an independent analysis relying on average and maximum consumptive |

water use values reported by Dominion in its PPE. |

In the PPE, Dominion stated that the average evaporation rate for Unit 3 was 8707 gpm with a |

96 percent capacity factor. However, Unit 3 has the potential to operate at a capacity factor |

greater than 96 percent for extended periods. Therefore, the staff used the PPE definition |

described in Appendix I of the EIS that drops the 96 percent capacity factor and states that |

“...the average evaporation rate over any 365 day period will not exceed 8707 gpm”. The |

definition of the PPE instantaneous maximum evaporation rate parameters for the MWC and EC |

modes was unchanged.

Because water supply generally exceeds demand, as indicated above, the staff concludes that

the water supply afforded by Lake Anna is adequate to meet Unit 3 and current downstream

water demands except during periods of severe drought. Operation of Unit 3 would

approximately double the duration of periods during drought conditions when the Lake Level

Contingency Plan would be applied (i.e., when the lake level elevation would be below 75.6 m

[248 ft] MSL).

The forced evaporation from proposed Unit 3 would reduce the volume of water released from |

North Anna Dam, thereby impacting downstream water users. To characterize this impact, the |

staff estimated the change in the reliability of a hypothetical off-stream storage reservoir used to |

service a steady water demand. The capacity of a reservoir adequate to provide releases of a |

steady flow of 20 cfs from the North Anna Dam from the operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 was |

calculated to provide 95 percent reliability. The staff estimated that the reliability of the same |

hypothetical reservoir would decrease from 95 to 90 percent with the addition of Unit 3's |

additional consumptive water loss. |

Hanover County, one of four downstream counties, has identified a need for additional water

(Hanover County Department of Public Utilities 2004). The downstream users identified by

Hanover County are the county itself, the Doswell Limited Partnership Power Plant,

Paramount’s King’s Dominion Amusement Park, and the Bear Island Paper Company. This

potential conflict over water use, which exists regardless of whether Unit 3 is constructed, falls

within the regulatory authority of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Based on the foregoing, including Dominion’s commitment to be bounded by the PPE values for

consumptive water use, the staff concludes that during normal water years the water use

impacts, including impacts on downstream users, would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted. During severe droughts, however, the impact to the water level could be temporarily

MODERATE. Although the staff concludes that the impact of proposed Unit 3 operation on

downstream water users would be SMALL for most years and MODERATE during drought

years, the staff considered the interest expressed by the Commonwealth about mitigating the

impacts by increasing the reservoir storage capacity.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-12 December 2006

The staff did evaluate changing the normal elevation of Lake Anna to mitigate the impact of

consumptive water use associated with operation of Unit 3 on downstream flows during drought

periods. The staff determined that raising the normal lake level by 25 cm (10 in.) would result in

the same frequency of occurrence of 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) discharge flows from the North Anna

Dam as the current normal lake elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL with only NAPS Units 1 and 2

operating. Any decisions to change the normal lake elevation would be made by VDEQ.

Given the infrequent and temporary nature of the severe drought conditions, the fact that the

minimum operational lake level elevation is 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL, and that lake level would return

to normal with normal precipitation, further mitigation other than ceasing or derating operation is

not warranted. 

5.3.3 Water Quality Impacts

The discharged waste heat from operation of Unit 3 is not expected to appreciably change the

water temperature of Lake Anna because the maximum blowdown flow rate (i.e., 351 L/s

[5565 gpm] in EC mode and 245 L/s [3844 gpm] in MWC mode) is insignificant (i.e., less than |

0.3 percent) relative to the combined discharges from Units 1 and 2 of 123,000 L/s |

(1,934,300 gpm). Because the Unit 3 cooling tower would consume water, the volume of water

in Lake Anna would be reduced (compared to operation of only Units 1 and 2 alone) when the

lake level elevation is below 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. However, assuming the heat rejection rate

from operations of Units 1 and 2 remains constant, the reduced volume of water in the lake

caused by Unit 3 operations would result in an increase of average lake water temperature. 

Dominion considered the rise in lake temperatures caused by Unit 3 operations in section

5.2.2.1.3 of the ER, and found that the average temperature rise in Lake Anna would be less

than 0.06(C (0.1(F). The staff independently reviewed the analyses and agrees with the

assessment.

The thermal impacts of Units 3 and 4 would be negligible because a temperature increase of

0.06(C (0.1(F) is insignificant. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the thermal

impacts of the proposed new units is SMALL, and that mitigation is not warranted.

Because a specific design has not been selected, the ultimate water treatment systems for

proposed Units 3 and 4 have not been specified. Currently, raw cooling water from Lake Anna

used for condenser cooling and service water at NAPS Units 1 and 2 is not treated. Makeup

water for Unit 3, and the UHS systems for both Units 3 and 4 would be treated with biocides,

antiscalants, and dispersants. Treatment of makeup water for ultrapure water systems, such as

the condensate and primary cooling systems, would employ technologies such as reverse

osmosis and ultrafiltration.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The agency responsible for regulating the impacts on water quality of discharges into

Lake Anna is VDEQ. The water quality impact of effluents from Units 1 and 2 is regulated by a

VPDES permit that minimizes the impact on Lake Anna’s water quality. Although Dominion

provided a chemical composition of Unit 3 blowdown in its PPE (see Appendix I), the

concentrations of other waste streams that would discharge to the WHTF from operation of

Unit 3 were not defined.

An applicant for a CP or COL referencing an ESP for the North Anna ESP site would need to

provide information on the chemical effluents to the NRC. Based on its review, the staff

concludes that the issue of water quality impacts at the North Anna ESP site is not resolved

(see Appendix J), but is likely to be SMALL.

5.4 Ecological Impacts

Section 5.4 describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from operation of the

proposed Units 3 and 4. This description focuses on the habitats, wildlife, and fish that could be

affected by operation of the proposed new units, in addition to transmission line rights-of-way

and offsite facilities. Dominion has proposed that Unit 3 would be cooled using a closed-cycle,

combination wet and dry cooling system, and Unit 4 would be cooled using a dry cooling

system. The potential impacts of new operating units on the hydrology of Lake Anna, shoreline

vegetation, habitats, and the associated terrestrial and aquatic ecology both of Lake Anna and

downstream are addressed in the following subsections.

5.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems

This section discusses the impacts to the terrestrial ecosystems in the ESP site vicinity and

along the NAPS transmission line rights-of-way from the cooling systems associated with

operating the proposed new units at the North Anna ESP site. Closed-cycle heat dissipation

systems associated with nuclear power plants have the potential to impact terrestrial ecosystem

resources through salt drift, vapor plumes, icing, noise, and avian collisions with tall structures

(e.g., cooling towers). Each of these topics is discussed below.

5.4.1.1 Cooling Tower Impacts on Terrestrial Ecological Resources

Salt Drift

Salt deposition can cause vegetation stress, either directly by deposition of salts onto foliage or

indirectly from accumulation of salts in the soil. An order-of-magnitude approach is typically

used to evaluate salt deposition on plants, because plant species sensitivities vary and

tolerance levels are not well documented. In this approach, deposition of sodium chloride at

rates up to 1 to 2 kg/ha/mo is not considered to be damaging to plants, while deposition rates
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-14 December 2006

approaching or exceeding 10 kg/ha/mo during the growing season could cause leaf damage in

many species (NRC 1996). All of the predicted deposition rates, both within and beyond the

site boundaries, are less than 1 kg/ha/mo (see Section 5.2). 

No important terrestrial species or habitats are known to exist within the vicinity of the proposed

cooling towers. Important species as defined by the NRC (2000a) include Federally or

State-listed threatened or endangered species, commercially or recreationally valuable species,

species essential to the maintenance and survival of rare or commercially valuable species, and

those that perform critical ecological functions or are biological indicators of ecosystem health. 

Important habitats include any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, preserves, or habitats identified by

State or Federal agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for protection; wetlands and floodplains;

and land areas identified as critical habitat for species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) as threatened or endangered.

Because salt deposition rates are estimated to be less than 1 kg/ha/mo at all directions and

distances from the towers and there are no important terrestrial species or habitats likely to be

affected by salt deposition, the staff concludes that salt deposition impacts would be SMALL,

and mitigation is not warranted.

Vapor Plumes and Icing

The environmental impact of the operation of the wet cooling towers was evaluated by Dominion

using the SACTI computer model (ANL 1984), a suite of analytical tools developed by Argonne

National Laboratory to describe fogging, icing, salt deposition, and visible plumes from

traditional (e.g., non plume-abated) wet cooling towers. The model was developed specifically

for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for use in licensing power plants with

mechanical- or natural-draft cooling tower systems, has been verified with field data, and has

been used for many years. The SACTI program calculates the fogging, icing, salt deposition,

and plume height and length without consideration of water-saving techniques or features that

could be part of the design of the towers and result in a reduction of the size of the vapor plume. 

Using a combination of atmospheric data from the NAPS site and National Weather Service

data from Richmond, Virginia, for the period 1998 to 2000, Dominion used the SACTI model to

calculate seasonal cooling tower plume characteristics (Dominion 2006b).

The SACTI model predicted that operation of the new cooling towers would result in |

approximately 70 additional hours of fogging per year and no additional icing. Vapor plumes

(i.e., fog) produced by the cooling system would have a minimal impact on the vision of flying

birds, and would be unlikely to adversely affect vegetation. The staff performed a confirmatory |

calculation that showed similar results (NRC 2006a). Based on the foregoing, the staff |

concludes that the impacts of vapor plumes on terrestrial resources would be SMALL, and

mitigation is not warranted. Similarly, because no icing was predicted by the model, the staff

concludes that the impacts of icing would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.4.1.2 Noise

Maximum noise levels from the operation of the reactors and dry cooling towers would be

similar to current noise levels to which local species are adapted. Current noise levels at NAPS

are occasionally as high as 100 decibels (measured at the security fence during outages), but

they are typically less than 80 to 85 decibels, which is the level at which birds and small

mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980), and more likely to be 65 dBa or lower. 

Even with all combinations of wet and dry cooling towers in operation, noise levels from the

cooling towers would be less than 65 decibels at the exclusion area boundary

(Dominion 2006a). There are no important terrestrial species or important habitats in the vicinity

of the site. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the noise impacts to terrestrial

ecological resources would be SMALL, and no mitigation is warranted.

5.4.1.3 Avian Collisions

The dry cooling towers proposed for Unit 4 heat dissipation are expected to be approximately

46 m (150 ft) tall, which is considerably less than the 71 m (234 ft) maximum height for the

tallest building in the power block. The mechanical draft towers that may be used in the

combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 would be approximately 24 m (80 ft) tall. 

Nevertheless, for purposes of analyzing environmental impacts, Dominion’s evaluation of avian

collisions were based on a maximum structure height of 55 m (180 ft) for the cooling tower and

70 m (230 ft) for the tallest structure. No avian collisions with existing NAPS structures have

been recorded, and the cooling towers would produce operational noise and air movements that

would further decrease the likelihood of bird collisions. In view of the above, it is likely that bird

collisions with the new towers would be rare. The North Anna ESP site is not within a major

migratory bird concentration area along the Atlantic flyway (VDCR 2004). Dominion maintains a

migratory bird protection program, including protection of nests and reporting of bird (especially

raptor) strikes and other events (Dominion 2001a). Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes

that impacts to birds from collisions with heat dissipation and other facility structures would be

SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.4.1.4 Shoreline and Riparian Habitat

The increased water use and evaporation resulting from the addition of one new unit using wet

cooling towers could increase the amount of shoreline exposed along Lake Anna or affect the

length of time that the additional shoreline is exposed, as discussed in Section 5.3, above. This

increased shoreline exposure could lead to alterations of the shoreline vegetation or enhance

the introduction or spread of undesirable vegetation.

The staff evaluated the potential impacts of station operation on wetlands along the shoreline

and upper reaches of Lake Anna using a hydrological assessment as discussed in

Section 5.3.2, above, and in Appendix K. The maximum annual drawdown in most years would
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-16 December 2006

not differ greatly from that resulting from the operation of the existing units alone. The fraction

of time that lake level would be at or below 75.0 m (246 ft) MSL would increase from 1 percent

with two units operating to approximately 2 percent of the time with the addition of Unit 3. The

surface elevation would be above 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL approximately 89 percent of the time with |

three operating units compared with approximately 94 percent of the time with the existing two

operating units. The normal pool elevation is 76.2 (250 ft) MSL. The staff determined that the

difference between the lake level with and without Unit 3 would be less than 7.6 cm (3 in.)

approximately 69 percent of the time, less than 15 cm (6 in.) approximately 85 percent of the

time, and less than 30 cm (1 ft) approximately 94 percent of the time. All of the periods for

which the difference in the lake surface elevation with and without Unit 3 was predicted to be

greater than 30 cm (1 ft) would have occurred during the two major drought events of 1980 to

1981 and 2001 to 2002.

Differences in surface elevations that fluctuate between 0 and 15 cm (0 and 6 in.) are likely to

have no discernable effect on shoreline vegetation or wetlands. During the occasional periods

when there are greater differences in the surface elevation, there could be noticeable temporary

changes in the shoreline and wetland vegetation. Higher areas may dry out, and lower,

normally inundated areas may develop stands of wetland vegetation over time. However, the

increased drawdown is expected to be temporary, and even if the additional drawdown lasts for

a year or more, any observable changes would not be detectable within a relatively short time

after the water level returns to normal. Riparian and wetland vegetation is adapted to survive

fluctuating water levels and periodic drought conditions without detectable long-term effects. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts to shoreline vegetation and habitats would be

SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

The VDEQ identified the possibility of raising the lake level 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) to mitigate

the impact on North Anna River downstream flows (Dominion 2006a). Dominion evaluated this

potential option in the ER, stating: |

Dominion evaluated shoreline areas in an effort to assess, in general, various

impacts of potentially raising normal operating lake level 6 inches to 12 inches

above 250 ft. MSL, in the event a Virginia permitting agency process determined

the need for such an action. [Note: Raising normal operating lake level is not

being proposed to demonstrate site suitability. And though not currently

proposed, Virginia DEQ could require an increase in lake level to mitigate

impacts on down-river flows. Increasing the lake level by approximately 7 inches

would eliminate changes in the frequency and duration of the 20 cfs minimum

instream flow.]

On May 3, 2006, the staff toured Lake Anna with the applicant (NRC 2006c) and discussed the

option of raising the lake level between 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) to mitigate the impacts on

downstream flows. If the lake level were raised 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.), it could impact dock
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-17 NUREG-1811, Volume I

owners and could affect near-shore wetlands, especially the upper reaches of the lake where

the tributary streams enter the North Anna River and in the areas uplake of the North Anna

Dam. In areas of relatively steep banks, there would be little effect on wetlands. In the area

above the State Road 208 bridge, the change to the wetlands would be most evident due to the

gradual slope of the shoreline. The net effect of raising the lake level would be to shift the

wetlands, but it would not result in a significant gain or loss of wetlands. The authority to require

that the lake level be raised resides with the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Evaporative losses resulting from the operation of the wet cooling system for Unit 3 could cause

decreased flows downriver. Reduced flows could alter the riparian vegetation and habitat for

riparian and wetland species along the North Anna River. The staff’s hydrological analysis

demonstrates that the fraction of time that weekly average outflow from the North Anna Dam

would be at or below 1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs) would increase from approximately 63 percent of the time

with NAPS Units 1 and 2 operating to 66 percent with the addition of Unit 3 (see Appendix K). 

The analysis also predicted that the fraction of time that the outflow would be at 0.57 m3

/s

(20 cfs) would increase from 6 percent under current two-unit operations to approximately

11 percent of the time with the addition of Unit 3. Under the scenario with just NAPS Units 1

and 2 operating, the model predicted two periods (1998, and 2001 to 2002) when the weekly

average outflow would have dropped to 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs). With the addition of Unit 3, the

model predicted an additional seven such periods during the 1978 to 2003 modeling period. In

almost all cases, the 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) average weekly outflow conditions commenced in

October, lasted for approximately two weeks to several months, and then returned to higher

outflow levels by the end of January.

In 1981 and 1999, the low outflow period would have commenced in early to mid-August. There

would have been low flow 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) conditions for over 14 months during the 2002

drought under both of the modeled conditions (i.e., the baseline with NAPS Units 1 and 2

operating and the proposal with Unit 3 operating as well). Low flow would have commenced in

early October 2001 with three units operating rather than in late October with two units

operating, and would have lasted until mid- to late December 2002 with three units operating

rather than early December with just two units. Therefore, although low outflow conditions in

the North Anna River were modeled to occur at a noticeably higher fraction of the time with the

addition of Unit 3 compared to current conditions, in all but two cases these low-flow periods

occurred during portions of the year when the riparian vegetation would have either stopped

growing or would already be dormant and is, therefore, not likely to adversely affect growth or

reproduction.

Therefore, it is not likely that a period of reduced outflow every few years would noticeably

affect the riparian vegetation downstream. The staff’s analysis identified 2 out of 25 years when

the 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) outflow conditions would have commenced during August. Low outflow

during the growing season could have short-term effects on riparian vegetation; however,

riparian vegetation is adapted to survive periodic fluctuations in water level and drought
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-18 December 2006

conditions without detectable long-term effects. The staff’s analysis determined that there

would be periods of reduced (i.e., 0.57 m3

/s [20 cfs]) outflow during the growing season

approximately once a decade. Therefore, the changes in the flow regime are not expected to

noticeably change the quantity, distribution, or characteristics of the riparian or wetland

vegetation and habitats along the North Anna River between the North Anna Dam and the

confluence with the South Anna River. Therefore, the staff concludes that impacts of the

additional units on downstream riparian habitats would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.

5.4.1.5 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

The vegetation in the transmission line rights-of-way is managed through a combination of

mechanical and herbicide treatments conducted on a 3-year cycle. Mowing is the primary

mechanical treatment, while Accord® and Garlon® are the primary herbicides used in the

rights-of-way. In some areas (e.g., wetlands, dense vegetation), hand-cutting is used. Although

no rare or sensitive plant species are known to occur within the NAPS transmission line

rights-of-way, Dominion has procedures in place to ensure that such species are identified and

avoided, or modified treatment practices used to avoid adverse impacts. These modified

vegetation treatments are developed in cooperation with the Virginia Department of

Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Natural Heritage Program (NRC 2002b). In addition,

wildlife food plots and Christmas tree plantations located along the rights-of-way are supported

through cost sharing by the Virginia Electric and Power Company (also referred to as Virginia

Power or VEPCo) (NRC 2002b).

In its analysis of the application to renew the operating licenses for NAPS Units 1 and 2, the

staff determined that continued operation and maintenance of the transmission lines rights-ofway would not adversely impact terrestrial resources (NRC 2002b). Because there would be no

new lines or alterations of the existing rights-of-way, no changes to this impact would be

expected to occur if additional power from Units 3 and 4 were transmitted through this system. 

5.4.1.6 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts

The staff considered potential impacts to terrestrial ecological resources of operating the

proposed Units 3 and 4, including salt drift; fogging; icing; noise; avian collisions; changes to

shoreline, riparian, and wetland habitat; and transmission line rights-of-way. Based on its

analysis and independent review, the staff concludes that the operational impacts of Units 3

and 4 operations on terrestrial ecological resources would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-19 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

This section discusses the potential impacts of the operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 on |

Lake Anna and the North Anna River aquatic ecosystems from the cooling systems. The

potential impacts to the aquatic environment are expected to be related solely to the operation

of Unit 3. Unit 4 is expected to use a closed-cycle, dry cooling system that uses almost no

cooling water. Therefore, this analysis focuses on Unit 3 operational impacts, along with the

impacts of the existing Units 1 and 2.

5.4.2.1 Intake System

The existing cooling water system for NAPS Units 1 and 2 is a once-through design that

withdraws water from the Lake Anna reservoir. At maximum capacity, Units 1 and 2 withdraw

and return 122,000 L/s (1,934,300 gpm), or about 2.8 percent of the total Lake Anna volume per

day (3.76 x 108

 m3 at 76.2 m MSL [305,000 ac ft at 250 ft MSL]). Each unit uses four circulating

water pumps to withdraw condenser cooling water from Lake Anna, and the water flows through

screens located in a cove north of the station. Each screen well contains four individual bays,

and each bay is equipped with a trash rack, a traveling screen, and a vertical, motor-driven,

circulating water pump. The trash racks consist of 1.3-cm (0.5-in.) wide by 8.9-cm (3.5-in.) thick

vertical bars spaced 10.2 cm (4.0 in.) on center. Water flows through the trash racks at about

0.2 m/s (0.69 ft/s) (VEPCo 1985). Traveling screens in the front of the cooling water pumps

filter the water and protect the pumps from damage and clogging. The traveling screens,

constructed of 14-gauge wire with 9.5-mm (0.37-in.) square openings are designed to rotate

once every 24 hr or whenever a predetermined differential pressure exists across the screens. 

Debris collected at the trash racks is removed by mechanical rakes. Debris and fish collected in

the wire baskets associated with the traveling screens are disposed of as solid waste

(VEPCo 1985). After passing through the plant, water is returned to the WHTF, which is

separated from the main part of the lake by a series of dikes. 

The cooling water intake system can affect aquatic communities by either impingement or

entrainment. Impingement occurs when swimming organisms are not strong enough to escape

the cooling water intake current and are caught or stuck on the screens (i.e., impinged). 

Impinged organisms are generally fish, but can occasionally include other semi-aquatic animals

such as amphibians (e.g., frogs, turtles, and salamanders), waterfowl (e.g., ducks and coots), or

mammals (e.g., muskrats). The screens are periodically cleaned using a spray wash system to

remove impinged organisms. Impingement mortality varies with species, but is considered to be

100 percent because NAPS Units 1 and 2 do not have a fish return system.

Entrainment is the passage of organisms through the traveling screens into the cooling water

system. Entrained organisms are generally small and include phytoplankton, zooplankton, and

fish eggs and larvae. As these entrained organisms pass through the cooling water system,

they are subjected to a variety of stresses that may result in mortality. Impacts to the entrained
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-20 December 2006

organisms include physical damage from contact with pumps, pipes, and condensers;

pressure-related damage from passage through pumps; damage from shear associated with

complex water flows; damage from exposure to elevated temperatures in the condenser

passage; and potential exposure to toxic chemicals added to the cooling water system. 

Entrainment mortality varies by species, but is considered to be 100 percent for closed-cycle

cooling systems similar to the one proposed for Unit 3.

Dominion proposes a 21 m (70 ft) long and 21 m (70 ft) wide intake structure to support the

Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The maximum water withdrawal

associated with Unit 3 would be 1400 L/s (49.6 cfs). This represents a 1 percent increase in |

water withdrawal from Lake Anna compared to the current water withdrawal of about

120,000 L/s (4300 cfs) to support Units 1 and 2. Because Unit 4 would use a dry cooling

system, water use is negligible compared to the other three units and is not considered in this

impact assessment.

5.4.2.2 Impingement

In 1985, Virginia Power (VEPCo) published Impingement and Entrainment Studies for North

Anna Power Station, 1978-1983 (VEPCo 1985). This document described the study design and

results associated with work conducted under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act in

compliance with the NAPS Environmental Technical Specifications and the then-existing

VPDES permit under Special Conditions: Environmental Studies (“the Section 316(b) study”). 

The objective of the Section 316(b) study was to examine the effects of impingement and

entrainment associated with the cooling water intake system supplying Units 1 and 2 to

determine whether NAPS operations adversely affect fish populations in the Lake Anna

reservoir.

During the study years (1979 to 1983), an average of just over 47,400 fish representing

34 species were collected annually for each full year. Results for 1978 were not included in the

analysis because sampling occurred only from April to December. During each sampling

episode, traveling screens were washed to ensure that all fish were collected, and that decayed

fish or fish that had been dead for more than 24 h were discarded. The remaining fish were

identified by species and counted, and up to 50 individuals of each species were weighed and

measured. By relating the number of fish impinged to the sampling duration and measured

intake flow, it was possible to estimate daily, monthly, and yearly impingement values.

The Section 316(b) study results were based on the operating conditions that existed at that

time and the intake configurations and specifications described in ER Revision 6

(Dominion 2006a) and the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a). The study found that six fish species

accounted for 99 percent of all fish impingements (Table 5-1). The gizzard shad, Dorosoma

cepedianum, was the species most commonly impinged, and accounted for 61 percent of the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-21 NUREG-1811, Volume I

observed impingements during the study period (Table 5-1). More than 80 percent of the total

impingements occurred from January to April (Table 5-2).

Concurrent with the study, cove rotenone sampling in Lake Anna was conducted from 1979 to

1983 to determine the impact of the estimated impingements on species biomass. This cove

rotenone sampling determined that gizzard shad impingements associated with the

once-through cooling system used for Units 1 and 2 represented 0.32 percent of the total lake

biomass of that species. Impingement impacts for the other representative important fish

species (RIS) expressed as the biomass lost to impingement ranged from 0.02 percent for the

bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, to 3.8 percent for the black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus,

(Table 5-1).

The staff compared estimates of impingement associated with existing Units 1 and 2 derived

from the Section 316(b) study to assess the impacts of impingement associated with the closedcycle, combination wet and dry cooling system proposed for Unit 3 (Dominion 2006a). 

Dominion used an intake flow rate of 1723 L/s (60.8 cfs) in its calculations to assess

impingement losses for Unit 3. This represents a maximum flow rate through the intake and

results in a greater-than-expected estimate of losses. Typically, normal plant cooling tower

makeup water needs are expected to be 971 L/s (34.3 cfs). In developing its estimate of

impingement losses for Unit 3, Dominion represented that the current fish distribution and

composition would be the same as observed during the Section 316(b) study, that a new

cooling water system would operate at 100 percent pumping capacity, and that the intake

screen mesh size and approach velocity for Unit 3 would be the same as that of the

existing units. 

Because the water use associated with the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

system would be much less than that of NAPS Units 1 and 2, impingement rates resulting from

Unit 3 would be significantly less than current impingement rates (Table 5-2). Based on the

information provided by Dominion in the ER, the addition of the Unit 3 closed-cycle cooling |

system to the existing once-through cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would increase average

yearly impingement from Lake Anna from 182,440 to 187,880 individuals, or approximately 3 |

percent. These estimates are likely conservative because of the high intake flow estimates

used for Unit 3. Accordingly, the staff concludes that there would be a negligible decrease in

fish biomass in Lake Anna under Unit 3 operation. 

The Section 316(b) study conducted at NAPS from 1978 to 1983 concluded that impingement

associated with the once-through cooling system employed by Units 1 and 2 had not resulted in

significant impacts to the fish communities of Lake Anna. Subsequent monitoring (VEPCo

2002) has shown that fish populations in the reservoir are healthy and diverse. Because the

closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system proposed for Unit 3 increases the total

cooling water withdrawal from Lake Anna by approximately 1 percent and would result in a

minimal increase in impingement and fish biomass loss relative to the current
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-22 December 2006

Table 5-1. Fish Species Most Commonly Impinged at Existing Units 1 and 2 (1979 to 1983)

(Dominion 2006a)

Scientific Name Common Name

Percent of Total

Impingement

Estimated Percent of Lake

Anna Total Biomass by Species

Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 61 0.32

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 16 3.8

Perca flavescens Yellow perch 16 1.4

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 4 0.02

Morone americana White perch 1 0.1

Morone saxatilis Striped bass 1 no data

Table 5-2. Estimated Mean Monthly Impingement of RIS

Month

Estimated Mean Impingement per Month (all species)

Existing Units(a)

(1979-1983)

Unit 3 Combination Wet and 

Dry Cooling System(a)

January 16,012 310

February 30,873 811

March 93,955 3258

April 15,702 480

May 4364 117

June 1560 37

July 1034 20

August 1680 30

September 2166 37

October 4454 101

November 5360 123

December 5280 116

Yearly Total 182,440 5440

(a) ER (Dominion 2006a)

Unit 1 and 2 operations, the staff concludes that the impacts of impingement would be SMALL. 

Although the staff concludes that the impacts of impingement to the Lake Anna fishery would be

small, further mitigation could reduce losses if the intake through screen flow velocity were

designed to be less than 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s), as recommended in the Section 316(b) study.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-23 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.4.2.3 Entrainment

The Section 316(b) study described above also considered entrainment. Entrainment samples

were collected once a week in front of the intake forebays from 1979 to 1983. Sampling was

conducted from March through July of each year, which encompassed the spawning periods of

certain reservoir fish species (e.g., the bluegill, the yellow perch, Perca flavescens; the black

crappie, the white perch, Morone americana; and the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides

(VEPCo 1985). Entrainment samples did not contain fish eggs because most of the species in |

the reservoir produce demersal (i.e., negatively buoyant) adhesive eggs that are not generally

entrained. For purposes of the Section 316(b) study, and as a conservative estimate of impact,

Dominion applied 100 percent mortality for all larval fish entrained (VEPCo 1985).

As previously described in Section 5.4.2.2, the staff analysis was based on the Section 316(b)

study results and the intake configurations and specifications described in the ER. The

Section 316(b) study results determined that the larvae of five species accounted for the

majority of larval entrainment losses, with the largest entrainment abundances associated with

the larvae of gizzard shad at 65 percent (Table 5-3). Larvae of white perch accounted for 15

percent of the entrainment abundances during the study, and larvae of sunfish (family

Centrarchidae) accounted for 13.3 percent of the entrainment abundances. Larvae of the

yellow perch and black crappie accounted for less than 6 percent of entrainment abundances

(Table 5-3). Based on the duration of entrainment sampling, sampling gear used, and the

measured flow, total larval entrainment was calculated for the months that spawning occurs in |

the reservoir (March to July) for each species. |

Because larval abundance in Lake Anna is not known, it was not possible to determine the

percentage of larvae entrained based on the actual abundance in the lake. The adult equivalent

model of Goodyear (1978) was used to assess the population impacts caused by the loss of fish

larvae from entrainment by the existing NAPS units with the following conditions: 

(1) 100 percent mortality of entrained larvae; (2) stock populations are at equilibrium, and the

total lifetime fecundity produces two adults; (3) no compensatory mechanisms are operating;

and (4) 75 percent of the eggs produced by the entrained species survive to the larval stage. 

The model estimated the number of adult fish that would have resulted from the larvae had they

not been lost to entrainment, and also provided an estimate of the potential percent reduction in

the adult fish population as a consequence of entrainment. Predicted reductions in fish

populations ranged from 0.01 percent for black crappie in 1978 and 1979 and sunfish in 1982,

to 4.13 percent for gizzard shad in 1980. Dominion concluded that reductions of this magnitude

would not be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the reservoir fish populations for

those species, especially when viewed in concert with other population mechanisms such as

natural compensation (VEPCo 1985). The analysis from the adult equivalent model provided a

conservative estimate of entrainment impact by the existing units, primarily as a result of

assumptions used in the analysis (VEPCo 1985).
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-24 December 2006

Table 5-3. Larval Fish Species Most Commonly Entrained at Existing Units (1978 to 1983)

(Dominion 2006a)

Common Name Scientific Name Estimated Percent of Total Entrainment

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 65.7

White perch Morone americana 15.0

Sunfishes Lepomis spp. 13.3

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 4.9

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1.0

The staff compared estimates of entrainment from the Section 316(b) study for the existing units

to calculate entrainment losses predicted for Unit 3. As described above, Dominion used an

intake flow rate of 1723 L/s (60.8 cfs) to estimate entrainment for Unit 3. This represents a

maximum flow rate through the intake and results in a conservative (environmentally protective)

estimate of losses. Typically, normal plant cooling tower makeup water needs would be 971 L/s

(34.3 cfs). Dominion applied the fish larvae distribution and composition as though it were the

same as in the Section 316(b) study, and indicated that the new cooling system would operate

at 100 percent pumping efficiency and that the intake screen mesh size and flow velocity for the

new unit would be the same as that of the existing units.

Because the water use associated with the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

system would be much less than that of the once-through cooling system for Units 1 and 2,

entrainment at Unit 3 would be significantly less than at the existing units (Table 5-4). Based on

the information provided by Dominion in ER (Dominion 2006a), the addition of the Unit 3 cooling

system to the existing once-through cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would increase yearly

entrainment during spawning months from about 149 million larvae to about 153 million, or |

approximately 2 percent. These estimates are probably conservative because of the high |

intake flow estimates used for Unit 3. Accordingly, the staff concludes that there would be a

negligible loss of larval fish in the Lake Anna fish communities. 

Based on the results of the Section 316(b) study and a comparison of entrainment abundances

expected to occur using the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system, as

described above, the staff concludes that the impacts of entrainment of Unit 3 operations in

addition to the losses from Units 1 and 2 would be negligible. The fish populations most

susceptible to larval entrainment represent a balanced community in Lake Anna. Over the

years fishery management of the reservoir has matured and changed to meet the demands for

public fishing through species additions (i.e., threadfin shad, Dorosoma petenense, and annual

stockings of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, and walleye, Sander vitreous). Overall, the

abundance and quality of the fisheries have remained healthy and balanced despite increased
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-25 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 5-4. Estimated Mean Monthly Entrainment of Larvae of Common Fish Species

Month

Estimated Mean Entrainment per Month (all species)

Existing Units(a)

(1978-1983)

Unit 3

 Combination Wet and Dry(a)

March 223,513 5251

April 10,600,874 272,335

May 71,160,116 1,644,107

June 55,855,069 1,204,313

July 11,521,058 230,416

Total 149,390,630 3,354,224

(a) ER (Dominion 2006a)

fishing pressure and shoreline property development. Because of the thriving populations of

game fish and the forage species that support them, the staff concludes that the additional

entrainment resulting from the operation of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

cooling system would represent a minor increase in entrainment, and the impacts on aquatic

species in Lake Anna would be SMALL.

Although the staff concludes the impacts of entrainment for Unit 3 would be SMALL, it

considered further mitigation by employing 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) mesh screening on the traveling

screen intakes associated with Unit 3. Replacing the existing 9.5-mm (0.37-in.) mesh screening

with 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) mesh would significantly reduce the entrainment of most larvae and eggs |

from Lake Anna. However, these organisms would be impinged on the screens because they

have little or no motility and cannot avoid the intake. These life forms would still experience |

mortality rates of close to 100 percent because they are fragile and are unable to escape from

the surface of the screens. The use of fine mesh screen technology to reduce entrainment is

typically employed in riverine environments where a sweeping current is present because of

downstream flow. A sweeping current naturally removes surface debris and impinged

organisms. Such sweeping flows are not present in the North Anna reservoir. The replacement |

of the existing 9.5-mm mesh screen panels with 1-mm mesh would not increase entrainment |

survival unless the intake had a fish return system. Additionally, the size of the intake would |

need to be sufficiently larger to maintain low approach velocities. Therefore, the staff concludes |

that the use of fine-mesh screening would not significantly reduce the already small entrainment

losses predicted for Unit 3 operation, and mitigation is not warranted. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-26 December 2006

5.4.2.4 Aquatic Thermal Impacts

This section discusses the potential thermal impacts to the aquatic resources of Lake Anna from

the discharge of heated blowdown water from the proposed Unit 3 combination wet and dry

cooling system. This water would enter the existing discharge canal, mix with the water |

released from the NAPS Units 1 and 2 cooling system, pass into the WHTF, and ultimately flow

back into Lake Anna and the North Anna River. Fish and other aquatic flora and fauna could be

affected if there are rapid changes in water temperatures above or below their tolerance range. 

The staff evaluated the thermal impacts on the lake’s ecosystem and described the water-use

impacts of the cooling system for an additional unit. Except where more detailed data were

available, the design parameter values from the PPE (see Appendix I) were used as the basis

for the analysis and evaluation of the Unit 3 discharge system. The staff described the physical

attributes of the discharge system in Section 3.2.2.

Currently, cooling water from NAPS Units 1 and 2 is discharged at a rate of 120 m3

/s (4246 cfs)

into the WHTF at a temperature of approximately 8(C (14(F) above intake ambient conditions. 

The water flows through the WHTF, which is a series of lagoons and connecting canals, and

returns to Lake Anna at Dike 3, which is just above the North Anna Dam. Waste heat is

transferred to the atmosphere mostly by evaporation, conduction, and back radiation, and only a

small fraction of waste heat is transported downstream via the North Anna Dam. Dominion

estimates that with both NAPS Units 1 and 2 operating, the cooling water residence time in the

WHTF is approximately 7 days, and would not change significantly with the additional flow from |

proposed Unit 3. About one-half of the waste heat is dissipated in that time. Virtually all of the |

remaining heat is dissipated to the atmosphere from the surface of Lake Anna either by

evaporation or radiation. The general characteristics of Lake Anna include a more riverine

environment upstream to a lacustrine environment downstream. Thus, the middle and lower

portions of the lake are generally stratified during the summer and mixed or weakly stratified in

winter. This would not change with the operation of proposed Unit 3. |

Cold Shock

Cold shock occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as

fish in a power plant’s discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This is

more likely to occur if a single-unit power plant shuts down suddenly in winter. It is less likely to

occur at a multiple-unit plant, because a sudden temperature decrease is moderated by the

heated discharge from the remaining unit or units that continue to operate. Cold shock

mortalities at U.S. nuclear power plants are relatively rare and typically involve small numbers of

fish (NRC 1996).

Winter kills of fish have occurred in Lake Anna associated with cold weather and unusually cold

water temperatures, but plant operations were not a factor (NRC 2004b). During February and

March 1979, large numbers of gizzard shad were killed or stunned when Lake Anna water
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-27 NUREG-1811, Volume I

temperatures fell below 2.2(C (36(F) (VEPCo 1985). These fish drifted into the existing units’

intake and were observed in impingement samples. The susceptibility of gizzard shad and

threadfin shad to winter kills is well known, and limited threadfin shad kills have occurred during

severe winters. The threadfin shad is native to the Gulf slope of the United States, peninsular

Florida, and Central America, and was introduced as a forage fish to a number of Virginia

impoundments in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Because this

species is subject to cold kills when water temperatures drop below 8.9(C (48(F), it is able to

overwinter in northern latitude impoundments only when waters are heated by power plant

effluents (Olmsted and Clugston 1986).

As noted above, incidents of cold shock in receiving waters of nuclear power plants are

infrequent, and even more infrequent at multiple-unit plants. Because the maximum blowdown

discharge temperature is 37.8(C (100(F), and the maximum blowdown flow rate is 351 L/s

(12.4 cfs), the addition of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system

represents a minor contribution of water and heat to the existing discharges associated with

NAPS Units 1 and 2. Thus, the presence of the Unit 3 cooling system would have little or no

impact on increasing the number of fish acclimated to elevated water temperature. Moreover,

the presence of multiple units at a site reduces the effect of cold shock because it is unlikely

that all units would abruptly cease operation simultaneously. Based on the foregoing, the staff

concludes that the impacts of operation from cold shock on aquatic resources would be SMALL,

and mitigation is not warranted.

Heat Stress

The thermal tolerance for aquatic organisms is defined in different ways. Some definitions

relate to the temperature that causes fish to avoid the thermal plume, other definitions relate to

the temperature that fish prefer for spawning, and others relate to the temperatures (upper and

lower) that may kill individual fishes. Some of these tolerances are termed preferred

temperatures, upper avoidance temperatures, and lethal temperatures. A list of these

tolerances for several important species found in the reservoir was compiled in the ER

(Dominion 2006a) and is presented in Table 5-5. While study objectives, methods, and

definitions vary among the temperatures cited, patterns of temperature preference and

tolerance are generally evident for a given species. Critical thermal maxima and chronic lethal

maxima values are arrived at experimentally, and are based on different endpoints and

acclimation schemes.

In Section 5.3, the staff describes its independent assessment of the incremental impacts of the

proposed Unit 3 on the water temperatures within Lake Anna. The negligible increase in flow

and heat load from Unit 3 relative to the existing flow and heat load from Units 1 and 2 would

result in a negligible increase in the temperature and associated heat stress that fish in Lake

Anna would experience. Although temperature-related fish kills have been reported in the lake

and may continue to occur, it is unlikely that the operation of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-28 December 2006

Table 5-5. Temperature Requirements of Important Fish Species of Lake Anna

Species

Preferred

Temperature

Range

Upper

Avoidance

Lethal

(Undefined

Experimental

Method)

Critical Thermal

Maximum (Lethal)

Chronic

Lethal

Maximum

(Lethal)

(C (F (C (F (C (F (C (F (C (F

gizzard shad 19-23(a) 69-73(a) 30(a) 86(a) 37(b) 98(b) –(c) -- -- --

channel

catfish

25-36(a) 77-87(a) 30-35(a) 90-95(a) 33-35(b) 92-95(b) 35.9-42.1(d) 95.9-107.8(a,d) -- --

striped bass 18-21(e) 65-70(e) 25-27(e) 77-81(e) -- -- 31.6(d) 88.9(d) -- --

bluegill 28-33(f) 82-91(f) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

27-32(a) 81-90(a) 30-35(a) 90-95(a) -- -- 36.1-41.4(d) 97-106.5(d,g) 35.9(d) 95.9(d)

largemouth

bass

27-32(a) 81-90(a) 29-34(a) 84-93(a) -- -- -- -- -- --

27-32(a) 81-90(f) 31-33(f) 88-91(f) -- -- 32.3-40.2(d) 97.3-104.4(d,h) -- --

(a) Coutant 1977.

(b) Carlander 1969.

(c) Blank entries indicate no data were found.

(d) Beitinger et al. 2000.

(e) Coutant and Carroll 1980; Moss 1985; Dudley et al. 1977.

(f) Carlander 1977.

(g) Acclimation temperatures >28(C (82(F).

(h) Acclimation temperatures >20(C (68(F).

combination wet and dry cooling system would result in increased mortality beyond that

observed during two unit operation, given the minor flow and thermal inputs to the WHTF and

lake. Additionally, many fish found in the lake are prolific, exhibit a high reproductive potential,

and a compensatory mechanism to offset losses. Fish are mobile and will seek out a thermal |

regime that is optimal for its growth and reproduction. Based on the foregoing, the staff |

concludes the thermal impacts on the fish populations of the discharge of waste heat from

Unit 3 into Lake Anna would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.4.2.5 Striped Bass

Striped bass, Morone saxatilis, are well adapted to residence in fresh water, and are often

chosen for the development of a recreational fishery in inland reservoirs. Considered a

cool-water species, striped bass become less mobile as the water warms and seek out thermal

refugia where water temperature is less than 26°C (79°F) and dissolved oxygen levels are at

least 3 or 4 mg/L (Cheek et al. 1985). Because striped bass are sensitive to changes in

temperature and vulnerable to thermal stress, some reservoir populations are susceptible to

summer die-offs because of elevated lake temperatures and diminished dissolved oxygen
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-29 NUREG-1811, Volume I

levels. In reservoirs similar to Lake Anna in the southern United States, striped bass are

generally found in deeper, colder water during the summer months, and tend to congregate

near the thermocline. The striped bass fishery in Lake Anna is supported by stocking; there is

no evidence that this species spawns in Lake Anna or the North Anna River. Spawning has

been documented in the Pamunkey River during the months of April and May.

Impacts to Striped Bass Populations in Lake Anna

Evidence suggests that unusually high air temperatures and low rainfall in summer (e.g., the

drought conditions that occurred in central Virginia from 2001 to 2002) can reduce striped bass

habitat in some portions of Lake Anna. The closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

system proposed for Unit 3 would contribute less than 1 percent to the current discharge flow of

heated water to the discharge canal and WHTF, and the maximum temperature of the

blowdown water (38(C [100(F]) would be within the range of temperatures currently observed in

the discharge canal in July and August of 37.0( to 39.1(C (98.6( to 102.4(F) (Dominion 2006a). 

Dominion determined the operation of Unit 3 would result in an average increase in Lake Anna |

water temperature of 0.1(F under normal climactic conditions, and of 0.3(F during extended |

drought events. The staff independently reviewed the analyses and agrees with the

assessment. These projections assume full mixing and an average rise in temperature. The |

elevated temperature would actually vary throughout the reservoir, providing thermal refugia to |

highly mobile species.

Based on the above, the staff determined that waste heat input to Lake Anna from the Unit 3

closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system would not appreciably contribute to the

thermal heating that already occurs in Lake Anna because of natural and anthropogenic

(derived from human activities) inputs. Lake Anna currently is stratified during the summer and

is mixed or weakly stratified in winter; this pattern would not change with the operation of Unit 3. 

Although NAPS Units 1 and 2 operations during extended drought periods decrease striped

bass habitat, there is no evidence indicating that suitable habitat would be eliminated in the

mid-lake and upper-lake areas. Because Unit 3 would not significantly contribute to the current

thermal inputs to Lake Anna, the staff concludes that the thermal impacts to striped bass from

the operation of the Unit 3 cooling system would be negligible. |

Impacts to Striped Bass Below the North Anna Dam |

Striped bass are known to occur in the North Anna River downstream of the dam, but these fish

are believed to have passed through or over the dam from Lake Anna. Striped bass are known

to occur and spawn successfully in the Pamunkey River, but they are unlikely to venture above

the fall line during their spawning migrations (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The most upstream |

record of striped bass prior to the impoundment of the reservoir was 90 km (56 mi) downstream |

of the North Anna Dam (Reed and Simmons 1972). Bilkovic et al. (2002) collected striped bass |

eggs and larvae no further upstream than 119 km (74 mi) below the North Anna Dam. Because |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-30 December 2006

of the distances, the waste heat discharged from Units 1 and 2 is not detectable and does not

affect anadromous striped bass populations or known spawning habitat downstream of the dam. 

Because the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and the Unit 4 dry

cooling system would not significantly contribute to the current thermal inputs to the WHTF or

the lake from the operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2, the staff concludes that the thermal impacts

to striped bass in the North Anna/Pamunkey Rivers would be negligible. 

Lake Anna Striped Bass Recreational Fishery

The staff distinguishes between the striped bass fishery and the population of striped bass

inhabiting the reservoir: the striped bass fishery encompasses all aspects of the activity,

business, or practice of catching striped bass in the reservoir and includes the fish, the anglers,

and all related activities, such as boating, tackle sales, and guide services. There are three |

major factors affecting the striped bass population in the reservoir: (1) the VDGIF stocking

strategy, (2) Unit 1 and 2 operations and their effect on water temperatures, and (3) recreational

fishing pressure. As described above, the effects of NAPS Units 1 and 2 operations would not

noticeably change with the addition of Unit 3. Based on the expected blowdown flow and |

temperature, operation of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system |

would not contribute to the existing thermal inputs occurring from the operation of Units 1 and 2. |

Because the Lake Anna striped bass population is sustained through stocking, and suitable

striped bass habitat is expected to continue to exist in Lake Anna, and in view of the minimal

heat input to the WHTF or the lake from Unit 3, the staff concludes that the heat stress impact

on the striped bass and associated fishery from Unit 3 operations would be minimal.

5.4.2.6 Downstream Impacts

The streamflow in the North Anna River downstream of the North Anna Dam is influenced by

the flow attenuation impact of the lake and policies governing the release from the dam. Based

on streamflow data collected downstream from Doswell, Virginia (approximately 32 km [20 mi]

downstream of the North Anna Dam), for the period of October 1979 through September 2003,

the monthly mean streamflows vary from a maximum of about 23 m3

/s (804 cfs) during March to

a minimum of 4 m3

/s (149 cfs) during August (USGS 2006).

Because of the large surface area of the lake, small increases in lake elevations can quickly

accommodate significant upstream flood flows. The downstream flow from the dam is less

variable than it was prior to impoundment. Under normal operating conditions, release gates on

the dam are operated to maintain a steady lake level elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. For lake

levels less than 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL, the Lake Level Contingency Plan is followed in

accordance with Part I.F of the VPDES permit (VDEQ 2001). This plan requires a normal

minimum water release rate from the North Anna Dam of 1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs). If the lake level

drops to 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL, releases are incrementally reduced to a minimum of 0.57 m3

/s

(20 cfs). These minimum flow requirements are established to maintain instream flows and
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-31 NUREG-1811, Volume I

water quality in the North Anna River downstream of the dam, and in the Pamunkey and York

Rivers further downstream. Steady low-flow releases from the dam can persist for several

months, particularly in the drier summer period, and under conditions of extreme drought (e.g.,

the drought occurring from October 2001 to December 2002). Low-water conditions are quickly

reversed when normal precipitation rates resume in the region, and the water release rate of at

least 1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs) would be reestablished. Raising the lake level 25.4 cm (10 in.) would |

keep the frequency of the low flow conditions with the addition of Unit 3 the same as current

conditions with Units 1 and 2. |

The VDEQ identified the possibility of raising the lake level 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) to mitigate

the impact on North Anna River downstream flows (Dominion 2006a). The authority to require

that the lake level be raised resides with the Commonwealth of Virginia.

While the staff concludes that the incremental heat load from Unit 3 would cause undetectable

changes in lake temperature, the evaporative losses from the cooling towers could result in

consumptive water losses that may noticeably impact lake levels and downstream flows. The

staff performed an independent review of water budget impacts of the operation of Unit 3 to

assess incremental declines in reservoir water levels and downstream discharges. The results

in Table 5-6 indicate that the percentage of time that the lake would be below 75.6 m (248 ft)

would increase from about 6 percent for NAPS Units 1 and 2 (baseline) to 11 percent for NAPS

Units 1 and 2 plus Unit 3 (proposal). Because the Lake Level Contingency Plan requires the

lake discharges to be incrementally reduced from the normal minimum water release rate of

1.1 m3

/s (40 cfs) to 0.57 m3/s (20 cfs) as the lake level declines below 75.6 m (248 ft), the

percentage of time that the lake level is between 76.2 m (250 ft) and 75.6 m (248 ft) is

essentially the same between the baseline (57 percent) and the proposed (55 percent). 

As discussed below, the impacts to aquatic ecology during low-flow conditions would likely be

greatest in the reach of the North Anna River extending from the dam to the confluence with the

South Anna River. To quantify the impacts to instream flows in the North Anna River, Dominion

calculated Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) using a standard methodology described in

ER (Dominion 2006a). The IHA analysis concluded that the Pamunkey River flow downstream

of the North Anna River would be reduced by 0.5 to 5 percent for all flow regimes, but that river

flow during the months of April and May would be sufficient to support striped bass spawning. 

Dominion concluded that the biological impacts of the Unit 3 closed cycle, combination wet and

dry cooling system to the general aquatic community of the North Anna River and striped bass

spawning and rearing areas in the Pamunkey would be indistinguishable from the effects of

operations of NAPS Units 1 and 2.

The existing biological communities in the North Anna River and the waters downstream of the

North Anna River experience a wide variation in seasonal and even daily water temperatures,

and most resident species are able to tolerate potentially stressful conditions because of |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-32 December 2006

Table 5-6. Fraction of Time at Various Lake Level Elevation (with associated downstream

releases)

Lake level

Elevation (ft)

North Anna Dam 

Discharge (cfs)

NAPS Existing

Units 1 and 2

NAPS Existing Units 

1 and 2 plus Unit 3

At or above 250 ft Follows rating curve (>40 cfs) 37% 33%

Between 250 and 248 ft 40 cfs 57% 55%

At or below 248 ft 20 cfs 6% 11%

At or below 246 ft 20 cfs 1% 2%

Minimum elevation 245.2 ft 243.5 ft

low-flow conditions, anthropogenic impacts, and other physical or chemical stressors. Although

the blowdown water from Unit 3 would contain biocides, antiscalants, and dispersals, the

concentrations of these chemicals in the blowdown water would not be expected to be

sufficiently high to affect species downstream of the dam. Moreover, the use and

concentrations of anti-fouling chemicals would be regulated by Dominion’s NPDES permit,

which establishes discharge criteria to protect sensitive aquatic communities. Because the

incremental waste heat transported to the North Anna River would be small, it is not expected to

adversely affect the aquatic communities of the North Anna River nor is it expected to influence

the temperatures of the Pamunkey or York Rivers or the Chesapeake Bay. As described |

above, although flow over the North Anna Dam would be reduced to 0.55 m3/s (20 cfs) an |

additional 5 percent of the time, sufficient water is expected to be available in the North Anna |

River to support downstream spawning of striped bass in the Pamunkey River. The lowest flow

regimes are likely to occur during the months from June to December when striped bass are not

spawning and are less likely to be adversely affected by lower water levels.

A preliminary analysis of American shad, Alosa sapidissima, data by VDGIF suggests that a

correlation may exist between flow and year class strength. Additionally, the VDGIF has |

expressed concern over maintaining adequate flows in the North Anna River during March |

through October for a variety of species and life stages, including herring (Alosa aestivalis), |

shad, smallmouth bass, striped bass, and resident minnows and suckers. Based on the |

life-history information described in Jenkins and Burkhead (1994), these species typically spawn |

in the spring and early summer (March to July) when low-flow conditions are unlikely. This |

could result in the need to modify the water releases at the North Anna Dam during certain

periods of the year.

Operation of Unit 3 could result in consumptive water use resulting from evaporative loss from

the cooling towers. Based on the water budget modeling conducted by the staff, the loss of

water from Lake Anna reservoir for the operation of Unit 3 would increase the percentage of

time that the reservoir would be at or below 75.6 m (248 ft) from 6 percent for the baseline

(i.e., operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2) to 11 percent for the operation of Units 1, 2, and 3. This
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-33 NUREG-1811, Volume I

would extend the period of time when releases over North Anna Dam are reduced to 0.57 m3/s

(20 cfs) and result in reduced downstream flow during the summer months or extended periods

of drought. 

Although the staff concluded that impacts associated with operation of NAPS and proposed

Unit 3 on downstream aquatic communities would not be significant, the staff also considered |

the effects of varying the North Anna Dam release rate during late summer and fall to more

closely emulate natural variations in stream flow. The staff determined that varying water

release rates might be preferable to a constant release rate in late summer and early fall

because most organisms in small rivers are adapted to a varying flow regime and steady flows

may result in a change in community structure. Modifications to the water release regime from

the North Anna Dam to mitigate impacts would be under the jurisdiction of VDEQ.

5.4.2.7 Shoreline Erosion and Other Physical Impacts

Because low-flow velocities in Lake Anna predominate, increased shoreline erosion, lake-bed

scouring, and increased turbidity levels caused by the operation of Unit 3 would not be

detectable or destabilizing to the aquatic resources of Lake Anna. The flow velocity in the

discharge channel, the connecting canals, and the main ponds of the WHTF would be slightly

higher than in Lake Anna because of their smaller dimensions. The proposed Unit 3

closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system would release a maximum of 351 L/s

(12.4 cfs) of blowdown water into the existing discharge canal. This represents an increase in

the velocity of water in the discharge canal and WHTF of about 0.3 percent. Because the banks

of the canals are currently protected by rip-rap from 73.8 to 76.2 m (242 to 250 ft) MSL, the

small contribution to flow and velocity from Unit 3 would not result in scouring or erosion in the

canal. During the operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2, the flow velocity in the WHTF is generally

less than 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s) and has not caused any noticeable scouring or erosion. This would not

change based on the small contribution to the overall flow and velocity resulting from the

operation of Unit 3.

Physical impacts resulting from increased turbidity or siltation are unlikely, based on the small

changes in discharge flow and velocity expected from Unit 3. Siltation is expected to be

minimal because any medium or coarse sediment that was suspended would settle before

reaching the intake approach channel during normal lake conditions. Sediment entering the

new intake channel from floods or storm events would not present a siltation problem because

the channel is 3.7 m (12 ft) deeper than required by the design for the new intake, allowing

room for occasional sediment deposition. Fine-grained sediment entering the intakes would

either be removed during the water treatment process or returned to Lake Anna via the WHTF

at Dike 3. 

There is no evidence of scouring, erosion, or excessive turbidity from the operation of NAPS

Units 1 and 2, and no evidence to suggest that this would change with the addition of Unit 3
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-34 December 2006

given the proportionally small amounts of blowdown water that would be released during normal

operations. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts to aquatic ecological

resources from physical changes to Lake Anna from operation of Unit 3 closed-cycle,

combination wet and dry cooling would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.4.2.8 Summary of Aquatic Impacts

The aquatic plants and animals in Lake Anna represent a balanced aquatic community. Over

the years, these populations have changed as the reservoir’s ecosystem has matured. 

Because of the demand for public fishing, the fish community has been changed through

species additions (e.g., threadfin shad) and annual stockings of striped bass and walleye. 

Overall, the fisheries have remained healthy and balanced despite shoreline development,

NAPS operations, and increased fishing pressure.

Based on the information provided in the ER (Dominion 2006a), the staff evaluated the impacts

to aquatic communities in Lake Anna, the North Anna River, and the downstream river systems

to which the North Anna is a tributary. Because Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers, water use

would be minimal and would not result in detectible impacts to the aquatic environment. The

closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system proposed for Unit 3 would result in

significantly less impingement and entrainment than a once-through cooling system, and would

contribute minimally to the thermal load currently experienced by the lake from the operations of

the NAPS Units 1 and 2. Based on the impingement and entrainment modeling conducted by

Dominion and data from the Section 316(b) demonstration study for NAPS Units 1 and 2, as

discussed above, the operation of Unit 3 would increase the overall yearly impingement and

entrainment losses by approximately 1 percent. These losses are not expected to result in

noticeable changes to the fish communities in Lake Anna.

The proposed Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system for would discharge

a maximum of 351 L/s (12.4 cfs) at a maximum temperature of 38°C (100°F). This flow rate

represents 0.3 percent of the about 120,000 L/s (4246 cfs) flow discharged by NAPS Units 1

and 2, and the discharge temperature of Unit 3 blowdown water is within the range currently

observed in the discharge canal during July and August (37.0° to 39.1°C [98.6° to 102.4°F]). 

Thus, the operation of Unit 3 would result in a negligible change in the volume and temperature

of the water entering the discharge canal, the WHTF, Lake Anna, or the North Anna River.

Operation of the Unit 3 cooling system would result in consumptive water use from evaporative |

losses. Based on the water budget modeling conducted by the staff, Lake Anna reservoir water

losses resulting from the operation of Unit 3 would increase the fraction of time that the

reservoir would be at or below 75.6 m (248 ft) from 6 percent for the baseline (i.e., operation of

NAPS Units 1 and 2) to 11 percent for the operation of Units 1, 2, and 3. This would extend the

period of time when releases over North Anna Dam are reduced to 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) and result

in reduced downstream flow during the summer months or extended periods of drought. Based
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-35 NUREG-1811, Volume I

on the staff's independent review of the IHA analysis conducted by Dominion, sufficient water

should be available during the spring and early summer to support striped bass spawning and

rearing requirements in the Pamunkey River downstream of NAPS. Based on the foregoing, the

staff concludes that the aquatic impacts to Lake Anna and the downstream communities from

the operation of Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

5.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

This section describes the potential impacts that operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 could

have on threatened or endangered species at and in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. 

The terrestrial species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site are

described in Section 2.7.1, and the potential impacts of operating the new units to terrestrial

species are examined in Section 5.4.3.1. The threatened and endangered aquatic species

potentially occurring near the ESP site are described in Section 2.7.4, and potential impacts of

operating the new units to aquatic species are considered in Section 5.4.3.2.

On May 20, 2005, the FWS concurred with the staff’s biological assessment that the proposed |

action would have no effect on the dwarf wedge mussel, small whorled pogonia, sensitive |

joint-vetch, or swamp pink, and may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle |

(NRC 2005). On May 17, 2006, the staff informed FWS that it had become aware of two new |

eagle’s nests located approximately 5 and 8 km (2.5 and 5 mi), from the North Anna ESP site |

(NRC 2006d). The staff concluded that because no ESP activities are proposed within the |

normal restriction buffer distances 0.4 to 0.8 km (0.25 to 0.5 mi) used for bald eagle

management and protection, the proposed actions at the North Anna ESP site are not likely to |

adversely affect the bald eagle (NRC 2006d). |

5.4.3.1 Terrestrial Species

Except for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), no Federally listed threatened or

endangered species are known to occur at or near the North Anna ESP site. The closest

known bald eagle nesting site is located more than 4 km (2.5 mi) from the North Anna ESP site. 

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, a 0.25-mile (0.4-km) buffer zone is usually preserved to limit

construction activities (FWS and VDGIF 2000). Dominion stated in its May 24, 2006, RAI

response that it follows nesting guidelines referenced by the Virginia Department of Game and

Inland Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Dominion 2006b). There are no

Federally listed terrestrial threatened or endangered animal species that are known to occur

along the North Anna River downstream from Lake Anna. Therefore, if any changes to the flow

regimes in this portion of the river were made, there would not be an effect on Federally listed

threatened or endangered terrestrial species.

Three Federally listed threatened or endangered plant species have been identified as

potentially occurring within the NAPS transmission line rights-of-way. These include the small
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-36 December 2006

whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), swamp pink (Helonias bullata), and the sensitive

joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). In its assessment of the potential impacts of continued

operation of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2, the staff concluded that continued operation and

maintenance of the transmission lines and rights-of-way would not adversely impact these plant

species (NRC 2002b). Because no changes to the transmission lines and rights-of-way are

anticipated to result if the proposed Units 3 and 4 are built, there would be no change to the

potential impact of operation and maintenance of the transmission lines or rights-of-way on

these threatened or endangered plant species.

The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4, including

operation of the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems, as well as potential

changes to the flows in the North Anna River on terrestrial threatened and endangered species. 

Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of operating the proposed new

units on terrestrial threatened and endangered species would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.

5.4.3.2 Aquatic Species

Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in Lake Anna and the North Anna River for more

than 25 years. No Federally listed fish species has been collected in any of these monitoring

studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys or occasional special studies

conducted by Virginia Power. No range of any Federally or State-listed fish species includes

Lake Anna or the North Anna River, and none is believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake

Anna or the North Anna River (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania

Counties).

According to VDGIF and VDCR (Division of Natural Heritage) databases, one Federally listed

mussel species (dwarf wedge mussel [Alasmidonta heterodon]), and one mussel species (fluted

kidneyshell [Ptychobranchus subtentum]) that is a candidate for Federal listing, occur in |

counties that border Lake Anna or the North Anna River. Neither species has been found in

Lake Anna or the North Anna River. Neither of the two Federal species nor the State-listed |

Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) has been found in Lake Anna, the North Anna River, or their |

tributaries. |

The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operating the proposed new Units 3 and 4, including

operating the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems, as well as potential changes

to the flows in the North Anna River, on aquatic threatened and endangered species. Based on

this evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation on threatened or endangered

aquatic species would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-37 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section describes the socioeconomic impacts from operating Units 3 and 4 at the North

Anna ESP site, and from the activities and demands of the operating workforce on the

surrounding region. Socioeconomic impacts include potential impacts on individual

communities, the surrounding region, and minority and low-income populations.

5.5.1 Physical Impacts

This section assesses the potential physical impacts on the nearby communities that could

result from the operation of new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Potential impacts

discussed include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. Dominion

plans to manage these physical impacts to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local

environmental regulations (Dominion 2006a). Dominion does not expect operation of the new

units to significantly affect the North Anna ESP site and its vicinity (Dominion 2006a). The

staff’s evaluation is discussed in the following subsections.

5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

Access to the North Anna ESP site is provided by State Route (SR) 700. The terrain around

and into the plant site is undulating and wooded. Most of the site structures are screened from

public view up to the proximity of the plant boundary. There are no residential areas located

within the North Anna ESP site boundary.

Offsite, the region surrounding Lake Anna and the North Anna ESP site is covered with forest

and brushwood interspersed with occasional farmland. The population immediately surrounding

the lake ranges from about 980 and 2940 within 4 and 8 km (2.5 and 5 mi), respectively, from

the ESP site (Dominion 2006a). The town of Mineral, located about 10 km (6 mi) from the North

Anna ESP site, has a population of 424 (USCB 2000).

Because of its distance from the ESP site, residents of Mineral would experience minimal

physical impacts from operation of the new units. Depending on meteorological conditions

(e.g., wind direction), people who work or live close to the North Anna ESP site (the nearest

residence is about 1000 m [3000 ft] away) could experience some noise (particularly from the

Unit 3 and 4 cooling systems), fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from operation |

activities. Those least impacted by station operations would be transient populations, such as

temporary employees, recreational visitors to Lake Anna, and tourists passing through the area.

 Such effects should be transient and have minimal impact.

Personnel working onsite are most likely to be impacted by station operation. The number of

employees at the North Anna site would double to approximately 1600-plus employees if both

Units 3 and 4 were in operation. Onsite impacts to permanent workers from station operations
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-38 December 2006

could be mitigated through adequate training and use of personal protective equipment to

minimize the risk of potentially harmful exposures. Standard management practices should

minimize such exposures. Emergency first-aid care and regular health and safety monitoring of

permanent operating personnel could also be undertaken.

The staff evaluated the information provided by Dominion and notes that most of the local public

is located well away from the North Anna ESP site and onsite impacts to North Anna ESP

workers can be mitigated. Based on these considerations and its own independent review, the

staff concludes that the overall physical impacts of station operation to workers and the local

public are SMALL, and additional mitigation beyond the actions discussed above is not

warranted.

5.5.1.2 Buildings

Because operational activities are not expected to impact any offsite buildings, most of which

are located well away from the North Anna ESP site boundaries, the staff concludes that any

offsite physical impacts from station operation to buildings would be SMALL, and mitigation is

not warranted.

5.5.1.3 Roads

In its analysis, the staff assumed that by the time North Anna Units 3 and 4 would begin

operation, improvements to the road systems around the North Anna ESP site, if any, (as

discussed in Sections 4.5.1.3 and 4.5.3.2) would have been completed. Construction of Units 3

and 4 would require up to 5000 workers while the operating workforce would number approximately 720, in addition to the 850 permanent workforce at the existing units. Thus, any impacts |

to the road system by the operating workforce would most likely be significantly less than

impacts incurred with the addition of the construction workforce.

There may be some congestion at the entrances to the North Anna ESP site at shift changes. 

There may also be some ambient dust levels from commuter traffic into and out of the North

Anna ESP site, but this is expected to be minimal because commuters to and from the site

would be using paved roads.

Based on the staff assumption that any needed upgrades to the regional road system would

have been made in conjunction with, or as a result of, the construction of Units 3 and 4, and that

the number of operating personnel would be significantly fewer than the number of construction

personnel, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of station operation on the road system

would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-39 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.5.1.4 Aesthetics

The turbine building for Units 1 and 2 is about 30 m (100 ft) above grade and the containment

buildings are about 40 m (130 ft) above grade. The tallest building for Units 3 and 4 could be

71 m (234 ft) above grade, the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry towers would be

less than 55 m (180 ft) tall, and the Unit 4 dry towers would be about 48 m (150 ft) tall

(Dominion 2006a). The ESP and cooling tower site grade would be lower than the surrounding

terrain, except in the direction of Lake Anna. Given a distance of about 900 m (3000 ft) to the

nearest residence, screening by trees and other vegetation on the wooded ESP site, and

relative elevations, most residents near the site would not have a clear view of Units 3 and 4. 

However, recreational users on the Lake Anna Reservoir and some residents along the lake

would be able to see the new units in addition to the other developed areas of the NAPS site

already visible. The tallest building at least would rise above the treeline, but would be largely

screened by trees on the south, north, and west.

The Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system would generate a vapor plume

that could be visible above the height of the plant buildings and that could extend beyond the

site boundary. The plume would be most prevalent during times when the ambient temperature

is low and when the dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures are nearly equal. Typically this would

be between late autumn and early spring.

The environmental impact of the operation of the wet towers portion of the cooling system was

evaluated by Dominion using the SACTI (Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts) system

of computer programs, initially written and assembled by the Argonne National Laboratory

(ANL) (ANL 1984) for the Electric Power Research Institute, and was used to estimate the

impact of operating the cooling towers. The version used by Dominion is dated November 1,

1990. The input meteorological data used to estimate the impacts encompassed the period of

1998 through 2000. It included data collected onsite as well as site representative data

collected at the National Weather Service sites in Richmond, Virginia, and Dulles Airport in

northern Virginia. For the calculations, the cooling towers were analyzed operating in the EC

mode, which results in the greatest evaporation rates from the towers, and therefore, resulted in

the greatest level of impacts (Dominion 2006a).

The results of the staff’s independent analysis indicated that for all seasons, the plume would

extend to a maximum height of 980 m (3200 ft) and to a length of 4900 m (16,000 ft) from the

tower. The annual duration of plume fogging (i.e., the plume remaining at the ground level)

would be about 70 hr (excluding hours of natural fog), with a majority of fogging occurring at

about 300 m (1000 ft) to the south-southeast from the cooling towers. Fogging would, however,

occur as far as 1600 m (5200 ft) from the tower. Fogging is estimated to occur during all

seasons except summer. The analysis indicates that icing is unlikely to occur in conjunction

with ground-level fogging (Dominion 2006a). 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-40 December 2006

Table 5-6 presents estimates, by season, of the approximate percentage of time that the plume

would extend above the tallest structure in the PPE (71 m [234 ft]) or would extend more than

800 m (about 2600 ft) from the towers.

In Dominion’s plume model, the top of the tallest structure in the PPE is approximately 50 m

(160 ft) above the top of traditional mechanical-draft wet cooling towers, which are only 22 m

(74 ft) tall. The shorter traditional wet cooling tower was used in the analysis to provide an

upper bound for nearby plume effects such as fogging or salt drift. The Unit 3 closed-cycle,

combination wet and dry cooling system described in the ER would be 55 m (180 ft) tall.

Dominion suggests that the cooling towers could be plume-abated, which would significantly

reduce the visual impact below that shown in Table 5-7. The frequency results reported below

are for a release point between 40 m (130 ft) and 50 m (160 ft) below the height of the tallest

structure on the North Anna ESP site. The evaluation indicates that on an annual average

basis, the plume would extend more than 200 m (650 ft) above the tower or extend more than

400 m (1300 ft) in length approximately 10 percent of the time the wet towers are operating. 

These results are based on the wet cooling towers operating 100 percent of the time in the EC

mode, which results in the most fogging.

Deposition of salts from cooling tower drift would occur in all directions from the towers out to

1525 m (5000 ft), but would occur predominately in the areas to the north through northeast as

well as to the south through southeast of the towers. The maximum estimated amount of

deposition is calculated to be 12.6 kg/km2

/month at 175 m (575 ft) north-northeast of the cooling

towers. The vast majority of the drift deposition would occur within 300 m (1000 ft) of the

towers. Significant chemical interaction of the cooling tower plume and pollutants emitted onsite

or in the vicinity of the plant is not anticipated. 

In its May 24, 2006, response to the NRC’s Request for Additional Information (Dominion

2006b), Dominion represented that the fogging and salt-deposition analysis conducted as a part

of this ESP application remains bounding (see Appendix J).

In Appendix K, the staff evaluated the impacts of Unit 3 operation on water use in relation to

water levels within Lake Anna over a 35-year period; the analysis is also applicable to the

aesthetics impacts as well. Lake levels would be above 75.6 m (248 ft) about 89 percent of the |

time with Units 1 and 2 and Unit 3 operating versus about 94 percent with only NAPS Units 1

and 2 operating. Levels below 75 m (246 ft) (just above the lowest level experienced during the

2001 to 2002 drought) could occur about 2 percent of the time with Unit 3 operating, versus

1 percent with only NAPS Units 1 and 2 operating. The minimum water level with Unit 3

operating was estimated at 74.22 m (243.5 ft), versus 74.74 m (245.2 ft) with only NAPS

Units 1 and 2. Under severe drought conditions, Unit 3 could have an exacerbating effect on

the drawdown of Lake Anna, potentially adding to the duration of low water levels, which would

affect the visual impact of the amount of shoreline exposed. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-41 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 5-7. Fraction of Time by Season That Water Vapor Plume from the Proposed Unit 3

Wet and Dry Cooling Towers Would Exceed the Height of the Tallest Structure in

the PPE or Would Extend More than 800 m (2625 ft) from the Towers 

Plume height Plume height Plume length 

>40 m (131 ft) above >50 m (164 ft) above > 800 m (2625 ft)

Season top of towers top of towers from towers 

Winter 89 49 20 

Spring 77 29 11 

Summer 78 20 4 

Fall 79 27 7 

Source: Dominion 2006a

Because the new units would be located in the existing power station complex and the visual

aspects of the site to offsite viewers would be limited by screening and topography, and based

on information provided by Dominion (2006a) and its independent review, as discussed above,

the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts from the operation of Units 3 and 4 would be

SMALL. There would be an elevated steam plume from the operation of the Unit 3 cooling

towers; the staff concludes that the visual impacts would be quite noticeable at times, especially

during the winter (periodic MODERATE visual impact). On an annual basis, however, this

impact would be limited to about 10 percent of the time and would be the least from mid-spring

to early fall when outdoor recreation is most likely to occur. In addition, the staff identified that

during severe drought conditions, the operation of Unit 3 would have an impact on the water

levels by slightly adding to the duration and extent of shoreline mud flats that could be exposed;

the staff concludes that these visual aesthetic impacts would temporarily be MODERATE. 

Mitigation is not warranted because of the temporary and infrequent nature of the impacts.

5.5.2 Demography

Population in the region within a 80-km (50-mi) radius of the North Anna ESP site is projected to

grow at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent between 2000 and 2020 (i.e., from 1,538,156 in |

2000 to 2,161,660 in 2020; see Table 2-5). The economy in the region is considered to be |

strong and is growing.

There are currently 850 personnel employed at NAPS for Units 1 and 2 (Dominion 2006a). |

Approximately 720 additional permanent workers would be required for the operation of the

proposed Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2006a). As an upper-bound estimate, the staff assumed that |

these 720 workers would relocate into the area with their families (i.e., none of the new workers

already lived in the area). The 720 additional employees would translate into an increase in

population of about 2900 to the region, assuming each new employee represents a family of

four (Dominion 2006a). Assuming that the geographic distribution of new employees would be

the same as for the existing units when it was evaluated for license renewal (NRC 2002b) (see
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-42 December 2006

Table 2-17), about 208 new employees would settle in Louisa County, 163 in Spotsylvania

County, 105 in Orange County, 91 in Henrico County and the City of Richmond, and 153 in the

other counties within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of North Anna ESP site.

The addition of the new employees and their families would equate to the following percentage

increase in population (using 2000 census data, see Table 2-7): Louisa County, 3.2 percent;

Orange County, 1.6 percent; and Spotsylvania County, 0.7 percent. The potential percentage

increase for Henrico County and the City of Richmond would be substantially less than

0.1 percent. Overall, the potential increases in population do not represent a large percentage

increase in the total population, even for Louisa County, which is expected to gain the highest

percentage of new employees.

Some new jobs may result from employment of the new operating personnel through the

multiplier effect attributable to the operations workforce. But these increases, when compared

to the total population base in the region, would be expected to be minimal as well. And many

of these new jobs would be filled by workers who already reside in the region.

The staff evaluated the impacts of station operation on increases in population and determined

that while the new operating personnel are expected to come from outside the region, their

small numbers, when considering the population base of each jurisdiction, would not

significantly increase the base population within each jurisdiction. Most new jobs created

through the multiplier effect are expected to go to workers who already reside in the region. 

Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that the impacts of station operation on

increases in the regional population would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.5.3 Community Characteristics

This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

operation of Units 3 and 4 at North Anna ESP site. The evaluation assesses impacts of

operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the surrounding region during a

40-year operating license period. Dominion expects to employ up to an additional 720 workers

to operate the new units (Dominion 2006a). This is in addition to the 850 personnel currently |

employed at the site (Dominion 2006a).

5.5.3.1 Economy

The impacts of station operation on the local and regional economy are dependent on the

region’s current and projected economy and population. Some insight can be obtained on the

projected economy and population by consulting county comprehensive plans and data from the

U.S. Census Bureau. The economic impacts over a 40-year period of station operation are

qualitatively discussed.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-43 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion stated that most new operating personnel are expected to come from outside the

region (Dominion 2006a). Their employment for such an extended period of time would have

economic and social impacts on the surrounding region. Louisa County (site of the operating

plants) would be the most impacted. Orange County may be the second most impacted. 

Outside of these areas, the impacts become diffuse as a result of interacting with the larger

economic base of the surrounding counties and the City of Richmond. Impacts would affect

areas such as transportation, taxes, aesthetics and recreation, housing, public services, and

education, which are discussed separately in the following sections. The magnitude of the

impacts hinge on (1) the percentage of the workforce that would come from within the region of

interest (80 km [50 mi]) and thus commute to the site and (2) those workers who might relocate

to the area and whether they relocate to Louisa and Orange Counties or Henrico County and

the City of Richmond.

The new jobs, as with the construction workforce, would also create new jobs in the region

through the multiplier effect. Any multiplier effect resulting from the operating personnel

expenditures in the region would most likely mean that some residents would obtain new or

higher paying jobs as a result of the increased economic activity.

The staff reviewed the generally positive impacts of station operation on the economy of the

region and concludes that the impacts (including tax receipts; see Section 5.5.3.3) would be |

small everywhere except potentially in Louisa and Orange Counties, where the impacts could

be moderate. The magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic

bases of Henrico and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond; whereas, within the

smaller economic bases of Orange and Louisa Counties, the economic impacts would be more

noticeable. Based on the effects of station operation on the regional economies, the staff

concludes that the impacts would be SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE BENEFICIAL (Louisa

and Orange Counties). 

5.5.3.2 Transportation

Section 4.5.3.2 discusses a number of permanent changes to the regional and local

transportation network that could be made to reduce potential adverse impacts generated by

the influx of 5000 construction workers during construction of the new units. These include

improvements planned for I-95, U.S. 33, and State roads in Spotsylvania and Louisa Counties,

among others. These permanent changes, if implemented, would reduce or eliminate any

potential adverse impacts that could be generated by the additional operating workforce of

about 720 workers and their families.

Impacts that might occur include potential congestion on some of the Federal and State routes

leading to the North Anna ESP site. In addition, there could be crowding and congestion at the

entrance to the plant site during shift changes, as previously discussed. Not all of the additional

720 permanent workers for Units 3 and 4 and existing operating labor force for Units 1 and 2
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-44 December 2006

would be commuting to and from the site at the same time and would mostly likely be spread

throughout the 24-hour period in three shifts. Outage workers would add to this total |

periodically on a temporary basis. |

Should transportation difficulties arise during the period of operation, the staff expects that

Dominion would cooperate with local jurisdictions and would implement some of the mitigation

practices undertaken during the construction phase as part of its traffic management plan, such

as promoting car and van pools to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads leading to the

plant (see Appendix J).

Based on the staff’s assumption that transportation network improvements would be made

during the construction phase to accommodate the much-larger construction work force and

that Dominion would implement a traffic management plan, as needed, the staff concludes that

the overall impacts of station operation on transportation would be SMALL, and further

mitigation would not be warranted.

5.5.3.3 Taxes

Several types of taxes would be applicable to the permanent workforce at North Anna ESP site. 

These include income taxes on wages and salaries paid and corporate profits, sales and use taxes

on purchases, and property taxes on owned, real property. Each is briefly discussed in turn.

Income Taxes

Virginia has both personal and corporate income taxes. Wages and salaries of permanent

employees of Dominion’s new operating units would pay taxes to Virginia if they reside in

Virginia. Dominion would pay a corporate income tax to the Commonwealth on the profits

received from the new units. While the exact amount of tax payable to Virginia is not known, it

could be substantial over the 40-year life of the operating units. The taxes collected through

personal income and corporate tax, while substantial, are nevertheless a small sum when

compared to the total amount of income taxes Virginia would collect over that period.

Sales and Use Taxes

Virginia has two types of sales and use taxes. Four percent is levied on certain food items with

3 percent going to the Commonwealth and 1 percent going to the local jurisdiction in which the

tax is collected (VTAX 2000). In addition, Virginia has a 4.5 percent sales tax levied on other

goods and services sold, with the Commonwealth receiving 3.5 percent and local jurisdictions

receiving the remaining 1 percent (VTAX 1987). The current combined sales and use tax rate

for Louisa County is 4.5 percent; 3.5 percent would be paid to the Commonwealth of Virginia

and 1 percent to the locality, such as Louisa County (Dominion 2006a).
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-45 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The Commonwealth and the counties surrounding the North Anna ESP site would experience

an increase in the amount of sales and use taxes collected from purchases made by the

employees of the site. Additional sales and use taxes would be generated by expenditures by

the workers at restaurants, hotels, and retail outlets. The taxes paid to any one jurisdiction are

a small sum when compared to the total sales and use taxes collected by the region as a whole.

Property Taxes

The counties surrounding the ESP site and the City of Richmond would benefit from additional

revenue generated by property taxes collected from new North Anna employees who purchase

houses.

Property taxes would be levied on Dominion by Louisa County for the increase in value of the

NAPS property because of the new units, as well as continued levies on the existing Units 1

and 2. An average of 46 percent of the property taxes collected in Louisa County between 1995

and 2003 came from Dominion for NAPS (Section 2.8.2.3). The addition of the new units at the

North Anna ESP site could substantially increase the property tax payments. The existing units

have enabled the property tax rate assessments in Louisa County to remain substantially below

those of neighboring counties (Section 2.8.2.1). Operation of the new units would help offset

the depreciation of the existing units; thus, NAPS could continue to be a major benefit to Louisa

County when the new units start operating.

The potential effects of electric utility deregulation within Virginia on Units 3 and 4 are not known

at this time (NRC 2002b). However, it is reasonable to conclude that the operation of new units

should result in an increase in, or at least the maintenance of, the existing amounts paid in

property taxes to Louisa County.

It is not possible to estimate either the real property taxes on housing that would be paid to the

regional governments by the new employees locating to the area, or expenditures that the

regional governments would incur as a result of the need to provide increased services

(e.g., school, recreational, medical, fire, and police, and transportation systems) for the new

employees at North Anna site. The expenditures by the regional governments would, in part, be

related to the number, size, and age distribution of the families of the new employees.

The staff considers the overall impacts of the property taxes collected to be beneficially large for

Louisa County and small for the other counties in the vicinity of NAPS. The amount of property

taxes collected on the operation of the new units could represent a significant portion of the total

property taxes collected by Louisa County.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) Note that these numbers do not include boat launches from private marinas.

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-46 December 2006

Summary of the Impact of Taxes

The staff independently evaluated the effect of taxes from income on wages and salaries of

Units 3 and 4 operational workers, and sales, use, and property taxes on these employees and

on Dominion’s corporate profits, most of which represent beneficial sources of income for the

Commonwealth, some of which would benefit the counties in the region. Property tax paid by

Dominion would directly benefit Louisa County. Based on its independent review of the overall

impacts from income, sales and use, and property taxes, the staff concludes that the beneficial

impact level would be SMALL on the region to LARGE for Louisa County. 

5.5.3.4 Recreation

Most of the 43,000 anglers visiting Lake Anna every year launch their boats at Lake Anna State

Park and at commercial marinas. Pleasure boat traffic on the lake exceeds angler traffic by as

much as 10 to 15 times. Use of stationary boat docks would be impacted when the lake level

drops below 76 m (248 ft) MSL. At and below this level, many of the stationary docks become

unusable. However, boat ramps would be usable for launching boats until the water level

receded below the end of the ramp. During the 2001 to 2002 drought, most private boat ramps

could not support launches at lake levels below 74.7 m (245.1 ft) MSL (Dominion 2004c). Even

though they were adversely affected because of lower traffic and costs incurred to extend

ramps, adjust docks, and move boats, most of the marina operations and fishing guides were

able to adjust their operations and continue to operate profitably (Jaksch and Scott 2005). The

staff does not expect adverse impacts from NAPS on marinas and guides in normal water

years. Because of the adjustments already made in 2001 and 2002, the staff concludes that

impacts on marina operators and fishing guides from operations of four units (even in drought

years) would be SMALL to MODERATE and temporary, and additional mitigation is not |

warranted.

Visitors to the State park actually increased during 2002 above the previous years, while the

number of boat launches at the park in 2002 was fewer than launches in 2001 by 13.2 percent. 

The number of boat launches declined by an additional 2.4 percent in 2003, which was not a

drought year.(a) Thus, there appears to have been a decline in boating during the drought years,

but an increase in the use of the park itself. As discussed in Section 5.5.1.4, operation of the

Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system would slightly exacerbate

conditions at the lake during times of drought.

These impacts could have economic consequences for the three counties surrounding the lake. 

The more immediate impacts would be to the marinas and commercial businesses that earn

revenue on a seasonal basis from recreational users of the lake. If drought conditions persist

over a long enough time period, property values around the lake could be affected as well.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-47 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Owners of lake-front homes with preferred water views would be particularly impacted. 

However, larger market forces such as general economic conditions, population trends, and

interest rates are expected to dominate property values in almost all circumstances. Minimal

recreational impacts to Lake Anna from operation of the units are expected to occur during

non-drought conditions. Based on data from the Federal Financial Institution Examination |

Council, the average dollar value of loans to buy houses in census tracts touching Lake Anna |

continued to increase from 2000 to 2002, indicating that property values were not likely to have |

suffered significant reduction as a result of the 2000 to 2002 drought (FFIEC 2001, 2002, 2003). |

As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the staff also evaluated changing the normal elevation of Lake

Anna and the impacts of raising normal operating lake level 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) above

76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. Raising the lake level could increase localized flooding potential and

downstream flows, and would likely affect use of some residential and marina boat ramps and

docks, including those at Lake Anna State Park. These facilities might need some modification

to avoid impacting the year-round and seasonal recreational usage of the lake. The staff

concludes that the recreational impacts of raising the lake level would be MODERATE.

Although the WHTF is considered by Virginia Power to be part of the nuclear facility and is

operated as a private industrial facility, homeowners on the shoreline of the WHTF have access

to it, with Virginia Power’s permission, for recreational use (e.g., boating, fishing, swimming). 

This limited access and use would remain unchanged following the addition of the cooling

systems for Units 3 and 4. Dominion evaluated the potential thermal and chemical impacts of

Unit 3 and 4 operations on the ability of homeowners to continue their recreation activities. 

Dominion determined that there would be virtually no change in temperature of the WHTF as a

result of the operation of Units 3 and 4, and there would likely be no impact on thermophilic

organisms. While Dominion has not identified which chemicals would be added to the proposed

cooling towers to manage water chemistry, it also committed to evaluate potential additives in

accordance with “applicable EPA human health and aquatic life criteria to demonstrate that the

concentrations of these chemicals in the WHTF would not exceed the criteria, and thus would

not pose any risks to human health” (Dominion 2006a). Based on the foregoing, the staff

concludes that the thermal and chemical impacts from the operation of Units 3 and 4 on

recreation would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

Based on the individual aspects of recreational activities in the North Anna ESP site area, if the

normal operating level of Lake Anna remains at 76.2 m (250 ft), the staff concludes that the

recreational impacts of Unit 3 and 4 operations would be SMALL most of the time, but could be

MODERATE during the infrequent extreme droughts. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted. 

The staff concludes that if the normal operating level of the lake is raised 15 to 30 cm

(6 to 12 in.), then modification of residential and marina boat ramps and docks may be

necessary; this action could result in a MODERATE impact.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-48 December 2006

5.5.3.5 Housing

Section 2.8.2.5 reviewed the availability of housing in the region and presented tables

specifically showing that the availability of housing units for sale and rent in the region could

easily accommodate the expected permanent workforce of 720 new employees. Further, the

counties in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site and within the region are addressing the

needs of the projected increases in population in their comprehensive plans (Louisa

County 2001; Spotsylvania County 2002; Orange County 1999).

Spotsylvania, Louisa, and Orange Counties do not have growth moratoriums (Hayfield, Kube, |

Martyn et al. Williams and Buckler, Gross and Taylor in Jaksch and Scott 2005). The incomes |

of the new workforce would generally be expected to be higher than the average incomes in

Orange and Louisa Counties and the City of Richmond. The staff also anticipates that the new

operating personnel would buy housing in the region rather than renting. It can be expected

that the prices paid for housing by these employees would be on the high end of the price range

within these counties and the City of Richmond. However, the new workers and their families

are a small percentage of the existing and projected populations for the counties and the City of

Richmond over the next 10 years (see Table 2-11). Therefore, the staff expects the impact on

housing prices of workers locating to the counties within the larger population areas (Henrico

County and the City of Richmond) to be minimal.

In Spotsylvania County, housing prices are high relative to the surrounding counties. In Orange

and Louisa Counties there could be upward pressure on housing prices at the upper end of the

range because there are fewer units available in that range and some new construction may

need to take place to meet demand. The staff would expect many of the new employees to

locate into existing upscale areas of development in these counties, such as Lake Anna

(Orange, Louisa, and Spotsylvania Counties) and Lake of the Woods (Orange County). Should

that be the case, there are enough home builders available to meet an increase in demand

(Ryan, Waugh in Jaksch and Scott 2005), although there are some shortages in the specialty

skills such as stone or brick masons (Ryan in Jaksch and Scott 2005).

Based on the existence of a sufficient supply of houses in all price ranges within Henrico and

Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, the staff concludes that the impacts of station

operation on housing would be SMALL in these areas, and mitigation is not warranted. 

Because of their proximity to the North Anna ESP site, the housing market within Orange and

Louisa Counties could experience a temporary shortage that would increase housing prices that

could create a moderate impact in the short-term. However, eventually over the 40-year

operating life, the supply of housing would increase to meet demand. Therefore, the staff

concludes the long-term impacts of station operation in Orange and Louisa Counties would be

SMALL, and no mitigation is warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-49 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.5.3.6 Public Services

Water Supply and Waste Treatment Facilities

As discussed in Section 2.8.2.6, Louisa and Orange Counties, in light of current growth, have

some concern about water and sewer infrastructure in certain parts of their respective counties,

which are currently experiencing growth or are expected to grow. The incorporated areas of the

two counties appear to have excess capacity in their sewer treatment facilities, but the recent

drought revealed a water-supply issue. Wells and septic tanks are the methods of managing

water supply and sewage disposal in residential developments outside the incorporated areas. 

Louisa County addresses the issue of water supply in its comprehensive plan (Louisa County

2001). Orange County is encouraging development in the existing growth areas to lessen the

impact on the rural character of the county (Orange 1999). Spotsylvania and Henrico Counties

and the City of Richmond appear to have adequate infrastructure and excess capacities for both

water and sewage disposal.

The current water supply and sewage disposal issues in Orange and Louisa Counties would

exist whether the two new nuclear units were operated or not, and could be exacerbated with

normal, projected population growth. The potential impacts associated with hiring new

permanent employees would be contingent on where in the counties the employees locate,

whether there are water and sewer issues in those locations, and the extent to which they have

been previously addressed.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

As discussed in Section 2.8.2.6, there are no hospitals in Orange and Louisa Counties. Most |

patients requiring hospitalization travel to Charlottesville, Culpeper, Fredericksburg, or to the |

Henrico County/Richmond area. In Orange County, the fire departments are made up of |

volunteers, and rescue services are composed of both volunteer and paid employees. Services

may need upgrading to account for normal population growth and, if upgraded, could account

for any population growth caused by the new employees. In Louisa County, general fire, police,

and rescue services are considered presently adequate. In the larger metropolitan area of

Richmond/Henrico County and Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania County, police, fire, and medical

facilities would not be materially impacted by an increase in the permanent workforce at the

North Anna ESP site. This is because the 720 new employees would be a small fraction of the

expected population growth in these areas.

Social Services

This section focuses on the potential impacts of station operation on the social and related

services provided to segments of the disadvantaged population in Louisa and Orange Counties. 

Issues surrounding environmental justice are discussed in Section 5.7.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-50 December 2006

Operation of the new units at the North Anna ESP site is viewed as beneficial to the economically disadvantaged population segments served by the Departments of Social Services for

Louisa and Orange Counties. Operation of the new units may enable members of the disadvantaged population to improve their social and economic position by advancing to higher

paying jobs created by the multiplier effect of station operation jobs. Based on where the

current operating workforce for Units 1 and 2 lives and with the expectation that the new

employees would follow similar location patterns, many of these benefits could accrue to Louisa

County.

The expected benefits of station operation to Orange County would be, as in Louisa County, the

secondary jobs provided by expenditures of the operations workforce in the county. Many of

the jobs created through the multiplier effect could be of the type that would go to members of

the disadvantaged population. 

Summary of Public Services

Based on the information provided by Dominion and the staff’s independent review of the local

and regional water and wastewater treatment capacities; the police, fire, and medical facilities;

and the demand for social and related services, the staff concludes that any increase in demand

for these services by an increase in the operations workforce would be SMALL, and mitigation

is not warranted. The increase in employment associated with station operation could have

beneficial impacts, which could reduce the demand for social services, while the increase in tax

revenue could help with the infrastructure and resource requirements from potential increase in

demand for other services (e.g., police and fire).

5.5.3.7 Education

As discussed in Section 2.8.2.7, Orange County is currently expanding its school infrastructure

and, as a result, could accommodate modest growth in student population. Louisa County

schools are currently overcrowded. Enrollment is growing at 2 percent a year. Tax rates in the

county have not been increased in six years, so that while the schools are being maintained,

there has been no new construction to accommodate the increased enrollment. Property was

purchased to build a new elementary school in 2004 with construction to start in 2007. Property |

has also been purchased for a new middle school (Lintecum in Jaksch and Scott 2005). Any

increase in student population caused by the newly hired permanent workers relocating to the

county could exacerbate the existing situation if the additions to the educational infrastructure

do not take place.

A majority of the new workers would be expected to establish residences in the larger

population areas such as Henrico, Hanover, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

Richmond; the staff assumes that the new workers would follow the same location patterns as

the current permanent workforce at the NAPS site. Given that the workers would be distributed
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-51 NUREG-1811, Volume I

throughout the metropolitan region, the effects of increased enrollment of students on school

infrastructure in those areas is expected to be minimal. It is also possible, should crowding

continue to exist in Louisa County at the time the new workers are hired, that such conditions

could cause fewer new workers to locate in Louisa County than might otherwise.

Orange County currently has excess capacity (Baker in Jaksch and Scott 2005). Louisa County |

is addressing its current overcrowding problem through the planned building of new schools

(Melton, Lintecum in Jaksch and Scott 2005). Any new construction undertaken to meet the |

demands placed on the system by the construction workforce would be available to accommodate the demands of the operation workforce. The staff considers the infrastructure in

Spotsylvania and Henrico Counties and the City of Richmond to be adequate given the size of

the base population vis-a-vis the small increase in that population caused by the new

employees relocating to these jurisdictions. Based on the information provided by Dominion

and the staff’s independent review of the local and regional educational facilities, the staff

concludes that the impact on education as a result of station operation would be SMALL, and

mitigation is not warranted.

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended through 2000, requires Federal |

agencies to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on historic properties. 

The review process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations

promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation codified at 36 CFR Part 800. 

Evaluating the suitability of potential ESP sites for construction, operation, and

decommissioning of new power units is an undertaking that could possibly affect either known

or potential historic properties that may be located at the site. Therefore, in accordance with the

provisions of NHPA, the NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to identify historic

properties in the area of potential effects. If no historic properties are present or affected, NRC

is required to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer before proceeding. If it is determined

that historic properties are present, NRC is required to assess and resolve possible adverse

effects of the undertaking. Should an alternate site be selected for an ESP, NRC would also

undertake consultation with all potentially affected Native American tribes regarding the possible

presence of traditional cultural properties or other culturally sensitive resources at the site. For

more specific historic and cultural information on North Anna, see Section 2.9.

In that all ground-disturbing activities that could have an impact on historic or cultural resources

would probably occur during the construction phase, there would be limited potential for impacts

during operation of additional power units at North Anna. Should archaeological, historic, or

other cultural resources be uncovered during site excavation, Dominion would implement the

NAPS site-wide Excavation and Backfill Work Procedures (NAPS NSS Work Procedure

WP-C01) involving an immediate stop work order and contact the appropriate organization

and/or regulatory agency for proper evaluation and designation, in accordance with the existing
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines “minority” as American

Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; Black races, or

Hispanic ethnicity (“other” may be considered a separate minority category.) The 2000 census

included multi-racial data. The staff should consider multi-racial individuals in a separate minority

category, in addition to the aggregate minority category (NRC 2004c).

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-52 December 2006

procedures (Dominion 2006a). Based on the limited potential for historic or cultural resources

on site and NAPS existing mitigation plan should such items be discovered, the staff concludes

that the historic and cultural impacts from operations would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.

5.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) or low-income populations. On

August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental

justice matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040). Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show the locations of

minority and low-income populations around the NAPS site and within an 80-km (50-mi) radius

that meet the NRC guidance criteria for potentially affected areas (NRC 2004c). |

The staff identified the pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with the

construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site could affect human populations. The staff then

evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by

these impacts. In its December 2003 onsite review, the staff interviewed local government

officials and the staff of social welfare agencies concerning potentially disproportionate impacts

to low income and minority populations (Jaksch and Scott 2005). The staff found no unusual |

resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through

which the populations could be disproportionately impacted by construction of Units 3 and 4 at

the NAPS site that would result in those populations being adversely affected. In addition, the

staff did not identify any health-related or location-dependent disproportionately high and

adverse impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations.

Based on information provided by Dominion and its own independent review, the staff

concludes that offsite impacts of operation of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site to

minority and low-income populations would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-53 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 5-1. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Minority Populations

(Crosshatched Areas) Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP

Site
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-54 December 2006

Figure 5-2. North Anna Census 2000 Environmental Justice Low Income Populations

(Crosshatched Areas) Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the North Anna ESP

Site
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-55 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

This section addresses the nonradiological health impacts of operating the proposed new units

at the North Anna ESP site. Health impacts to the public from the cooling system, noise

generated by unit operations, and electromagnetic fields are discussed. Nonradiological health

impacts are also evaluated for workers at the new units. Health impacts from radiological

sources during operations are discussed in Section 5.9.

5.8.1 Public Health

The potential health impacts of thermophilic organisms have been investigated in the power

industry since the 1970s; the existing Units 1 and 2 have open-cycle cooling systems that

discharge heated cooling water into the WHTF and then into the North Anna Reservoir and the

North Anna River (Dominion 2006a). Thermophilic microorganisms (e.g., Naegleria fowleri)

generally exist in water bodies with ambient temperatures between 25 and 80(C (77 and 176(F)

with maximum growth of such organisms generally occurring when ambient temperatures are

maintained between 50 and 60(C (122 and 140(F) (Dominion 2001b). Correspondence from

the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) states that N. fowleri begins to proliferate around 30(C

(86(F) and thrives at temperatures of 35 and 45(C (95 and 113(F) when compared to

competing organisms (VDH 2005). 

Since 1975, Virginia Power has monitored water temperatures at various locations in Lake

Anna, the WHTF, and the discharge canal. The highest temperatures recorded in (1) the

discharge canal was 39(C (102.4(F) in August 2002, (2) the WHTF was 35(C (95.0(F) in July

1993, and (3) Lake Anna was 34(C (92.7(F) in July 1977. These temperatures were hourly

average values. While ambient summer water temperatures in the sampled locations were

found to be within the range conducive to reproduction and growth of pathogenic

micro-organisms, the temperatures measured were below those considered optimal for the

growth of thermophilic forms.

Thermophilic microorganisms can cause primary amoebic meningo-encephalitis in humans. 

No cases of primary amoebic encephalitis have been documented in NAPS workers or area

residents during the operating history of the plants (Dominion 2006a). The review performed by

Dominion in Section 5.3.4.1 of the ER (Dominion 2006a) concluded that the closed-cycle,

combination wet and dry cooling system for the proposed Unit 3 would not significantly increase

the temperature of the WHTF and Lake Anna and, therefore, would not create an environment

conducive to the optimal growth of thermophilic organisms.

The Commonwealth of Virginia considers the WHTF a private pond and does not regulate the

discharge temperature of Units 1 and 2 into the WHTF. The point of compliance for the NPDES

permit is Dike 3 where the water from the WHTF is discharged into the reservoir. While the

WHTF is a private pond, VEPCo has allowed private homeowners on the WHTF access for
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-56 December 2006

recreational purposes, including swimming. In a letter dated September 15, 2005 (VDH 2005),

VDH recommended that swimmers avoid recreational activities in water bodies exceeding 40(C

(104(F). In the ER, Dominion stated that it is exploring options with VDEQ and VDH to

communicate information related to existing risks to local residents (Dominion 2006a). Based

on the use of a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 and dry cooling

system for Unit 4 and the evaluation of thermophilic organisms, the staff considers the public

health impacts from the operation of Unit 3 to be SMALL, and mitigation beyond informing the

local residents of the risk associated with recreational activities on the lake is not warranted.

5.8.2 Occupational Health

In general, human health risks for a new nuclear unit are expected to be dominated by

occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) to workers engaged in activities

such as maintenance, testing, and plant modifications. Historically, actual injury and fatality

rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average U.S. industrial rates. 

Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and OSHA safety |

standards, practices, and procedures. Appropriate State and local statutes must also be |

considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks for new nuclear unit |

operation. The staff assumes adherence to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards, practice,

and procedures during new nuclear unit operations. 

Occupational health impacts from thermophilic micro-organisms would be the same as those

discussed above for the public. Health impacts to workers from nonradiological emissions,

noise, and electromagnetic fields would be monitored and controlled in accordance with the

applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations.

5.8.3 Noise Impacts

The effects of noise were considered by the NRC in NUREG-1437 in its evaluation of license |

renewal issues (NRC 1996). In that generic EIS, noise levels below 60 to 65 decibels were

considered to be of small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered by

the NRC in Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002a) in its evaluation of decommissioning

issues. In the decommissioning EIS, the criterion for assessing the level of significance was not

expressed in terms of sound levels. Rather, the level of significance was based on the effect of

noise on human activities and threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG0586, Supplement 1 is:

...noise impacts ... are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high to

disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. ... noise impacts ... are considered

destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area is essentially

unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding of a threatened or

endangered species is affected.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-57 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The noise level for the Unit 3 cooling towers given in the PPE is 65 dBA at a distance of 300 m

(1000 ft), which is 5 dBA higher than the noise level for the Unit 4 cooling towers. Based on the

information provided by Dominion and the NRC insights from the assessments in NUREG-1437

and NUREG-0586 Supplement 1, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of noise

resulting from operation of two additional nuclear power plants with cooling systems meeting the

noise criteria of the PPE as defined in the ER would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.8.4 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

The current transmission lines that originate from the NAPS site are capable of handling the

output from two additional units. These lines consist of three 500-kV lines that were erected in

the late-1970s and one 230-kV line erected in 1984. Both sets of transmission lines were

designed and constructed according to National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) requirements

and industry guidance that was current at that time (Dominion 2006a).

The current NESC requirements for preventing electric shock from induced current were met;

therefore, the staff concludes that the impact to the public from acute effects of electromagnetic

fields would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. The conclusion of SMALL impact by

the NRC staff is predicated on the assumption made by the staff that the transmission lines

carrying the additional power of the two new units would not exceed the NESC criteria for

electric shock (see Appendix J). 

5.8.5 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Research on the potential for chronic effects from 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from energized

transmission lines was reviewed and addressed elsewhere by the NRC in NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996). At that time, research results were not conclusive. The National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department

of Energy. An NIEHS report (1999) contains the following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant

aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States

uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is

warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated

community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other

cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently

warrant concern.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-58 December 2006

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impact as significant

to the public. However, because conclusive information is not available, this issue is not

resolved (see Appendix J).

5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

The staff evaluated health impacts to the public and the workers from the cooling systems,

noise generated by unit operations, and acute and chronic impacts of electromagnetic fields at

the higher power levels from the two additional units. Based on the information provided by

Dominion and its independent review, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of

nonradiological effects resulting from the operation of two additional units with closed-cycle

cooling systems meeting the noise criteria of the PPE would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.

5.9 Radiological Health Impacts

This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of the proposed new

Units 3 and 4 including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public

and to the biota present in the proximity of the new units. Estimated doses to workers at the

proposed units are also discussed. Radiological impacts were determined using the PPE

approach for liquid and gaseous radiological effluents.

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

During normal operation, small quantities of radiological materials are released to the environment through gaseous and liquid effluents from the plant. Dominion stated in its ER that the

contribution to direct radiation exposure from new reactor designs would be negligible

(Dominion 2006a).

Using the PPE, the ER submitted by Dominion provided a list of fission and activation products

that may be released as liquid and gaseous effluents from the proposed Units 3 and 4

(Dominion 2006a). A listing of liquid and gaseous effluent isotopes and annual releases are |

presented in Appendix H (i.e., Tables H-2 and H-5, respectively). The impacts from releases |

and direct radiation were evaluated by considering the probable pathways to individuals,

populations, and biota near the proposed new units. The highest doses from the major

exposure pathways were evaluated for a given receptor.

The proposed units at the North Anna ESP site would release liquid effluents into the WHTF

through the discharge canals used for the operating units. The liquid pathways considered are

ingestion of aquatic food, ingestion of drinking water, exposure to shoreline sediment, and

exposure to water through boating, swimming, and other activities (Dominion 2006a).
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-59 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The gaseous pathways considered by Dominion in its ER were external exposure to the

airborne plume, external exposure to contaminated ground, inhalation of airborne activity, and

ingestion of contaminated agricultural products (Dominion 2006a). In its review, the staff |

identified another airborne release pathway, the release of tritium to the atmosphere, |

incorporated in water vapor, from evaporation of cooling water from the Unit 3 closed-cycle, |

combination wet and dry cooling system. Units 1 and 2 routinely release tritium into Lake Anna |

and the Unit 3 cooling system would draw water from Lake Anna. According to the annual

environmental operating reports for NAPS, tritium has concentrated in Lake Anna; for example, |

the average tritium concentration in the lake for 2005 was reported as 116 Bq/L (3137 pCi/L)

(VEPCo 2006). This concentration level is well below the EPA drinking water standard of 741 |

Bq/L (20,000 pCi/L) found in 40 CFR Part 141. The dose to the public from these pathways |

were evaluated by the staff in Appendix H and are discussed in the following sections. |

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

The exposure pathways to humans as described in Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111

(NRC 1977a, b) are illustrated in Figure 5.3. The dose to a maximally exposed individual was

calculated from both the liquid and gaseous effluent release pathways (Dominion 2006a), and a

collective whole body dose was calculated for the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the North

Anna ESP site.

5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

Liquid pathway doses were calculated on a per unit basis by Dominion using the LADTAP II |

computer program (Strenge et al. 1986) for the following activities: eating fish and invertebrates

caught near the discharge point, drinking water from Lake Anna, and boating, swimming, and

using the shoreline for recreational purposes. The liquid effluent releases for one new unit used

to estimate the dose to the maximally exposed individual are found in Table 5.4-6 of the ER

submitted by Dominion (Dominion 2006a). This table is repeated in Appendix H, Table H-2. In |

Dominion ER Revision 9 (Dominion 2006a), the tritium release was revised from 115 TBq/yr |

(3100 Ci/yr) per unit to 31.5 TBq/yr (850 Ci/yr) per unit. This value was reduced to ensure |

concentrations in Lake Anna would not exceed the EPA drinking water standard of 741 Bq/L

(20,000 pCi/L) found in 40 CFR Part 141. As discussed in Appendix H (Section H.3.3), the |

revised tritium release rate of 31.5 TBq/yr (850 Ci/yr) per unit would result in estimated tritium |

concentrations in Lake Anna of 350 Bq/L (9400 pCi/L), which is well below EPA’s drinking water |

standard for tritium.

Other parameters used as input to the LADTAP II program, including effluent discharge rate, |

dilution factor for discharge, transit time to receptor, and impoundment concentration, are found

in Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 of the Dominion ER (Dominion 2006a).

Liquid pathway doses to the maximally exposed individuals calculated on a per unit basis by |

Dominion (2006a) are presented in Table 5-8. The maximum annual total body dose was |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-60 December 2006

Figure 5-3. Exposure Pathways to Humans
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-61 NUREG-1811, Volume I

8.10x10-3 mSv (0.81 mrem) to the adult. The maximum annual thyroid dose was 6.8x10-3 mSv |

(0.68 mrem) to the infant. The maximum annual bone dose was 0.025 mSv (2.5 mrem) to the |

child. The staff performed an independent evaluation of liquid pathway doses, including the |

information about tritium concentrations in Lake Anna, and found similar results. The |

information on tritium resulted in minor changes to the estimates in Table 5-8 for the drinking |

water pathway and essentially no change to the estimates for the other pathways. The staff |

determined that all input parameters used in Dominion’s calculations were appropriate. Results |

of the staff’s independent evaluation are presented in Appendix H. |

5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

Gaseous pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual were calculated on a per unit

basis by Dominion using the GASPAR II computer program (Strenge et al. 1987) at the |

following locations: the nearest site boundary, nearest vegetable garden, nearest residence,

and nearest meat cow. Doses from the milk pathway were not calculated as there were no milk

cows or goats located within a 8-km (5-mi) radius of the ESP site (Dominion 2006a). The

gaseous effluent releases used in the estimate of dose to the maximally exposed individual are

found in Table 5.4-7 of the Dominion ER (Dominion 2006a). This table is repeated in |

Appendix H, Table H-5. Other inputs to the GASPAR II program, including meat and vegetable

production rates, atmospheric dispersion factors, ground deposition factors, receptor locations,

and consumption factors, are found in Tables 5.4-3 through 5.4-5 of the Dominion ER

(Dominion 2006a).

Dominion (2006a) did not calculate an infant dose for the vegetable or meat pathway. The staff |

believes this is a reasonable approach as it is unlikely that infants would consume meats, fruits, |

and vegetables from the livestock and gardens near the ESP site. In addition to their mother’s |

breast milk and formula, infants will consume cereal, cow’s milk (no milk cows are within 8 km |

[5 mi] of the ESP site), and canned baby food products such as fruits, vegetables, and meat, but |

these products generally would have been grown in areas away from the ESP site. In the |

unlikely event that an infant does ingest vegetables or meats grown near the ESP site, the dose

to an infant would be bounded by the dose to a child from the same pathways. Although infant |

ingestion dose factors (i.e., mrem per pCi ingested) will be higher for most radionuclides |

compared to child ingestion dose factors, the dose to the infant from ingestion of vegetables |

and fruits would still be bounded by the dose to a child. This is because the infant’s annual |

consumption of vegetables and meats is expected to be far less than a child’s annual |

consumption. |

As discussed in Section 5.9.1, the staff identified another atmospheric release pathway from the

proposed units, the release of tritium to the atmosphere from the evaporation of cooling water |

from the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The dose to the public

from this pathway is presented in Appendix H. Doses were estimated to be less than

10 percent of the contribution from all of the radionuclides in the PPE gaseous effluent release. |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-62 December 2006

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

Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Thyroid Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Bone Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Fish Consumption 5.1 x 10 | -3 0(b) 2.3 x 10-2 |

Invertebrate Consumption 6.6 x 10 | -4 0(b) 1.5 x 10-3 |

Drinking Water 2.0 x 10 | -3 6.5 x 10-3 2.7 x 10-4 |

Shoreline Recreation 3.0 x 10-4 3.0 x 10-4 3.0 x 10-4

Swimming 3.2 x 10-6 3.2 x 10-6 3.2 x 10-6

Boating 4.0 x 10-6 4.0 x 10-6 4.0 x 10-6

Total 8.1 x 10 | -3 6.8 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-2 |

Age group receiving maximum dose Adult Infant Child

(a) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

(b) Thyroid dose is not applicable because infants are assumed not to consume fish and invertebrates.

Source: Dominion 2006a, Table 5.4-8. Doses were estimated on a per unit basis.

Gaseous pathway doses to the maximally exposed individual calculated by Dominion (2006a) |

were on a per unit basis and are presented in Table 5-9. The staff performed an independent |

evaluation of gaseous pathway doses and found similar results. All input parameters used in |

Dominion’s calculations were judged by the staff to be appropriate. Results of the staff’s |

independent evaluation are presented in Appendix H. |

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public

This section describes the staff’s evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological releases |

and direct radiation of the proposed units at the North Anna ESP site. The evaluation |

addresses doses from operations to the maximally exposed individual located at the ESP site |

boundary and the population dose (collective dose to the population within 80 km [50 mi]) |

around the ESP site.

5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual

Dominion (2006a) stated that whole body and organ dose estimates to the maximally exposed

individual from liquid and gaseous effluents for one unit were within the design objectives of

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. The design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I are |

applicable to each reactor unit. Doses to whole body and maximum organ at Lake Anna from |

liquid effluents were well within the 0.03 mSv/yr (3 mrem/yr) and 0.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem/yr)

Appendix I design objectives, respectively. Doses at the site boundary from gaseous effluents

were well within the Appendix I design objectives of 0.1 mGy/yr (10 mrad/yr) gamma in air,
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-63 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 5-9. Gaseous Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individual

Location Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Thyroid Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Skin Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Nearest Site Boundary

(1.4 km [0.88 mi] ESE)

Plume 2.1 x 10-2 (b) 6.2 x 10-2

Nearest Site Boundary

(1.4 km [0.88 mi] ESE)

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

3.0 x 10-3

3.1 x 10-3

2.7 x 10-3

1.6 x 10-3

1.6 x 10-2

2.0 x 10-2

2.3 x 10-2

2.0 x 10-2

(c)

(c)

(c)

(c)

Nearest Garden 

(1.5 km [0.94 mi] NE)

Vegetable

Adult

Teen

Child

4.4 x 10-3

5.7 x 10-3

1.1 x 10-2

4.9 x 10-2

6.6 x 10-2

1.3 x 10-1

(c)

(c)

(c)

Nearest Residence 

(1.5 km [ 0.96 mi] NNE)

Plume 1.4 x 10-2 (b) 4.0 x 10-2

Nearest Residence 

(1.5 km [0.96 mi] NNE)

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

2.0 x 10-3

2.0 x 10-3

1.8 x 10-3

1.0 x 10-3

1.0 x 10-2

1.3 x 10-2

1.5 x 10-2

1.3 x 10-2

(c)

(c)

(c)

(c)

Nearest Meat Cow 

(2.22 km [1.37 mi] SE)

Meat

Adult

Teen

Child

6.7 x 10-4

4.9 x 10-4

7.9 x 10-4

1.5 x 10-3

1.1 x 10-3

1.7 x 10-3

(c)

(c)

(c)

(a) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

(b) Thyroid dose is not applicable for the plume pathway.

(c) Skin dose is not applicable for the ingestion and inhalation pathways.

Source: Dominion (2006a), Table 5.4-9. Doses were calculated on a per unit basis. There were no milk cows or

goats within 8 km (5 mi) (Dominion 2006a). No infant doses were calculated for the vegetable or meat pathway

because the doses that infants receive from their diet would be bounded by the dose calculated for the child.

0.2 mGy/yr (20 mrad/yr) beta in air, 0.05 mSv/yr (5 mrem/yr) dose to the whole body, and

0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) dose to the skin. In addition, dose to the thyroid was within the

0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr) Appendix I design objectives. A comparison of dose estimates for

one unit to the Appendix I design objectives is presented in Table 5-10.

Dominion (2006a) stated that doses from liquid and gaseous effluents to the maximally exposed

individual at the site boundary from the existing Units 1 and 2 and the two proposed Units 3 and

4 combined were well within the regulatory standards of 40 CFR Part 190. As discussed in |

Appendix H, the dose contribution from liquid effluents considered the concentration of tritium in |

Lake Anna. Doses from direct radiation were determined to be negligible (Dominion 2006a). |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-64 December 2006

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

Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Design Objectives

Pathway/Type of Dose Dominion (2006a)(a,b) Appendix I Design Objectives(c)

Liquid Effluents

Whole body dose 0.0081 mSv/yr 0.03 mSv/yr |

Maximum organ dose 0.025 mSv/yr 0.1 mSv/yr

Gaseous Effluents (Noble gases only)

Gamma air dose 0.032 mGy/yr 0.1 mGy/yr

Beta air dose 0.048 mGy/yr 0.2 mGy/yr

Whole body dose 0.024 mSv/yr 0.05 mSv/yr

Skin dose 0.062 mSv/yr 0.15 mSv/yr

Gaseous Effluents (Radioiodines and particulates)

Organ dose 0.12 mSv/yr (thyroid) 0.15 mSv/yr |

(a) Doses were estimated on a per unit basis.

(b) Multiply mSv/yr (or mGy/yr) times 100 to obtain mrem/yr (or mrad/yr)

(c) Design objectives are for each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I)

Source: Dominion 2006a, Table 5.4-10

Although doses from direct radiation were estimated to be approximately 0.23 mSv (23 mrem) |

to a construction worker (see Section 4.9.1), the direct radiation dose to the maximally exposed |

individual at the site boundary was determined to be negligible due to the additional distance |

that attenuates the direct radiation. For calculation purposes, the construction worker would be |

located at the west protected area fence for Units 1 and 2 while the maximally exposed |

individual would be located 1.4 km (0.88 mi) from Units 1 and 2.

Adherence to the 40 CFR Part 190 dose standards, ensures compliance with 10 CFR 20.1301,

which states that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from

licensed operations shall not exceed 1 mSv (100 mrem) in a year. The dose standards from

40 CFR Part 190 are 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv/yr (75 mrem/yr) to |

the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to any other organ from the entire fuel cycle. The |

combined estimated doses from the existing units and the proposed new units were

0.068 mSv/yr (6.8 mrem/yr) to the whole body, 0.27 mSv/yr (27 mrem/yr) to the thyroid, and |

0.12 mSv/yr (12 mrem/yr) to the bone for the maximally exposed individual at the site boundary |

(Dominion 2006a). These data are summarized in Table 5-11. The staff performed an |

independent evaluation of cumulative dose as described in Appendix H and found similar |

results (NRC 2006e).
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-65 NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards

Dose Dominion (2006a) Estimate(a,b,c) 40 CFR 190 Standards

Whole body dose equivalent 0.068 mSv/yr 0.25 mSv/yr |

Thyroid dose 0.27 mSv/yr 0.75 mSv/yr |

Dose to another organ 0.12 mSv/yr (bone) 0.25 mSv/yr

(a) Doses from direct radiation were determined to be negligible (Dominion 2006a).

(b) Sum of dose from liquid and gaseous effluent releases for the two existing NAPS units and the proposed units

(Dominion 2006a)

(c) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

Source: Dominion 2006a, Table 5.4-11

5.9.3.2 Population Dose

Dominion (2006a) estimated a collective whole body dose within 80 km (50 mi) of each

unit to be 0.28 person-Sv/yr (28 person-rem/yr). A collective dose of 0.086 person-Sv/yr |

(8.6 person-rem/yr) was calculated for the liquid effluent pathway using the LADTAP II computer |

code. A collective dose of 0.19 person-Sv/yr (19 person-rem/yr) was calculated for the gaseous |

effluent pathway using the GASPAR II computer code. The staff performed an independent

evaluation of population doses and found the applicant’s estimates to be conservative (see

Appendix H). Dominion estimated collective dose to the same population from natural |

background radiation was 9200 person-Sv/yr (920,000 person-rem/yr) (Dominion 2006a).

The collective dose from natural background radiation was calculated by using the 80-km

(50-mi) population data of 2.8 million and a dose rate of 3.25 mSv/person/yr (325 mrem/

person/yr) (Dominion 2006a).

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no |

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses, and |

at low dose rates, below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem). However, considering the scientific |

work in the field, radiation protection experts conservatively assume that any amount of |

radiation may pose some risk of causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is |

higher for higher radiation exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is |

used to describe the relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer |

induction. A recent report by the National Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, |

supports the linear, no-threshold dose response theory. Simply stated, the assumption is that |

any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in health risk. |

This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for estimating health risks from |

radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably overestimates those risks. |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-66 December 2006

The staff conservatively estimated the risks to the population living within 80 km (50 mi) of

the new Units 3 and 4 using the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

Publication 60 nominal probability coefficients for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, non-fatal |

cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person Sv (1 million person-rem) (ICRP |

1991). In this context, detriment is defined as a measure of the total harm that would eventually |

be experienced by an exposed group and its descendants as a result of the group’s exposure to |

a radiation source (ICRP 1977). Harm includes fatal cancers, non-fatal cancers, and severe |

hereditary defects. This coefficient was multiplied by the estimated collective whole body dose |

of 0.28 person-Sv/yr (28 person-rem/yr) to obtain an estimated number of fatal cancers, non- |

fatal cancer, and severe hereditary effects of less than 0.02 annually for a single new unit at the |

North Anna ESP site. This was compared to an estimated 672 fatal cancers, non-fatal cancers, |

and severe hereditary effects from natural background radiation exposure annually. The |

cumulative effects of operating two new units at the ESP site in addition to the currently

operating Units 1 and 2 would be less than 1 cancer or hereditary effect annually. These

cumulative effects are well below the estimated effects from natural background radiation. In

addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a

study and published Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities in 1990 (NCI 1990). |

This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as well as |

several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the United States in 1981 and found “no |

evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear facilities” |

(NCI 1990).

5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public

The staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent |

releases from the proposed nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Based on the information |

provided by Dominion and on its own independent evaluation, the staff concludes there would |

be no observable health impacts to the public from normal operation of the proposed nuclear

units, and the radiological health impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

On the basis of information contained in NUREG-0713 (NRC 2002c), the average annual

collective dose per operating reactor was 1.72 person-Sv/yr (172 person-rem/yr) for the time

period from 1992 to 2001. Limited information was available on occupational dose estimates

from the advanced reactor designs. Dominion reported annual occupational dose estimates of

1.5 person-Sv (150 person-rem) for the AP1000, international reactor innovative and secure

(IRIS), and gas turbine-modular helium reactor (GT-MHR) reactor designs (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). The estimated occupational doses for the advanced reactor designs were

slightly lower than annual occupational doses for current light-water reactors. The operator of a |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-67 NUREG-1811, Volume I

new plant would need to ensure that individual doses to workers are less than 0.05 Sv (5 rem) |

annually as specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 and apply the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, as low as

reasonably achievable (ALARA) process to maintain doses below this limit. |

The staff concludes that the health impacts from occupational radiation exposure would be |

SMALL based on individual workers receiving less than the 10 CFR 20.1201 dose limit and the |

collective occupational dose being typical of that experienced in current LWR reactors. |

Mitigation is not warranted. |

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota

The exposure pathways to biota other than humans described in Regulatory Guides 1.109 and |

1.111 are illustrated in Figure 5-4. Dominion (2006a) estimated doses to fish, invertebrates, |

algae, muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck, which are referred to as surrogate species. Surrogate species are well defined and provide an acceptable method for judging doses to the biota

(Dominion 2006a). Important biota species for the North Anna ESP site and the corresponding

surrogate species are (1) bald eagle and loggerhead shrike (heron) and (2) dwarf wedge

mussel, slippershell mussel, and fluted kidneyshell mussel (invertebrate).

5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway

Dominion (2006a) used the LADTAP II computer code to calculate doses to biota from the liquid

effluent pathway. The following exposure pathways were evaluated for the different surrogate

biota:

& Fish and invertebrates – internal exposure from bioaccumulation of radionuclides and

external exposure from swimming and shoreline activities

& Algae – internal exposure from bioaccumulation of radionuclides and external exposure

from immersion in water

& Muskrat and duck – internal exposure from ingestion of aquatic plants and external

exposure from swimming and shoreline activities

& Raccoon – internal exposure from ingestion of invertebrates and external exposure from

shoreline activities

& Heron – internal exposure from ingestion of fish and external exposure from swimming

and shoreline activities.

These pathways are illustrated in Figure 5-4.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-68 December 2006

Figure 5-4. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans

Input parameters used in the dose calculation included food consumption rates, body masses,

and effective body radii. These parameters were taken from NUREG/CR-4013 (Strenge et al.

1986) and Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977a). These parameters are shown in

Tables 5.4-14 and 5.4-15 of the Dominion ER (Dominion 2006a).

5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway

Dominion used the doses calculated for the maximally exposed individual from the gaseous

effluent pathway (described earlier in this section) as a basis for the doses to the biota

(Dominion 2006a). External doses from ground deposition were increased by a factor of two

to account for the terrestrial organisms being closer to the ground (Dominion 2006a).

5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses

Table 5-12 compares the estimated whole body dose to the biota from the liquid and gaseous

effluent pathways calculated by Dominion (2006a) from one proposed new unit at the ESP site

to the regulatory standard for humans in 40 CFR Part 190. Although the 40 CFR Part 190 |

standards apply to members of the public in unrestricted areas but not to biota, they are |

provided here for comparative purposes. The biota doses for all surrogate species except fish |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-69 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 5-12. Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to 40 CFR Part 190

Biota

Dose from

Liquid

Effluent/Unit

(mGy/yr)(a,b)

Dose from

Gaseous

Effluent/Unit

(mGy/yr)(a,b)

Total

Dose/Unit

(mGy/yr)(a,b)

Total Dose

for

Two Units

(mGy/yr)(a)

40 CFR 190

Total Body

Dose Limit

(mSv/yr)

Fish 0.097 0 | (c) 0.097 0.19 0.25

Invertebrates 0.46 0(c) 0.46 0.92 0.25

Algae 0.54 0(c) 0.54 1.08 0.25

Muskrat 0.43 0.34 0.77 1.54 0.25 |

Raccoon 0.049 0.34 0.39 0.78 0.25 |

Heron 0.54 0.34 0.88 1.76 0.25 |

Duck 0.43 0.34 0.77 1.54 0.25 |

(a) Multiply mGy/yr or mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrad/yr or mrem/yr.

(b) From Dominion (2006a), Table 5.4-16.

(c) Negligible contribution from material deposited in water bodies. |

exceed the regulatory standard in 40 CFR Part 190 of 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to the total

body. This assumes mrem and mrad are approximately equivalent. The staff performed an

independent evaluation of biota doses and found similar results.

The ICRP (1977, 1991) states that if man is adequately protected, then other living things are

also likely to be sufficiently protected. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992)

and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1991) reported

that a chronic dose rate of no greater than 10 mGy/day (1 rad/day) to the maximally exposed

individual in a population of aquatic organisms would ensure protection for the population. 

IAEA (1992) also concluded that chronic dose rates of 1 mGy/day (0.1 rad/day) or less do not

appear to cause observable changes in terrestrial animal populations. Table 5-13 compares the 

estimated whole body dose to the biota for the proposed Units 3 and 4 to the IAEA chronic dose

rate values for aquatic organisms and terrestrial animals. The cumulative effects of current

operating units and proposed Units 3 and 4 would result in dose rates significantly less than the

NCRP and IAEA studies.

The staff performed an independent evaluation of doses to biota and found similar results; these |

results are presented in Appendix H. |

The staff reviewed the available information relative to the radiological impact on biota from the

routine operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 and concludes the impacts would be SMALL,

and mitigation is not warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-70 December 2006

Table 5-13. Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to NCRP and IAEA

Studies

Biota

Estimated Dose for Two Units

(mGy/day)(a)

Chronic Dose Rate Values from

NCRP and IAEA Studies (mGy/day)(a)

Fish 5.2 x 10 | -4 10

Invertebrates 2.5 x 10-3 10

Algae 3.0 x 10-3 10

Muskrat 4.2 x 10 | -3 1

Raccoon 2.1 x 10-3 1

Heron 4.8 x 10 | -3 1

Duck 4.2 x 10 | -3 1

(a) Multiply mGy/day times 100 to obtain mrad/day.

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been in place for the NAPS site

since 1976 (NRC 1976). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure pathway,

direct exposure pathway, water exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from Lake Anna

and the North Anna River, and the ingestion exposure pathway in a 40-km (25-mi) radius of the

station. The pre-operational environmental radiation monitoring program sampled various

media in the environment to determine a baseline to observe the magnitude and fluctuation of

radioactivity in the environment once the units began operation (AEC 1973). The

pre-operational program included collection and analysis of samples of air particulates,

precipitation, milk, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt as well as measurement of

ambient gamma radiation. After operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 began, the monitoring

program continued to assess the radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the

environment. Radiological releases are summarized in the two annual reports: Radiological

Environmental Operating Program and Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report. The limits

for all radiological releases are specified in the North Anna Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

(ODCM) (Dominion 2003). No additional monitoring program has been proposed for the new

units. The staff reviewed the documentation for the REMP, the ODCM, and recent monitoring

reports and determined that the current operational monitoring program is adequate to establish

the radiological impacts to the environment related to the construction and operation of

proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site.

5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

The staff considered the radiological consequences on the human environment of potential

accidents at the proposed new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Consequence

estimates are based on the General Electric ABWR standard reactor design, which has been |

certified by the NRC, a surrogate Westinghouse AP1000, and an ESBWR design, for which |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-71 NUREG-1811, Volume I

General Electric submitted an application for certification in August 2005. The NRC accepted

the application for docketing in December 2005. In this analysis, the ESBWR source terms

were increased by 25 percent to account for uncertainty and potential changes to the design as

the staff performs the design certification review. Consequently, this design is referred to as the

“surrogate” ESBWR design. 

The term “accident,” as used in this section, refers to any off normal event, not addressed in

Section 5.9, which results in the release of radioactive material into the environment. The focus

of this review is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible

limits for normal operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B,

Table 2.

Numerous features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power

plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the plants, which comprise

the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive material from the

plant. The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive material in

effluents to unrestricted areas ALARA are specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. There are

additional measures that are designed to mitigate the consequences of failures in the first line of

defense. These include the NRC reactor site criteria rule in 10 CFR Part 100, which require the

site to have certain characteristics that reduce the risk to the public and the potential impacts of

an accident, and emergency preparedness plans and protective action measures for the site

and environs as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E; and

NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NRC 1980). All of these safety features, measures, and plans

make up the defense-in-depth philosophy to protect the health and safety of the public and the

environment.

This section discusses (1) types of radioactive material that might be released, (2) paths to the

environment, (3) the relationship between radiation dose and health effects, and (4) the

environmental impacts of postulated reactor accidents, both design basis accidents (DBAs) and

severe accidents. The environmental impacts of postulated accidents during the transportation

of spent fuel are discussed in Chapter 6.

The potential for dispersion of radioactive material in the environment depends on the

mechanical forces that physically transport the material and on the physical and chemical forms

of the materials. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms. The

majority of the material is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, there is a significant

amount of material that is in the form of volatile solids or gases. Gaseous radioactive material

includes the chemically inert noble gases krypton and xenon. Radioactive forms of iodine,

which are created in substantial quantities in the fuel by fission, are volatile. Other radioactive

material formed during the routine operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities, and

therefore, have less tendency to escape from the fuel than the noble gases and iodines.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-72 December 2006

Radiation exposure is determined by the proximity of individuals to radioactive material, the

duration of exposure, and factors that shield the individuals from the radiation. Pathways that

lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material in the air, on

the ground, and in the water, (2) the inhalation of radioactive material, and (3) ingestion of food

or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold response model is used to describe the

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

by the National Research Council (2005), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

dose response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

over-estimates those risks. 

Physiological effects are clinically detectable should individuals receive radiation exposure

resulting in a dose greater than about 0.25 Sv (25 rem) over a short period of time (hours). 

Doses of about 2.5 to 5.0 Sv (250 to 500 rem) received over a relatively short period (hours to a

few days) can be expected to cause some fatalities.

5.10.1 Design Basis Accidents 

Dominion has evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate

that Units 3 and 4 could be constructed and operated at the North Anna ESP site without undue

risk to the health and safety of the public. These evaluations use a set of surrogate DBAs that

are representative for the range of reactor designs being considered for the ESP site and sitespecific meteorological data. The set of accidents covers events that range from relatively high

probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low probability with high

consequences.

The DBA review focuses on three light-water reactor designs: the ABWR, the surrogate

AP1000 and the surrogate ESBWR. The bases for analyses of postulated accidents for these

designs are well established because they have been considered as part of the design

certification process under 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. Accidents for the other reactor designs

listed in the application are not as well defined as those for the ABWR, the surrogate AP1000,

and the surrogate ESBWR; acceptable assumptions and methodologies for the evaluation of

postulated accidents for the other reactor designs have not been fully established. Because the |

source terms for accident analyses are generally proportional to the power level, for the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-73 NUREG-1811, Volume I

purposes of this site suitability evaluation, the potential consequences of accidents for the other

reactor designs are expected to be bounded by those for the ABWR, surrogate AP1000, and

surrogate ESBWR designs. For example, preliminary information on source terms for the IRIS

and ACR-700 reactor designs indicates that the source term for the surrogate AP1000 loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) is expected to bound the worst case accidental releases for these

advanced reactor designs. The advanced gas reactor designs (GT-MHR and PBMR) postulate

relatively small releases to the environment compared to water reactor technologies (Dominion

2006b).

Should an application be made to build and operate one of the other designs that references an

ESP for the North Anna ESP site, the applicant would be required to show and the staff would

verify that the radiological consequences of DBAs for the proposed reactor or reactors are

bounded by the consequences of DBAs evaluated here.

Potential consequences of DBAs are evaluated following procedures outlined in regulatory

guides and standard review plans. The potential consequences of accidental releases depend

on the specific radionuclides released, the activity released for each radionuclide, and meteorological conditions. The source term for the ABWR reactor design is based on TID-14844

(AEC 1962) guidance, and guidance on methods for evaluating potential accidents for the

ABWR are set forth in NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987), Regulatory Guide 1.3 (NRC 1974a), and

Regulatory Guide 1.25 (NRC 1974b). The source terms for the surrogate AP1000 reactor and

surrogate ESBWR reactor and methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on

guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000b).

For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological

conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an

atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as Ȥ/Q. Acceptable methods of

calculating Ȥ/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.145

(NRC 1983).

Dominion has provided the staff with meteorological data for 1996, 1997, and 1998 for the North

Anna ESP site. These data have been reviewed by the staff and found to be representative of

the meteorological conditions at the site. The meteorological instrumentation and its

maintenance are consistent with staff guidance (i.e., Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Safety Guide 23) |

[AEC 1972]), and the data quality is consistent with standards set forth in that guidance. 

Therefore, the data are considered acceptable for use in evaluation of the consequences of

DBAs.

Table 3.1-9 of the PPE referenced in Section 3.1.3 of the ER, lists Ȥ/Q values. These values

are not appropriate for environmental reviews. Realistic (50th percentile) Ȥ/Q values for use in

the environmental review of DBAs are provided in ER Section 7.1.4. However, Dominion only

provides one Ȥ/Q for the low population zone (LPZ). NRC guidance (e.g., Regulatory Guides

1.145 and 1.183) indicates that LPZ Ȥ/Qs should be calculated for each of the four time periods
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-74 December 2006

that comprise the “course of the accident” (i.e., 30 days [720 hours]). Therefore, the staff

calculated Ȥ/Q values for the four periods using data provided by the applicant.

Table 5-14 presents the atmospheric dispersion factors that the staff used to calculate doses for

DBAs. The first column lists the time periods and boundaries for which Ȥ/Q values and dose

estimates are needed. For the exclusion area boundary (EAB), the postulated DBA dose and

its atmospheric dispersion factor are calculated for a short-term (i.e., 2 hours) and for the LPZ,

they are calculated for the “course of the accident” (i.e., 30 days [720 hours]). For the LPZ,

there is a Ȥ/Q for each of the four time periods. The second column lists the Ȥ/Q values. The

Ȥ/Q values for the EAB and the first LPZ time period are the same as those calculated by

Dominion. The Ȥ/Q values for the last three LPZ time periods are those estimated by the staff.

The staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion characteristics of the North Anna ESP site

are acceptable for estimating the potential consequences of postulated DBAs for reactor

designs with postulated design Ȥ/Q values falling within the site Ȥ/Q values. The staff intends to

verify that the Ȥ/Q values used in analyzing the reactor design proposed at the CP/COL stage

are equal to or greater than the Ȥ/Q values specified in the ESP if an applicant for a CP or COL

references any North Anna ESP.

Tables 5-15, 5-16, and 5-17 list the set of surrogate DBAs considered by Dominion and present

the staff’s estimate of the environmental consequences of each DBA in terms of total effective

dose equivalent (TEDE). TEDE is the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE)

from inhalation and the deep dose equivalent from external exposure. Dose conversion factors

from Federal Guidance Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988) were used by the staff to calculate the

CEDE. Similarly, dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 (Eckerman and

Ryman 1993) were used to calculate the deep dose equivalent. |

The Commission has determined (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A) that the ABWR design meets

the TEDE dose criteria of 10 CFR 50.34. Equivalent TEDE values have been estimated for the

ABWR from doses in the design certification document by multiplying the thyroid dose by a

factor 0.03 (the organ weighting factor for the thyroid) and adding the product to the whole body

dose. In addition, the ABWR doses have been scaled to a power level of 4386 MW(t), 102

percent of the power proposed for an ABWR unit at the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2006a). 

The scaling was done by multiplying the North Anna site specific doses for the design |

certification power level of 3926 MW(t) by a factor of 1.1 (Dominion 2006a). |

The review criteria used in the staff’s safety review of DBA doses are included in Tables 5-15,

5-16, and 5-17 to illustrate how small the calculated environmental consequences (TEDE

doses) are. In all cases, the calculated TEDEs are a small fraction of the review criterion. 

Considering the magnitude of the doses in Tables 5-15, 5-16, and 5-17 and the relationship

between low doses and health effects such as fatal and non-fatal cancers and severe hereditary

effects described in Section 5.10, the staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts of

design basis accidents are small. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-75 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 5-14. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (Ȥ/Q, s/m3) for the North Anna ESP Site DesignBasis Accident Calculations

Time Period(a) and Boundary Site

0 to 2 hr, Exclusion Area Boundary 3.34 x 10-5

0 to 8 hr, Low Population Zone 2.17 x 10-6

8 to 24 hr, Low Population Zone 1.5 x 10-6

1 to 4 day, Low Population Zone 1.2 x 10-6

4 to 30 day, Low Population Zone 9.0 x 10-7

(a) Times are relative to the beginning of the release to the environment.

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

TEDE in Sv(a)

Accident

Standard Review

Plan Section(b) EAB LPZ

Review

Criterion

Main Steam Line Break 15.6.4

 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike 7.6 x 10-4 4.9 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-1(c)

 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 3.7 x 10-5 2.4 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Loss-of-Coolant Accident 15.6.5 2.6 x 10-3 7.5 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1(c)

Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary

Coolant Outside Containment

15.6.2 6.4 x 10-5 4.1 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Fuel Handling 15.7.4 9.2 x 10-4 6.0 x 10-5 6.3 x 10-2(d)

Cleanup Water Line Break(e) 4.7 x 10 | -6 3.0 x 10-7 2.5 x 10-2(c) |

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

(c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.11 criterion.

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

(e) The doses for Cleanup Water Line Break bound the doses for a Feedwater System Pipe Break |

(Dominion 2006a) |

Summary of Design Basis Accident Impacts

Although Dominion chose the PPE approach in the overall ESP application, it based its

evaluation of the environmental impacts of design basis accidents on characteristics of the

ABWR, the surrogate AP1000, and the surrogate ESBWR reactor designs with the explicit

representation that these impacts would bound the impacts of other ALWRs designs

(Dominion 2006a). The NRC staff reviewed these analyses, which are based on analyses

performed for design certification of these reactor designs. The results of the Dominion and

staff analyses indicate that the environmental risks associated with DBAs, if an ALWR were to

be located at the North Anna ESP site, would be small, compared to the TEDE doses used as

safety review criteria. In all cases, the calculated TEDEs are a small fraction of the review 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-76 December 2006

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

TEDE in Sv(a)

Accident

Standard

Review Plan

Section(b) EAB LPZ

Review

Criterion

Main Steam Line Break 15.1.5

 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike 3.9 x 10-4 7.9 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-1(c)

 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 4.5 x 10-4 3.1 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Steam Generator Rupture 15.6.3

 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike 1.7 x 10-3 5.5 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-1(c)

 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 8.4 x 10-4 4.0 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Loss-of-Coolant Accident 15.6.5 1.4 x 10-2 1.7 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1 (c)

Feedwater System Pipe Break 15.2.8 4.5 x 10-4 3.1 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Rod Ejection 15.4.8 1.7 x 10-3 2.8 x 10-4 6.3 x 10-2(d)

Reactor Coolant Pump Rotor Seizure (Locked

Rotor)

15.3.3 1.4 x 10-3 9.6 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break 15.3.4 1.4 x 10-3 9.6 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary

Coolant Outside Containment

15.6.2 7.2 x 10-4 4.8 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Fuel Handling 15.7.4 1.3 x 10-3 9.6 x 10-5 6.3 x 10-2(d)

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

(c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.11 criterion.

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

Table 5-17. Design Basis Accident Doses for the Surrogate ESBWR Reactor

TEDE in Sv(a)

Accident

Standard Review

Plan Section(b) EAB LPZ

Review

Criterion

Main Steam Line Break 15.6.4

 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike 3.1 x 10-3 2.0 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-1(c)

 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike 1.6 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Loss-of-Coolant Accident 15.6.5 2.1 x 10-3 1.3 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1(c)

Feedwater System Pipe Break 15.2.8 6.8 x 10 | -8 4.4 x 10-9 2.5 x 10-2(d) |

Cleanup Water Line Break 2.6 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary

Coolant Outside Containment

15.6.2 4.5 x 10-5 6.8 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-2(d)

Fuel Handling 15.7.4 1.8 x 10-3 1.2 x 10-4 6.3 x 10-2(d)

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

(c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.21 criteria.

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-77 NUREG-1811, Volume I

criterion. Considering the magnitude of the doses in Tables 5-15, 5-16, and 5-17, and the |

relationship between low doses and health effects such as fatal and non-fatal cancers and

severe hereditary effects described in Section 5.10, the staff concludes that the potential

environmental impacts of design basis accidents would be SMALL, and further mitigation is not |

warranted.

The environmental impacts of design basis accidents have not been explicitly evaluated for gascooled reactors and will need to be evaluated at the CP/COL stage if an applicant referencing

the ESP selects a gas-cooled design. For this evaluation to bound the reactor design selected

at the CP/COL stage, the applicant and the staff will need to verify that the environmental

impacts of design basis accidents at the North Anna ESP site remain bounded by the

environmental impacts from the surrogate designs considered here.

5.10.2 Severe Accidents

For the ABWR and AP1000 reactor designs, Dominion based its evaluation of the potential

environmental consequences of severe accidents in the ER on the evaluation of potential

consequences of severe accidents for current generation reactors presented in NUREG-1437

(NRC 1996). Three pathways were considered: (1) the atmospheric pathway in which

radioactive material is released to the air, (2) the surface water pathway in which airborne

radioactive material falls out on open bodies of water, and (3) the groundwater pathway in which

groundwater is contaminated by a basemat melt-through with subsequent contamination of

surface water by the groundwater.

In response to an NRC request for additional information dated March 12, 2004 (NRC 2004a),

the applicant performed a site-specific analysis of the potential environmental consequences of

postulated severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site. The PPE does not include source

terms for severe accidents; therefore, the applicant used source terms for the ABWR and the

surrogate AP1000 reactors. The applicant used the MACCS2 computer code (Chanin et al.

1990; Jow et al. 1990) for the analysis. A summary of the results of the analysis was submitted

to the NRC in a letter dated May 17, 2004 (Dominion 2004b), and detailed computer output was

submitted by letter dated July 12, 2004 (Dominion 2004d). In addition, in Revision 6 of the ER,

Dominion performed a site-specific analysis of the potential consequences of postulated severe

accidents for the surrogate ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site. Dominion used the MACCS2

computer code (Chanin et al. 1990; Jow et al. 1990) for the analysis. Along with Revision 6 to

the North Anna ESP application, Dominion provided the MACCS2 input and output files to

the NRC.

The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of

severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). MACCS2 (Chanin and

Young 1997) is the current version of MACCS. The MACCS and MACCS2 codes evaluate the

consequences of atmospheric releases of radioactive material following a severe accident. The

pathways modeled include external exposure to the passing plume, external exposure to
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-78 December 2006

material deposited on the ground and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and

resuspended from the ground, and ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. The

primary enhancements in MACCS2 are that MACCS2 has (1) an improved emergency

response model, (2) an expanded library of radionuclides, and (3) an improved food-chain

model (Chanin and Young 1997).

Three types of severe accident consequences are assessed in MACCS2: (1) human health, |

(2) economic costs, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human-health effects are

expressed in terms of the number of cancers that might be expected if a severe accident were

to occur. These effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation dose received by the

general population. MACCS2 estimates both early cancer fatalities and latent fatalities. Early

fatalities are related to high doses or dose rates and can be expected to occur within a year of

exposure (Jow et al. 1990). Latent fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of people

to low doses and dose rates and could occur after a latent period of several (e.g., 2 to 15)

years. Population health risk estimates are based on the population distribution within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the plant, whereas average individual health risks are based on the distribution

of population close to the plant. Economic costs of a severe accident include the costs

associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination of property and equipment,

interdiction of food supplies, land, and equipment use, and condemnation of property. The

affected land area is a measure of the areal extent of the residual contamination following a

severe accident.

Risk is the product of the frequency of an accident, also called the core damage frequency, and

the consequence of the accident. For example, a severe accident without loss of containment

for an ABWR is estimated to have a core damage frequency of 1.34 x 10-7 per reactor year

(Ryr-1); and the cumulative population dose associated with a severe accident without loss of

containment at the North Anna ESP site is calculated to be 7.86 x 101

 person-Sv

(7.86 x 103

 person-rem). The population dose risk for this class of accidents is the product of

1.34 x 10-7 Ryr-1 and 7.86 x 101

 person-Sv, or 1.05 x 10-5 person-Sv Ryr-1 (1.05 x 10-3

person-rem Ryr -1).

Core damage frequency estimates are made using well developed methods that have been

updated based on investigation of the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 and research

following the accident. Core damage frequency estimation methods used to generate the

estimates presented in this EIS are described in NUREG-1150, Severe Accident Risk: An

Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1990). These methods explicitly

consider both pre-accident and post-accident human errors. The core damage frequencies

listed in this EIS are core damage frequencies estimated for the ABWR, AP1000, and ESBWR

reactor designs as part of the design certification process. The following sections discuss the

estimated risks associated with the air, surface water, and groundwater pathways.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-79 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.10.2.1 Air Pathway

The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to the air pathway. The results of the MACCS2 runs are presented in Tables 5-18, 5-19, and 5-20. The core

damage frequencies given in these tables are for internally initiated accident sequences while

the plant is at power. Internally initiated accident sequences include those sequences initiated

by human error, equipment failures, and loss of offsite power. Based on insights from the

review of the ALWR probabilistic risk assessments, completed prior to the ESP application, the

core damage frequencies for externally initiated events and during shutdown would be

comparable to or lower than those for internally initiated events.

Tables 5-18, 5-19, and 5-20 show that the probability weighted consequences (i.e., the risks) of

severe accidents for the ABWR, the surrogate AP1000, or the surrogate ESBWR reactor

located on the North Anna ESP site are small for all risk categories considered. For

perspective, Tables 5-21 and 5-22 compare the health risks from severe accidents for the

ABWR, surrogate AP1000, and surrogate ESBWR reactors at the North Anna ESP site with the

risks for current generation of operating reactors at various sites.

In Table 5-21, the health risks estimated for the ABWR, surrogate AP1000, and surrogate

ESBWR reactors at the North Anna ESP site are compared with health risk estimates for the

five reactors considered in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). Although risks associated with both

internally and externally-initiated events were considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry

reactors in NUREG-1150, only risks associated with internally initiated events are presented in

Table 5-20. The health risks shown for the ABWR, surrogate AP1000, and surrogate ESBWR |

reactors at the North Anna ESP site are significantly lower than the risks associated with current

generation of operating reactors presented in NUREG-1150.

In addition, the last two columns of Table 5-21 provide average individual fatality risk estimates |

for comparison to the Commission’s safety goals. The Commission has set safety goals for |

average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks from reactor accidents in the |

Safety Goal Policy Statement (NRC 1986). The Policy Statement expressed the Commission’s |

policy regarding the acceptance level of radiological risk from nuclear power plant operation as

follows:

& Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the

consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no significant |

additional risk to life and health. |

& Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant operation should be comparable to

or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should |

not be a significant addition to other societal risks. |

|
NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-80 December 2006

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site Table 5-18. Mean Environmental Risks from ABWR Severe Accidents at the North Anna ESP Site Environmental Risk Release Category Description (Accident Class) Core Damage Frequency (Ryr-1) Population Dose (person- Sv Ryr-1)(a) Fatalities (Ry-1) Cost(d) ($ Ryr-1) Land Requiring Decontamination(e) (ha Ryr-1) Population Dose from Water Ingestion (person-Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c) 0 No loss of containment 1.34 x 10-7 1.05 x 10-5 (f) 4.66 x 10-7 (f) 7.34 x 10-7 1.93 x 10-8 1 Transients followed by failure of high-pressure coolant makeup water and failure to depressurize in timely fashion 2.08 x 10-8 2.16 x 10-6 (f) 9.86 x 10-8 (f) (f) (f) 2 Short-term station blackout with reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) failure, onsite power

recovery in 8 hr

1.00 x 10-10 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

3 Station blackout with RCIC

available for about 8 hr

1.00 x 10-10 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

4 Station blackout (more than 8 hr)

with RCIC failure

1.00 x 10-10 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

5 Transients followed by failure of

high pressure coolant makeupwater, successfuldepressurization of reactor,failure of low-pressure coolantmakeup water

1.00 x 10-10 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)
December 2006 5-81 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-18. (contd)

Release Category Description(Accident Class)

Core Damage

Frequency (Ryr-1)

Population Dose

(person- Sv Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities (Ry-1)

Cost(d)

($ Ryr-1)

Land Requiring

Decontamination(e)

(ha Ryr-1)

Population Dose

from Water Ingestion

(person-Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c)

6 Transient, loss-of-coolant

accident (LOCA), and anticipatedtransient without scram (ATWS)events with successful coolantmakeup water, but potential priorfailure of containment

 1.00 x 10-10 2.81 x 10-6 (f) 1.25 x 10-7 6.04 x 10-1 4.75 x 10-6 4.81 x 10-8

7 Small/medium LOCA followed by

failure of high-pressure coolantmakeup water and failure todepressurize

 3.91 x 10-10 1.26 x 10-5 (f) 5.55 x 10-7 2.70 x 10+0 1.96 x 10-5 2.42 x 10-7

8 LOCA followed by failure of highpressure coolant makeup water 4.05 x 10-10 1.96 x 10-5 2.17 x 10-11 8.63 x 10-7 5.06 x 10+0 2.88 x 10-5 5.63 x 10-79 ATWS followed by boron injection

failure and successful highpressure coolant makeup water

 1.70 x 10-10 1.06 x 10-5 2.41 x 10-12 5.00 x 10-7 2.69 x 10+0 1.39 x 10-5 4.00 x 10-7

Total 1.56 x 10-7 5.93 x 10-5 2.41 x 10-11 2.65 x 10-6 1.11 x 10+1 6.83 x 10-5 1.28 x 10-6(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990).(c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health

effects (Jow et al. 1990)

(e) Land risk is farm land requiring decontamination prior to resumption of agricultural usage. To convert hectares to acres, multiply by 2.47.(f) Less than 1% of total
NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-82 December 2006

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site Table 5-19. Mean Environmental Risks from the Surrogate AP1000 Severe Accidents at the North Anna ESP Site Environmental Risk Release Category Description (Accident Class) Core Damage Frequency (Ryr-1) Population Dose (person- Sv Ryr-1)(a) Fatalities (Ry-1) Cost(d) ($ Ryr-1) Land Requiring Decontamination(e) (ha Ryr-1) Population Dose from Water Ingestion (person Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c) CFI Intermediate containment failure, after core relocation but before 24 h 1.89 x 10-10 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) CFE Early containment failure, after onset of core damage but before core relocation 7.47 x 10-9 1.88 x 10-4 5.15 x 10-11 8.89 x 10-6 3.76 x 10+1 3.12 x 10-4 2.52 x 10-6 IC Intact containment 2.21 x 10-7 1.05 x 10-5 0 4.84 x 10-7 (f) (f) (f) BP Containment bypass, fission products released directly to

environment

1.05 x 10-8 5.96 x 10-4 7.07 x 10-11 2.90 x 10-5 1.42 x 10+2 8.98 x 10-4 1.66 x 10-5

CI Containment isolation failure

occurs prior to onset of coredamage

1.33 x 10-9 2.97 x 10-5 1.31 x 10-12 1.65 x 10-6 5.49 x 10+0 4.79 x 10-5 3.87 x 10-7

CFL Late containment failure

occurring after 24 h

3.45 x 10-13 (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

Total 2.40 x 10-7 8.28 x 10-4 1.24 x 10-10 4.02 x 10-5 1.85 x 10+2 1.27 x 10-3 1.96 x 10-5

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990).(c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health

effects (Jow et al. 1990).

(e) Land risk is farm land requiring decontamination prior to resumption of agricultural usage. To convert hectares (ha) to acres, multiply by 2.47.(f) Less than 1% of total
December 2006 5-83 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-20. Mean Environmental Risks from Surrogate ESBWR Severe Accidents at the North Anna ESP Site 

Environmental Risk

Release Category Description(Accident Class)

Core Damage

Frequency (Ryr-1)

Population Dose

(person- Sv Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities (Ry-1)

Cost(d)

($ Ryr-1)

Land Requiring

Decontamination(e)

(ha Ryr-1)

Population Dose

from Water Ingestion 

(person-Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c)

TSL Containment leakage at

Technical Specification Limit

2.8 x 10-8 6.80 x 10-6 (f) 3.05 x 10-7 0.05 1.30 x 10-6 1.06 x 10-8

CCIW Containment fails due to core

concrete interaction; lowerdrywell debris bed covered

2.9 x 10-10 3.60 x 10-6 (f) 1.61 x 10-7 0.24 3.48 x 10-6 1.48 x 10-8

EVE Ex-vessel steam explosion fails

containment

(f) 1.93 x 10-5 2.68 x 10-10 9.75 x 10-7 3.98 2.03 x 10-5 5.85 x 10-7

FR Release through controlled

(filtered) venting fromsuppression chamber

(f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

CCID Containment fails due to core

concrete interaction; lowerdrywell debris bed uncovered

(f) 2.08 x 10-6 2.41 x 10-11 9.31 x 10-8 0.44 2.32 x 10-6 5.97 x 10-8

OPW2 Containment fails due to late

(>24 hours) loss of containmentheat removal 

(f) 4.02 x 10-7 (f) 1.81 x 10-8 0.06 5.47 x 10-7 (f)
NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-84 December 2006

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site Table 5-20. (contd) Release Category Description (Accident Class) Core Damage Frequency (Ryr-1) Population Dose (person- Sv Ryr-1)(a) Fatalities (Ry-1) Cost(d) ($ Ryr-1) Land Requiring Decontamination(e) (ha Ryr-1) Population Dose from Water Ingestion (person-Sv Ryr-1)(a) Early(b) Latent(c) BOC Break outside of containment (f) 3.73 x 10-7 2.22 x 10-10 2.26 x 10-8 0.05 (f) 1.04 x 10-8 BYP Containment bypassed because of CIS failure with large (>12" hole) opening. Lower drywell debris bed covered. (f) (f) 4.65 x 10-11 (f) (f) (f) (f) DCH Direct containment heating (high pressure RPV failure) event damages containment (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) OPVB Containment fails due to failure of vapor suppression system

(vacuum breaker) function.

(f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

OPW1 Containment fails due to early

(<24 hours) loss of containmentheat removal 

(f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

Total 2.88 x 10-8 3.29 x 10-5 5.62 x 10-10 1.59 x 10-6 4.85 2.84 x 10-5 6.89 x 10-7(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990).(c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years.(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health

effects (Jow et al. 1990)

(e) Land risk is farm land requiring decontamination prior to resumption of agricultural usage. To convert hectares to acres, multiply by 2.47.(f) Less than 1 percent of the total
December 2006 5-85 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-21. Comparison of Environmental Risk for New Surrogate ESBWR Units at the North Anna ESP Site with Risks for |

Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 

Reactor Site

Core DamageFrequency (Ryr-1)

50-mi (80-km)

Population Dose

Risk (person-Sv

Ryr-1)(a)

Fatalities Ryr-1 Average Individual Fatality Ryr-1

Early Latent Early Latent Cancer

Grand Gulf(b) 4.0 x 10-6 5 x 10-1 8 x 10-9 9 x 10-4 3 x 10-11 3 x 10-10

Peach Bottom(b) 4.5 x 10-6 7 x 10+0 2 x 10-8 5 x 10-3 5 x 10-11 4 x 10-10Sequoyah(b) 5.7 x 10-5 1 x 10+1 3 x 10-5 1 x 10-2 1 x 10-8 1 x 10-8Surry(b) 4.0 x 10-5 5 x 10+0 2 x 10-6 5 x 10-3 2 x 10-8 2 x 10-9Zion(b) 3.4 x 10-4 5 x 10+1 1 x 10-4 2 x 10-2 9 x 10-9 8 x 10-9ABWR at NorthAnna ESP Site(c)

1.6 x 10-7 5.9 x 10-5 2.4 x 10-11 2.7 x 10-6 4.6 x 10-14 4.4 x 10-12

AP1000 at NorthAnna ESP Site(c)

2.4 x 10-7 8.3 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-10 4.0 x 10-5 2.6 x 10-13 4.9 x 10-11

Surrogate ESBWRat North AnnaESP Site(c)

2.9 x 10-8 3.3 x 10-5 5.6 x 10-10 1.6 x 10-6 5.5 x 10-13 3.4 x 10-12

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.(b) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990).(c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using North Anna site-specific input.
Station Operation Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-86 December 2006

Table 5-22. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal

Events for an ABWR, a Surrogate AP1000, and a Surrogate ESBWR at the North

Anna ESP Site with Risks Initiated by Internal Events for 28 Current Operating

Plants Undergoing License Renewal

Reactor Site

Core Damage

Frequency (yr-1)

50-mi (80-km) Population Dose Risk

(person-Sv Ryr-1)

(a)

Current Reactor Maximum(b) 2.4 x 10-4 6.9 x 10-1

Current Reactor Mean(b) 3.6 x 10-5 1.5 x 10-1

Current Reactor Median(b) 2.8 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-1

Current Reactor Minimum(b) 1.9 x 10-6 5.5 x 10-3

North Anna Units 1 and 2 3.5 x 10 | -5 2.5 x 10-1

ABWR at North Anna ESP Site(c) 1.6 x 10-7 5.9 x 10-5

AP1000 at North Anna ESP Site(c) 2.4 x 10-7 8.3 x 10-4

ESBWR at North Anna ESP Site(c) 2.9 x 10-8 3.3 x 10-5

(a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.

(b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for current plants undergoing operating license renewal.

(c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using North Anna site-specific input.

The following quantitative health objectives are used in determining achievement of the safety

goals: |

|

& The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities |

that might result from reactor accidents should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent |

(0.1 percent) of the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to which |

members of the U.S. population are generally exposed. |

& The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear power plant of cancer fatalities that

might result from nuclear power plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent |

(0.1 percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes. |

These quantitative health objectives are translated into two numerical objectives as follows:

|

& The individual risk of a prompt fatality from all “other accidents to which members of the U.S. |

population are generally exposed,” such as fatal automobile accidents, is about 5 x 10-4 per |

year. One-tenth of one percent of this figure implies that the individual risk of prompt fatality |

from a reactor accident should be less than 5 x 10-7 per reactor year. |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-87 NUREG-1811, Volume I

& “The sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes” for an individual is taken to |

be the cancer fatality rate in the U.S. which is about 1 in 500 or 2 x 10-3 per year. One-tenth |

of 1 percent of this implies that the risk of cancer to the population in the area near a nuclear |

power plant because of its operation should be limited to 2 x 10-6 per reactor year. |

|

MACCS2 calculates average individual early and latent cancer fatality risks. The average |

individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 1.6 km (1 mi) of |

the plant boundary. The average individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the |

population distribution within 16 km (10 mi) of the plant. For the plants considered in |

NUREG-1150, these risks were well below the Commission’s safety goals. Risks calculated for |

the ABWR, the surrogate AP1000, and the surrogate ESBWR designs at the North Anna ESP |

site are lower than the risks associated with the current generation reactors considered in |

NUREG-1150 and are well below the Commission’s safety goals. |

The staff compared the core damage frequencies and population dose risk estimates for the

ABWR, surrogate AP1000, and surrogate ESBWR reactors at the North Anna ESP site with

statistics summarizing the results if contemporary severe accident analyses performed for 28

current generation operating reactors at 23 sites. The results of these analyses are included in

the final site-specific Supplements 1 through 20 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal (GEIS), NUREG-1437, and in the ERs included with license renewal applications for those plants for which supplements have not been published. All of the analyses

were completed after publication of NUREG-1150, and the 23 analyses used MACCS2, which

was released in 1997. Table 5-22 shows that the core damage frequencies estimated for the

ABWR, AP1000, and ESBWR reactors are significantly lower than those of current generation

reactors. Similarly, the population doses estimated for the advanced reactors at the North Anna

ESP site are well below the mean and median values for current generation reactors

undergoing license renewal.

Population dose and risk estimates for the North Anna site in Tables 5-18 through 5-22 were |

estimated using population projections for 2030 based on 1990 census data that were made for |

renewal of the North Anna Unit 1 and 2 operating licenses (NRC 2002b). Population growth |

estimates presented in Chapter 2 of the ER (Dominion 2006a) indicate that between 2030 and

2065 the population in the region is expected to increase by factors of 1.0 to 1.7 depending on |

distance and direction from the site (Dominion 2006a). Even if the projected growth from 2030 |

to 2065 were as large as a factor of 2, the risks would still be well below the Commission’s

safety goals.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-88 December 2006

5.10.2.2 Surface Water Pathways

Surface water pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These pathways cover the effects

of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water. The surface water pathways of

interest include exposure to external radiation from submersion in water and activities near the

water, ingestion of water, and ingestion of fish and other aquatic creatures. Of these pathways,

the MACCS2 code only evaluates the ingestion of contaminated water. The risks associated

with this surface water pathway calculated for the North Anna ESP site are included in the last

columns of Tables 5-18, 5-19, and 5-20. For each accident class, the population dose risk from

ingestion of water is a small fraction of the dose risk from the air pathway.

Lake Anna is used for recreational activities including swimming and fishing. Doses from these

surface water pathways are not modeled in MACCS or MACCS2. NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996)

provides an estimate of typical population exposure risk for the aquatic food pathway for plants

located on small rivers. The North Anna ESP site is classified as being on a small river. For

these plants, the risk associated with the aquatic food pathway is about 4 x 10-3 person-Sv Ryr-1

(4 x 10-1 person-rem Ryr-1). The total risk for the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 is about 2.5 x 10-1

person-Sv Ryr-1 (2.5 x 101 person-rem Ryr-1) (NRC 2002b). Thus, the generic aquatic pathway

risk is less than 2 percent of the total risk. Analysis of water-related exposure pathways at the

Fermi reactor (NRC 1981) suggests that population exposures from swimming are significantly

lower than exposures from the aquatic ingestion pathway.

Virginia Power controls the land to the high water mark of Lake Anna within the NAPS site

(Dominion 2006a). In the event of a large release of radioactive material, Virginia Power and

the Commonwealth of Virginia could control access to the lake, which is the major surface water

body in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. By exercising that control, Virginia Power could

reduce exposures through the surface water pathways.

In a similar fashion to the air pathway, the environmental impacts of the surface water pathway

for other advanced LWRs are expected to be bounded by the ABWR, surrogate AP1000, and

surrogate ESBWR. The environmental impacts of severe accidents have not been evaluated

for gas-cooled reactors. The PPE does not contain specific parameters related to severe

accidents for gas-cooled reactors, and the consequences of severe accidents have not been

evaluated for gas-cooled reactors and will need to be evaluated at the CP/COL stage if a gascooled design is selected. For this evaluation to bound the reactor design selected at the

CP/COL stage, the applicant and the staff will need to verify that the environmental impacts of

the surface water pathway releases for severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site remain

bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate designs. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-89 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.10.2.3 Groundwater Pathway

Neither MACCS nor MACCS2 evaluates the environmental risks associated with severe

accident releases of radioactive material to groundwater. However, this pathway has been

addressed in NUREG-1437 in the context of renewal of licenses for the current generation

reactors. NUREG-1437 assumes a 1 x 10-4 Ryr-1 probability of occurrence of a severe accident

with a basemat melt-through leading to potential groundwater contamination, and the staff

concluded that groundwater generally contributed a small fraction of the risk attributable to the

atmospheric pathway. Although the staff assumed that the probability of occurrence of a

release via the groundwater pathway is significantly larger than a release via the atmospheric

pathway for the ABWR, the surrogate AP1000, or the surrogate ESBWR, the groundwater

pathway is more tortuous and affords a greater time for implementing protective actions and

therefore results in a lower risk to the public. As a result, the staff concludes that the risks

associated with releases to groundwater are small for the North Anna ESP site.

5.10.2.4 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts

Although Dominion chose the PPE approach in the overall ESP application, it based its

evaluation of the environmental impacts of severe accidents on characteristics of the ABWR,

the surrogate AP1000, and the surrogate ESBWR reactor designs with the explicit

representation that these impacts would bound the impacts of other ALWR designs (Dominion

2006a). The NRC staff reviewed the analysis in the ER and conducted its own confirmatory

analysis using the MACCS2 code (NRC 2006f). The results of both the Dominion and NRC

analyses indicate that the environmental risks associated with severe accidents if an ALWR

were to be located at the North Anna ESP site would be small compared to risks associated

with operation of current generation reactors at the North Anna site and other sites. These risks

are well below the NRC safety goals. On these bases, the staff concludes that the probability

weighted consequences of severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site are of SMALL

significance for ALWR. The environmental impacts of severe accidents for designs not

evaluated in this EIS, including gas-cooled designs are not resolved because necessary design

information is lacking. Consequently these impacts would need to be evaluated at the CP/COL

stage. For this evaluation to bound a LWR reactor design selected at the CP/COL stage, the

staff would need to verify that the environmental impacts of severe accidents at the North Anna

ESP site remain bounded by the environmental impacts from the surrogate designs.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-90 December 2006

5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

The staff evaluated the environmental impacts from design basis accidents and severe

accidents using the ABWR, the surrogate AP1000, and the surrogate ESBWR to characterize

the environmental impacts from ALWR. As described previously, preliminary information on the

IRIS and the ACR-700 reactor designs indicate that the surrogate AP1000 is expected to bound

the source term, doses, and probability weighted consequences of design and severe

accidents.

Based on the information provided by Dominion, and its own independent review, the staff

concludes that the potential environmental impacts of a postulated accident from the operation

of two additional nuclear power plants would be SMALL, for the operation of advanced LWRs. 

The staff did not explicitly evaluate the design basis or severe accident impacts for gas-cooled

reactors because of the lack of necessary design information. Consequently, the impacts |

involving gas-cooled reactor designs are not resolved. |

5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

Operation

In the ER, Dominion tabulated its representation of “feasible and adequate measures/controls” |

in Table 5.10-1, “Summary of Impacts and Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts |

During Operations” (Dominion 2006a). This tabulation includes measures and controls that |

Dominion would be required to implant by applicable Federal, Commonwealth, local statutes |

and regulations, and permit requirements, terms, and conditions. The staff relied upon these |

measures and controls in its evaluation of environmental impacts during operation of the |

proposed new units at the North Anna ESP site; for those issues where Dominion indicated that |

a study, process, or capability “would be considered,” the staff relied upon the study, process, or |

capabilities as being implemented or conducted. |

In addition to the foregoing measures and controls tabulated in ER Table 5.10-1, the staff also |

relied on the following general plans or specific mitigation measures: |

& Current transmission line maintenance practices would continue if two new units were

built at the ESP site (ER Section 5.6.1.1).

& A system study modeling the transmission lines with new units’ contribution would be

conducted (ER Section 5.1.2).

& Locations of rare or sensitive plant species within transmission line corridors would be

identified so modified treatment practices can be used in these areas to avoid adverse

impacts (ER Section 5.6.1.1).
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-91 NUREG-1811, Volume I

& Demonstrate that the fogging and salt deposition analysis of the cooling system remains

bounding (May 24, 2006, response to RAI).

& The intake structure for the proposed new units at the ESP site would meet

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act and the implementing regulations, as applicable

(ER Section 5.3.1.2).

& Vegetative shielding would block a clear view of the new units from most nearby

residences (ER Section 5.8.1.5, Table 5.10-1).

& Noise levels would be controlled in accordance with applicable local county regulations

(ER Section 5.8.1.2).

& Although the operation of the new units are not expected to require changes in land use

(ER Section 5.1), any ground-disturbing activities necessary for operations would be

conducted in coordination with the VDHR and professional archaeological practices

consistent with the process established for construction activities (ER Section 4.1.3).

Dominion evaluated the measures and controls shown in Table 5.10-1 of the ER

(Dominion 2006a) and considered them feasible from both a technical and economic

standpoint. In addition, Dominion expects these measures and controls to be adequate for

avoiding or mitigating potential adverse impacts associated with operation of the proposed new

units. The staff considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of station operation

impacts. The staff has included the measures and controls in Appendix J, Table J-1.

5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts

Impact level categories denoted in Table 5-22 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE were

assigned to each resource area based on the staff’s evaluations and conclusions regarding

expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. A brief statement explains the basis for the

impact level. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from Dominion for the local

economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community, and are noted as such. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-92 December 2006

Table 5-22. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the North Anna ESP Site

Category Comments

Impact

Level

Land use impacts --

 The site and vicinity Operation of new units within existing site. 

Possible new housing and retail space added in

vicinity due to potential growth.

SMALL

 Transmission line rights-of-way No new transmission line rights-of-way would be

needed.

SMALL

Air quality impacts Impacts are expected to be negligible. Pollutants

emitted during operations considered insignificant

and limits could be incorporated under existing

Exclusionary Permit.

SMALL

Water-related impacts --

 Hydrological alterations Changes in the quantity and distribution of heat in

the lake are expected to be negligible. 

SMALL

 Water use

 Normal years During normal water years, the impact would be

small.

SMALL

 Drought years During critical low-water years, the impacts could

be temporarily moderate.

MODERATE

 Water quality Water effluents would be regulated by the VPDES

permit, but their exact composition would depend

on information not yet available.

Not

Resolved

Ecological impacts --

 Terrestrial ecosystems No detectable impacts expected; no important

species in area.

SMALL

 Aquatic ecosystems The fish community is balanced. Proportion of

resources subject to impingement and

entrainment would be small. The impact on

striped bass would be minimal even during

drought years or late summer. Refugia would be

available.

SMALL

 Threatened and Endangered

 Species

--

 Terrestrial Species No threatened or endangered species known to

inhabit area.

SMALL

 Aquatic Species No threatened or endangered species known to

inhabit area.

SMALL
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-93 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 5-22. (contd)

Category Comments

Impact

Level

Socioeconomic impacts --

 Physical Impacts --

 Workers/Public Workers would use protective equipment and

receive training to mitigate any possible impact.

North Anna location is relatively remote, so the

public would not be impacted.

SMALL

 Buildings No impact to onsite or offsite buildings. SMALL

 Roads Upgrades and other mitigation before or during

construction would cover the lesser impact of

operational work forces.

SMALL

 Aesthetics Lower water levels, and their effect on shoreline

exposure during severe drought could temporarily

impact area. Elevated steam plume for the Unit 3

cooling towers, especially in the winter. These

impacts are expected to be temporarily at the

moderate level.

SMALL TO

MODERATE

 Demography Number of new employees small in proportion to

population base.

SMALL

Community Characteristics

 Economy Increased jobs would benefit the area

economically, up to a moderate beneficial impact

(Louisa and Orange Counties) is possible.

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

TO

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

 Transportation Improvements made for construction would be

sufficient to cover any adverse impact from small

number of additional operational workers.

SMALL

 Taxes Depends on residence location; generally impacts

are beneficial, especially for property taxes and

employment. Beneficial impacts of additional

taxes would be large for Louisa County.

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

TO LARGE

BENEFICIAL

 Recreation Lower water levels, and their effect on shoreline |

exposure and recreational usage during severe

drought could temporarily impact area.

SMALL TO

MODERATE
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-22. (contd)

Category Comments

Impact

Level

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-94 December 2006

 Housing Adequate housing is available in Henrico and

Spotsylvania Counties and in Richmond to handle

operational workers. Orange and Louisa Counties

could experience a temporary shortage of upscale

housing, possibly at the moderate impact level. 

SMALL

 Public Services Adequate in all counties for any population

increase due to operation workforce.

SMALL

 Education Current schools and planned additions would

handle additional students.

SMALL

Historic and cultural resources A cultural resource program is in place for

minimizing impacts from routine land

disturbances.

SMALL

Environmental justice No unusual resource dependence in the area. SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts Health impacts monitored and controlled in

accordance with Occupational Safety and Health

Administration regulations.

SMALL

Chronic health impacts of electromagnetic fields Not

Resolved

Radiological health impacts Doses to public and occupational workers are

monitored and controlled in accordance with NRC

limits. Doses to biota other than humans were |

found to be protective when compared to |

guidance in ICRP and NCRP studies. |

SMALL

|

Impacts of postulated accidents --

 Design basis accidents Doses for advanced light water reactors are

expected to be a small fraction of the regulatory

dose limits. Staff would verify that source terms

for postulated DBAs on chosen reactor designs

are within those considered in the ESP EIS.

SMALL

 Severe accidents Risks for ALWRs would be small. If gas-cooled

reactor is selected at the CP/COL stage then the

staff will evaluate the severe accident impacts for

gas-cooled reactors. Severe accident mitigation

alternatives are unresolved.

SMALL
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-95 NUREG-1811, Volume I

5.13 References

Note: Because the web pages cited in this document may become unavailable, the staff has |

entered the appropriate pages into ADAMS. The accession number of the package containing |

the websites used as references in Chapter 5 of the North Anna ESP EIS is ML051150148. |

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.”

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.”

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 51,

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.”

40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part

141, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.”

40 CFR 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register, Volume 69, Number 163. August 24,

2004.

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). 1984. A User’s Manual: Cooling-Tower-Plume

Prediction Code. Published as EPRI CS-3403-CCM by Electric Power Research Institute, Palo

Alto, California.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-96 December 2006

Baker, J. P., H. Olem, C. S. Creager, M. D. Marcus, and B. R. Parkhurst. 1993. Fish and

Fisheries Management in Lakes and Reservoirs, 841-R-93-002, Terrene Institute and

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Barwick, D. H., L. E. Miller, W. R. Geddings, and D. M. Rankin. 1995. Fish Biomass and Angler

Harvest from a South Carolina Cooling Reservoir, Proceedings of the Annual Conference

Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49:129-139.

Beitinger, T. L., W. A. Bennett, and R. W. McCauley. 2000. “Temperature Tolerances for North |

American Fishes Exposed to Dynamic Changes in Temperature.” Environmental Biology of |

Fishes 58:237-275. |

Bilkovic, D. M., J. E. Olney, C. H. Hershner. 2002. “Spawning of American shad (Alosa |

sapidissima) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, |

Virginia.” Fishery Bulletin. 100:632-640. |

Bras, R .L. 1990. Hydrology: An Introduction to Hydrologic Science. Addison-Wesley

Publishing, New York.

Brutsaert, W. 1982. Evaporation into the Atmosphere: Theory, History, and Applications.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.

Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 1, Iowa State

University Press, Ames, 752 p.

Carlander, K. D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology. Volume 2, Iowa State

University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Chanin, D. I., J. L. Sprung, L. T. Ritchie, and H. N. Jow. 1990. MELCOR Accident

Consequence Code System (MACCS), User’s Guide. NUREG/CR-4691, Volume 1. 

Washington, D.C. 

Chanin, D. I. and M. L. Young. 1997. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume1, User’s Guide. 

SAND97-0594, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Cheek, T. 1982. “Striped Bass Under Stress.” Tennessee Wildlife 6:116-120. |

Cheek, T. E., J. M. Van Den Avyle, and C. C. Coutant. 1985. “Influence of Water Quality on

Distribution of Striped Bass in a Tennessee River Impoundment.” Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 114:67-76.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-97 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2002. Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Criteria, Draft No. 2. 

Accessed at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/

subcommittee/wqsc/doctg/doc-docritdoc-01-03-2002.PDF on August 23, 2005.

Clean Water Act (CWA) (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

33 USC 1251, et seq.

Combs, D. L. and L. R. Peltz. 1982. “Seasonal Distribution of Striped Bass in Keystone

Reservoir, Oklahoma.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:66-73.

Coutant, C. C. 1977. “Compilation of Temperature Preference Data.” Journal of Fisheries |

Research Board of Canada 34:739-745. |

Coutant, C. C. 1985. “Striped Bass, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen: A Speculative

Hypothesis for Environmental Risks.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

114:31-61.

Coutant, C. C. and D. S. Carroll. 1980. “Temperatures Occupied by Ten Ultrasonic-Tagged

Striped Bass in Freshwater Lakes.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

109:195-202.

Dominion Energy Inc. and Bechtel Power Corp (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. Study of

Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States.

U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-02ID14313. Available at

www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/ESP_Study/ESP_Study_Dominion1.pdf

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2001a. “Migratory Birds.” Water/Waste

Environmental Protection Manual. Chapter 13, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2001b. Appendix E – Applicant’s

Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal Stage, North Anna Power Station Units 1

and 2, License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7, Virginia Electric and Power Company, May 2001.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2002. Mount Storm Lake Biological Survey. 

Annual Report for 2001, Richmond, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2003. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual.

Procedure Number VPAP-2103N, Revision 7. Richmond, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. Letter from E. S. Grecheck (DNNA), to

NRC dated March 31, 2004, Glen Allen, Virginia.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-98 December 2006

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter dated May 17, 2004, from

E. S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC

request dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004c. Letter dated June 28, 2004, North

Anna Early Site Permit Application – Dominion response to Comment Letter from Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality. Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. Glen Allen, Virginia. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 52-008.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004d. Letter dated July 12, 2004, from

E. S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC

request dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit |

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia. |

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to |

NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request |

dated May 10, 2006, Accession No. ML061510131. |

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006c. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

NRC referencing receipt of CZMA Certification, November 22, 2006.

Dudley, R. G., A. W. Mullis, and J. W. Terrell. 1977. “Movements of Adult Striped Bass

(Morone saxatilis) in the Savannah River, Georgia.” Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 106:314-322.

Eckerman, K. F., A. B. Wolbarst, and A. C. B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of

Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentrations and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation,

Submersion, and Ingestion. Federal Guidance Report No. 11, -520/1-88-202,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Eckerman, K. F. and J. C. Ryman. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water,

and Soil. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, -402-R-93-081, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, D.C.

Edinger, J. E., D. K. Brady, and J. C. Geyer. 1974. “Heat Exchange and Transport in the

Environment,” Cooling Water Studies for Electric Power Research Institute. Report No 14,

Electric Power Research Institute, November.

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFEIC). 2001. Home Mortgage Disclosure |

Act Raw Data 2000. Public data available on CD-ROM, Washington D.C. |
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-99 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFEIC). 2002. Home Mortgage Disclosure |

Act Raw Data 2001. Public data available on CD-ROM, Washington D.C. |

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFEIC). 2003. Home Mortgage Disclosure |

Act Raw Data 2002. Public data available on CD-ROM, Washington D.C. |

Golden, J., R. P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P. N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact

Data Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Goodyear, C. P. 1978. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach,

FWS/OBS-78/65, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Power Plant

Team, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Hall, D. J. and E. E. Werner. 1977. “Seasonal Distribution and Abundance of Fishes in the

Littoral Zone of a Michigan Lake.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:545-555.

Hanover County Department of Public Utilities. 2004. Letter to Chief, Rules and Directives

Branch, NRC., regarding Dominion’s ESP application, January 7, 2004. 

Accession No. ML040130744.

Health Physics Society (HPS). 2004. Radiation Risk in Perspective. The Health Physics

Society, McLean, Virginia.

Ho, E. and E. E. Adams. 1984. Final Calibration of the Cooling Lake Model, North Anna Power

Station, Report No. 295, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and

Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series

No. 332, Vienna, Austria.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, 1977, Pergamon

Press, New York.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, International

Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press, New York.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-100 December 2006

Jaksch, J. and M. Scott. 2005. North Anna ESP Site Audit Trip Report – Socioeconomics. 

12-8-2003 through 12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2003 through

12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2004 through 9-29-2004 and 7-11-2005

through 7-15-2005. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,

Accession No. ML052170374.

Jester, D. B. and B. L. Jensen. 1972. Life History and Ecology of the Gizzard Shad, Dorosoma |

cepedianum (Le Sueur) with Reference to Elephant Butte Lake. Research Report 273, New |

Mexico State University Agricultural Experimental Station, Las Cruces, New Mexico. |

Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Jow, H. N., J. L Sprung, J. A. Rollstin, L. T. Ritchie, and D. I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident

Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR-4691, Volume 2,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Kimmel, B. L. and A. W. Groeger. 1986. Limnological and Ecological Changes Associated with

Reservoir Aging, in G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Avyle, editors, Reservoir Fisheries

Management: Strategies for the 80's, Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lee, D. S. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. Publication #1980-12 of the

North Carolina Biological Survey, North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh,

North Carolina.

Louisa County. 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive

Plan, Chapter V, September 4, 2001.

Moss, J. L. 1985. “Summer Selection of Thermal Refuges by Striped Bass in Alabama

Reservoirs and Tailwaters.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:77-83.

National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. |

Bethesda, Maryland. |

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing

Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. 16 USC 470, et. seq.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-101 NUREG-1811, Volume I

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NEISH Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Service Center. 2005. |

Striped Bass. Accessed at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/acebasin/specgal/stribass.htm on |

August 23, 2005.

National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks for Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low

Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academy Press,

Washington, D.C.

Olmsted, L. L. and J. P. Clugston. 1986. “Fishery Management in Cooling Impoundments,”

Pages 227-237 in (G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Ayvle, editors), Reservoir Fisheries

Management, Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American Fisheries Society.

Orange County. 1999. Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Orange County Board of

Supervisors, September 14, 1999.

Reed, J. C. and G. M. Simmons. 1972. An Ecological Investigation of the Lower North Anna |

and Upper Pamunkey River System. Prepared for Virginia Electric and Power Company, |

Richmond, Virginia. |

Rogers, B. A. and D. T. Westin. 1979. “The combined effects of temperature and delayed |

feeding on the survival and growth of larvalstriped bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum).” In |

Advances in environmentalresearch, Proceedings of a symposium, June 15-16, 1977. Edited |

by F.S. Jacott. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, -600/9-79-035, Narragansett, Rhode |

Island.

Spotsylvania County. 2002. Spotsylvania County Approved 2002 Comprehensive Plan.

February 12, 2002. Accessed at

http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/departments/planning/index.cfm?doc_id=233 on March 24, 2004. 

Siler, J. R., W. J. Foris, and M. C. McInerny. 1986. Spatial Heterogeneity in Fish Parameters

Within a Reservoir, Pages 122-136 in (G. E. Hall and M. J. Van Den Ayvle, editors) Reservoir

Fisheries Management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American Fisheries Society.

Strenge, D. L., R. A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and

User Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-102 December 2006

Strenge, D. L., T. J. Bander, and J. K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II – Technical Reference and

User Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, March 1987, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,

Washington.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Heat and Mass Transfer between a Water Surface

and the Atmosphere. Water Resources Research Laboratory Report No. 14 (0-6803), Norris,

Tennessee.

Tipler, P. A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, Inc., New York.

Trendahl, A. 1978. “Preface,” Pages IX-X in (R. L. Kendall, editor) Selected Coolwater Fishes

of North America. American Fisheries Society.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1962. Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and

Test Reactor Sites. TID-14844, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Onsite Meteorological Programs. Safety

Guide 23 (Regulatory Guide 1.23). Washington D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 and 2 and the Construction of Units 3

and 4, North Anna Power Station. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000. Table QT-P1: Age Groups and Sex – 2000. Mineral

town, Virginia. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US5152120&-qr_name=DE

C_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on on March 28,

2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS

and VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Accessed at

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf on March 23, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974a. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the

Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors.

Regulatory Guide 1.3, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1974b. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the

Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and

Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.25 (Safety

Guide 25), Washington, D.C.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-103 NUREG-1811, Volume I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Addendum to the Final Environmental

Statement Related to Operation of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2. Virginia Electric

and Power Company. NUREG-0134, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Regulatory Guide 1.109 - Calculation of

Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating

Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Regulatory Guide 1.111 - Methods for |

Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases |

from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of

Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power

Plants. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement

Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Addendum No.1. NUREG-0769

Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for

Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.145 Rev. 1,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear

Power Plants; Policy Statement.” Federal Register. Volume 51, p. 30028, August 21, 1986.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800 (formerly issued as

NUREG-75/087), Volumes 1 and 2. NRC, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.

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

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Environmental Standard Review Plan:

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Washington, D.C.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-104 December 2006

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Alternative Radiological Source Terms

for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183,

Washington, D.C.

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

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 7 Regarding North Anna Power Station,

Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437 Supplement 7. November 2002. Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement7

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002c. Occupational Radiation Exposure at

Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2001. NUREG-0713, Volume 23,

Thirty-Fourth Annual Report. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for |

an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Washington, D.C. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Letter dated March 12, 2004, from

Andrew J. Kugler (NRC) to David A. Christian (Dominion) requesting additional information.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004c. NRR Office Instruction Change Notice

LIC-203, Revision 1. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and

Considering Environmental Issues. May 24, 2004. Appendix D, Environmental Justice

Guidance and Flow Chart. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Note to file dated July 6, 2006, regarding |

staff trip to Lake Anna and surrounding areas on September 19 to 22, 2005. Accession |

No. ML061720366

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Letter dated May 20, 2005 from John

Wolflin to Pao-Tsin Kuo regarding the Biological Assessment conclusions.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. SACTI (Seasonal and Annual Cooling |

Tower Impacts) computer runs used in the staff’s analysis of cooling tower plumes for the North

Anna Early Site Permit. Accession No. ML063050630. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. North Anna Early Site Permit Chapter 5 |

and Appendix K Water Budget Calculations. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

December 2006 5-105 NUREG-1811, Volume I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Note to file dated May 12, 2006, |

regarding staff trip to Lake Anna on May 3, 2006. Accession No. ML061320447. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006d. Letter dated May 20, 2006, from Nolan |

(NRC) to Sutherland (FWS) regarding the Biological Assessment for the Early Site Permit of the |

North Anna Site – Supplemental Information. Accession No. ML051600263. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006e. North Anna Early Site Permit Chapter 4 |

and Appendix H Dose Calculations. Accession No. ML063190608. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006f. North Anna Early Site Permit MACCS2 |

Severe Accident Calculations. Accession Nos. ML063320130, ML063320135, ML063320168, |

ML063320133, ML063320189.

Virginia Code §15.2-2223, Comprehensive Plan. Available online at: |

http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal/government_881/virginia_1048/

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 2004. Natural Heritage

Resources Factsheet. Migratory Songbird Habitat in Virginia’s Coastal Plain. Accessed at

http://www.dcr.state.va/dnh/songfact.htm on March 4, 2004.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Virginia Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit No. VA0052451, Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Act,

Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, permit’s effective date,

January 11, 2001; expiration date, January 11, 2006.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2006. Letter dated January 31, 2006, |

from M. Murphy (VDEQ) to P. Faggert (Dominion) requesting information on additional water |

storage needed to maintain water releases at current levels. Accession No. ML060580017. |

Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 2005. Letter from R. B. Stroube (VDH) to R. Burnley

(VDEQ) regarding heat effects of immersion in ambient waters. September 15, 2005. 

Accession No. ML052760206.

Virginia Department of Taxation (VTAX). 1987. 41⁄2% Virginia Sales Tax Table for Combined

State Tax at the Rate of 3.5 % and Local Tax at the Rate of 1%. For Use on and After

January 1, 1978. Accessed at

http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl45xx12_00.pdf on March 17, 2004.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, Volume I 5-106 December 2006

Virginia Department of Taxation (VTAX). 2000. 4% Virginia Sales Tax Table. To Be Used For

Qualifying Food Effective 1/1/2000 for Combined State Tax at the Rate of 3% and Local Tax at

the Rate of 1%. Accessed at http://www.tax.state.va.us/web_pdfs/busForms/fstbl40xx1_00.pdf

on March 17, 2004.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1985. Impingement and Entrainment Studies

for North Anna Power Station,1978-1983, Prepared by Water Quality Department, Richmond, 

Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for North

Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River. 

Virginia Power Corporate Technical Assessment, Water Quality Department, Richmond,

Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 2001 including Summary for 1998-2000. 

Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006a. 2005 Annual Radiological

Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station - January 1, 2005 to December 31,

2005. Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Report |

North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005). Richmond, Virginia. |

Virginia Power/North Carolina Power. 1993. Striped Bass Kill at North Anna, DNNA number

032769. July 22, 1993. Accession No. ML063320127.
December 2006 6-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid

waste management, (2) transportation of radioactive material, and (3) decommissioning for the

postulated Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna early site permit (ESP) site. The environmental

impacts were assessed for the North Anna ESP site and the alternative sites. Distinctions

between the impacts of light-water reactor (LWR) designs and the gas-cooled reactor designs

are discussed.

In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts for the North Anna ESP site, Dominion Nuclear

North Anna, LLC (Dominion) used the plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach for the LWR

designs but not for the two gas-cooled reactors. In its evaluation of the impacts from

transportation of radioactive materials, Dominion did not use the PPE approach but rather

evaluated each reactor design individually. Therefore, an applicant referencing any North Anna

ESP would have to perform a new evaluation if a different design is proposed at the

construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL) stage.

6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management

This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management for both the LWR designs and gas-cooled reactor designs. The impacts of the two

types of design are presented separately because Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), Section 51.51 provides specific criteria for evaluating the environmental impacts only for |

LWR designs. Issues related to fuel cycle impacts and solid waste management are not |

resolved because data to validate impacts from gas-cooled designs were not available. |

6.1.1 Light-Water Reactors

The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state that 

Every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a light-watercooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take

Table S–3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the

contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production of

uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel,

transportation of radioactive materials, and management of low level wastes and high level

wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the

nuclear power plant. Table S–3 shall be included in the environmental report and may be

supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data set forth in the

table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-2 December 2006

The PPE for the North Anna ESP site used input parameters from the following LWR designs:

& Advanced Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor (ACR-700) – This reactor, developed by

Atomic Energy Canada Limited, is an evolutionary extension of the CANDU 6 plant using

very slightly enriched uranium fuel and light-water cooling.

& Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by General Electric

Company (GE), is a standardized plant that has been certified under the NRC

requirements in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A. The ABWR is fueled with slightly enriched

uranium and has light-water cooling.

& Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (AP1000) – This earlier version of the AP1000, a

reactor design developed by Westinghouse Electric Company, using slightly enriched

uranium and light-water cooling. This design is not the standard AP1000 design that

was certified by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D; therefore, this design is

referred to as the “surrogate AP1000.”

& Surrogate Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This surrogate reactor

design is based on a design developed by GE using slightly enriched uranium fuel and

has light-water cooling. Dominion revised its application to reflect a higher power level

volume of 4500 MW(t) (Dominion 2006a). The ESBWR design certification application is

currently under review by the NRC.

& International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) Next-Generation Pressurized Water

Reactor (PWR) – This reactor, under development by a consortium led by Westinghouse

Electric Company, is a modular light-water reactor.

These light-water designs use uranium dioxide fuel; therefore, the values in Table S–3 can be

used to assess environmental impacts. Table S–3 values are normalized for a reference

1000-MW(e) LWR at an 80 percent capacity factor. The PPE power level for the North Anna

ESP site is 9000 MW(t), assuming two ESBWR units would be located on the ESP site or at any

of the alternative sites, with a PPE capacity factor of 96 percent (Dominion 2006). This

corresponds to 3040 MW(e). The 10 CFR 51.51(a) Table S–3 values are reproduced in

Table 6-1, which follows.

Specific categories of natural resource use are included in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). These

categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive releases,

burial of transuranic and high-level and low-level wastes, and radiation doses from

transportation and occupational exposures. In developing Table S–3, the staff considered two

fuel cycle options – no recycle and uranium-only recycle – that differed in the treatment of spent

fuel removed from a reactor. “No recycle” treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a

Federal waste repository; “uranium-only recycle” involves reprocessing spent fuel to recover

unused uranium and return it to the system. Neither cycle involves the recovery of plutonium.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

(Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement [WASH-1248; AEC 1974]

or Reference Reactor Year [NUREG-0116; NRC 1976])

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Natural Resource Use 

Land (acres):

Temporarily committed(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Undisturbed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Disturbed area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Equivalent to a 100 MW(e) coal-fired power plant.

Permanently committed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Overburden moved (millions of MT) . . . . . . 2.8 Equivalent to 95 MW(e) coal-fired power plant.

Water (millions of gallons):

Discharged to air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 = 2 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR with cooling

tower.

Discharged to water bodies . . . . . . . . . . 11,090

Discharged to ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,377 <4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR with oncethrough

Fossil fuel:

Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hr) 323 <5 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR output. 

Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) . . . . 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45 MW(e) coal-fired

power plant.

Natural gas (millions of standard cubic feet) 135 <0.4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) energy output. 

Effluents--Chemical (MT)

Gases (including entrainment):(c)

SOx ................................ 4400

NOx

(d) ............................... 1190 Equivalent to emissions from 45 MW(e) coal-fired plant

for a year.

Hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6

Particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154

Other gases: 

F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.67 Principally from uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production,

enrichment, and reprocessing. The concentration is

within the range of state standards–below level that

has effects on human health. 

HCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.014
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-4 December 2006

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Liquids:

SO4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing

steps. Components that constitute a potential for

adverse environmental effect are present in dilute

concentrations and receive additional dilution by

receiving bodies of water to levels below permissible

standards. The constituents that require dilution and

the flow of dilution water are: NH3-600 cfs, NO3-20 cfs,

Fluoride-70 cfs.

NO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8

Fluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9

Ca++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4

Cl- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5

Na+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1

NH3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Fe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4

Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) . . . . . . . . 240 From mills only–no significant effluents to environment.

Solids 91,000 Principally from mills–no significant effluents to

environment.

Effluents--Radiological (curies)

Gases (including entrainment):

Rn-222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presently under reconsideration by the Commission.

Ra-226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02

Th-230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02

Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.034

Tritium (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1

C-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Kr-85 (thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Ru-106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 Principally from fuel reprocessing plants.

I-129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3

I-131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83

Tc-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presently under consideration by the Commission.

Fission products and transuranics . . . . . . . . . 0.203

Liquids:

Uranium and daughters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Principally from milling–included tailings liquor and

returned to ground–no effluents; therefore, no effect on

environment.

Ra-226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0034 From UF6 production. 

Th-230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0015

Th-234 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants–concentration 10 percent

of 10 CFR Part 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel

requirements for model LWR. 

Fission and activation products . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 x 10-6

Solids (buried on site): 

Other than high level (shallow) . . . . . . . . . . . 11,300 9100 Ci comes from low level reactor wastes and

1500 Ci comes from reactor decontamination and

decommissioning—buried at land burial facilities. 

600 Ci comes from mills—included in tailings returned

to ground. Approximately 60 Ci comes from

conversion and spent fuel storage. No significant

effluent to the environment. 

TRU and HLW (deep) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 x 107 Buried at Federal Repository.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

December 2006 6-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Effluents—thermal (billions of British thermal

units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4063 <5 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR

Transportation (person-rem): 

Exposure of workers and general public . . . . 2.5

Occupational exposure (person-rem) . . . . . . . . 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management.

(a) In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was

addressed and that, in effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However,

there are other areas that are not addressed at all in the table. Table S–3 does not include health effects from

the effluents described in the table, or estimates of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or

estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or reprocessing activities. These issues may be

the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings.

Data supporting this table are given in the “Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” WASH-1248,

April 1974; the “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel

Cycle,” NUREG-0116 (Supp.1 to WASH-1248, NRC 1976); the “Public Comments and Task Force Responses

Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel

Cycle,” NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248) (NRC 1977b); and in the record of the final rulemaking

pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management,

Docket RM-50-3. The contributions from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are

maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation

excludes transportation of cold fuel to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor

which are considered in Table S–4 of Sec. 51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle

are given in columns A-E of Table S–3A of WASH-1248. 

(b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, because the

complete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or

57 reactors for 30 years. 

(c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. 

(d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process. 

The contributions in Table S–3 resulting from reprocessing, waste management, and

transportation are maximized for both of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle); that

is, the identified environmental impacts are based on the cycle that results in the greater impact. 

The uranium fuel cycle is defined as the total of those options and processes associated with

provision, utilization, and ultimate disposition of fuel for nuclear power reactors.

During the Carter administration, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-242 |

(22 USC 3201 et seq.), was enacted; it significantly impacted the disposition of spent nuclear |

fuel by deferring indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel produced |

in the U.S. commercial nuclear power program. While the ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel |

was lifted during the Reagan administration, economic circumstances changed, reserves of |

uranium ore increased, and the stagnation of the nuclear power industry provided little incentive |

for industry to resume reprocessing. During the 109th Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

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

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

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-6 December 2006

| Pub. L. No. 109-58 (119 Stat. 594 [2005]), was enacted. It authorized DOE to conduct an

| advanced fuel recycling technology research and development program to evaluate

| proliferation-resistant fuel recycling and transmutation technologies that minimize environmental

| or public health and safety impacts. Consequently, while Federal policy does not prohibit

| reprocessing, additional DOE efforts would be required before commercial reprocessing and

| recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power plants could commence.

| The no-recycle option is presented schematically in Figure 6-1. Natural uranium is mined in

either open-pit or underground mines or by an in situ leach solution mining process. In situ

leach mining, the primary form of mining in the United States today, involves injecting a lixiviant

solution into the uranium ore body to dissolve uranium and then pumping the solution to the

surface for further processing. The ore or in situ leach solution is transferred to mills where it is

processed to produce “yellowcake” (U3O8). A conversion facility prepares the uranium oxide by

converting it to uranium hexafluoride, which is then processed by an enrichment facility to

increase the percentage of the more fissile isotope uranium-235 and decrease the percentage

of the non-fissile isotope uranium-238. At a fuel-fabrication facility, the enriched uranium, which

is approximately 5 percent uranium-235, is then converted to UO2. The UO2 is pelletized,

sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies. The fuel assemblies are placed in the

reactor to produce power. When the content of the uranium-235 reaches a point where the

nuclear reactor has become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel assemblies are

withdrawn from the reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short-lived fission

product decay and to reduce the heat generation rate, the fuel assemblies would be transferred

to a waste repository for internment. Disposal of spent fuel elements in a repository constitutes

the final step in the no-recycle option.

The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the

operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) and

the staff’s analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99. In

NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

(GEIS) (NRC 1996),(a) the staff provides a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts from

the uranium fuel cycle. Although NUREG-1437 is specific to the impacts related to license

renewal, the information is relevant to this review because the advanced LWR designs

considered here use the same type of fuel; the staff’s analyses in Section 6.2.3 of NUREG-1437

are summarized and set forth here.

The fuel cycle impacts in Table S3 are based on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at

an annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output of 800 MW(e). In the following

| review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff assumed that the
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 6-1. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option (derived from NRC 1999)

site-wide fuel cycle impacts associated with the additional LWRs would be based on a total net |

electric output of 3200 MW(e). This was termed the 1000 MW(e) LWR scaled model and |

resulted in a factor approximately four times (i.e., 3200/800) the impacts in Table S-3 (see Table |

6-1). The 3200 MW(e) bounds the 3040 MW(e) which is the total net electric output equivalent |

to the PPE power level of 9000 MW(t) for the ESP site. |

Recent changes in the fuel cycle may have some bearing on environmental impacts; however,

as discussed below, the staff is confident that the contemporary fuel cycle impacts are less than

those identified in Table S-3.

The values in Table S–3 were calculated from industry averages for the performance of each

type of facility or operation within the fuel cycle. Recognizing that this approach would result in

a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the staff followed the policy of choosing the

assumptions or factors to be applied so the calculated values would not be underestimated. 

This approach was intended to ensure that the actual environmental impacts would be less than
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-8 December 2006

the quantities shown in Tables S–3 for all LWR nuclear power plants within the widest range of

operating conditions. Many subtle fuel cycle parameters and interactions were recognized by

the staff as being less precise than the estimates and were not considered or were considered

but had no effect on the Table S–3 calculations. For example, to determine the quantity of fuel

required for a year’s operation of a nuclear power plant in Table S–3, the staff defined the

model reactor as a 1000-MW(e) light-water-cooled reactor operating at 80 percent capacity with

a 12-month fuel reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. This is a

“reactor reference year” or “reference reactor year” depending on the source document (either

Table S–3 or NUREG-1437), but it has the same meaning. The sum of the initial fuel loading

plus all of the reloads for the lifetime of the reactor can be divided by the now more likely

60-year (40-year initial license term and 20-year renewal license term) lifetime to obtain an

| average annual fuel requirement. The quantity of fuel was determined in NUREG-1437 for both

boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized-water reactors (PWRs); the higher annual

requirement, 35 metric tonnes (MT) of uranium made into fuel for a BWR, was chosen in

NUREG-1437 as the basis for the reference reactor year. A number of fuel management

improvements have been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and

to reduce fuel and separative work (enrichment) requirements. Since Table S–3 was

promulgated, these improvements have reduced the annual fuel requirement.

Another change considered is the elimination of the U.S. restrictions on importation of foreign

uranium. The economic conditions of the uranium market currently favor utilization of foreign

uranium at the expense of the domestic uranium industry. These market conditions have led to

the closing of most U.S. uranium mines and mills, substantially reducing the environmental

impacts in the United States from these activities. Factoring in changes to the fuel cycle

suggests that the environmental impacts of mining and milling could drop levels below those

| given in Table S–3; however, for the purposes of this analysis, Table S–3 estimates have not

been reduced.

Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 discusses the sensitivity to recent changes in the fuel cycle on the

environmental impacts in greater detail.

6.1.1.1 Land Use

The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled

model is about 184 ha (452 ac). Approximately 20 ha (52 ac) are permanently committed land,

and 164 ha (400 ac) are temporarily committed. A “temporary” land commitment is a

commitment for the life of the specific fuel cycle plant (e.g., a mill, enrichment plant, or

succeeding plants). Following completion of decommissioning, such land can be released for

unrestricted use. “Permanent” commitments represent land that may not be released for use

after plant shutdown and/or decommissioning because decommissioning activities do not result

in removal of sufficient radioactive material to meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, for

release of land for unrestricted use. Of the 164 ha (400 ac) of temporarily committed land,
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

128 ha (316 ac) are undisturbed and 36 ha (88 ac) are disturbed. In comparison, a coal-fired

power plant with the same MW(e) output as the LWR scaled model and that uses strip-mined |

coal requires the disturbance of about 324 ha (800 ac) per year for fuel alone. The staff

concludes that the impacts on land use to support the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would be

SMALL.

6.1.1.2 Water Use

Principal water use for the fuel cycle supporting a 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model is that

required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the

enrichment step of this cycle. Scaling from Table S–3, of the total annual water use

of 1.72 x 108

 m3 (4.55 x 1010 gal), about 1.60 x 108 m3 (4.44 x 1010 gal) are required for the

removal of waste heat, assuming that these plants use once-through cooling. Other water

uses involve the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling) of about

2.42 x 106

 m3/yr (6.40 x 108 gal/yr) and water discharged to ground (e.g., mine drainage)

of about 1.92 x 106

 m3/yr (5.08 x 108 gal/yr).

Regarding thermal effluents, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4 percent

of the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use

of 2.42 x 106

 m3/yr (6.40 x 108 gal/yr) is about 2 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model

using cooling towers. The maximum consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying

electrical energy to the nuclear fuel cycle used cooling towers) would be about 6 percent of the

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal effluents

would be negligible. The staff concludes that the impacts on water use for these combinations

of thermal loadings and water consumption would be SMALL relative to the water use and

thermal discharges of the proposed project.

6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts

Electrical energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel cycle process. 

The electrical energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power

plants. Electrical energy associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5 percent of the annual

electrical power production of the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. Process heat is primarily

generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to generate

electricity, would be less than 0.4 percent of the electrical output from the model plant. The staff |

concludes that the fossil fuel impacts from the direct and indirect consumption of electrical

energy for fuel cycle operations would be SMALL relative to the net power production of the

proposed project.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-10 December 2006

6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents

The quantities of chemical, gaseous, and particulate effluents with fuel cycle processes are

| given in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. The site-wide

quantities of effluents would be approximately four times that of the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR

scaled model. The principal effluents are SOx, NOx, and particulates. Based on data in the

Seventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, these emissions constitute a

SMALL additional atmospheric loading in comparison with these emissions from the stationary

fuel combustion and transportation sectors in the United States; that is, about 0.08 percent of

the annual national releases for each of these effluents (CEQ 1976).

Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment and

fabrication, and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in

such dilute concentrations that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels

of concentration that are within established standards. Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) specifies the

amount of dilution water required for specific constituents. Additionally, all liquid discharges into

the navigable waters of the United States from plants associated with the fuel cycle operations

will be subject to requirements and limitations set by an appropriate Federal, State, regional,

local, or affected Native American tribal regulatory agency.

Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process. These solutions and

solids are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the environment.

The staff determined that the impacts of these chemical effluents would be SMALL.

6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents

Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from waste management

activities and certain other phases of the fuel cycle process are set forth in Table S–3 (see

| Table 6-1). Using these effluents in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) data, the staff has calculated the

100-year involuntary environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the

LWR-supporting fuel cycle for one year of operation of the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. 

| These calculations estimate that the overall whole body gaseous dose commitment to the

U.S. population from the fuel cycle (excluding reactor releases and the dose commitment from

| radon-222 and technetium-99) would be approximately 16 person-Sv (1600 person-rem)

per year of operation of the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model; this reference reactor year is

scaled to reflect the total electric power rating for the site for a year.

The additional whole body dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive liquid

effluents due to all fuel cycle operations other than reactor operation would be approximately

8 person-Sv (800 person-rem) per year of operation. Thus, the estimated 100-year

environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

releases resulting from these portions of the fuel cycle is approximately 24 person-Sv

(2400 person-rem) (whole body) for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. |

Currently, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 release are

not addressed in Table S–3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling

operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur

from gaseous diffusion enrichment facilities. Dominion (2006) provided an assessment of |

radon-222 and technetium-99 based on information from NUREG-1437. |

In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437, the staff estimated the radon-222 releases from mining and

milling operation, and from mill tailings for each year of operations of the reference 1000-MW(e)

LWR. The estimated releases of radon-222 for the reference reactor year for the 1000-MW(e)

LWR scaled model, or for the total electric power rating for the site for a year, is approximately

7.7 x 1014 Bq (20,800 Ci). Of this total, about 78 percent would be from mining, 15 percent from

milling operations, 7 percent from inactive tails prior to stabilization. For radon releases from

stabilized tailings, the staff assumed that the scaled model would result in an emission of

1.5 x 1011 Bq (4 Ci) per site year (i.e., four times the NUREG-1437 estimate for the reference

reactor year). The major risks from radon-222 are from exposure to the bone and the lung, |

although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole body. The organ-specific dose |

weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 were applied to the bone and lung doses to estimate the |

100-year dose commitment from radon-222 to the whole body. The estimated population dose |

commitment from mining, milling, and tailings before stabilization for each year of operation for |

the 1000 MW(e) LWR scaled model (assuming the 1000 MW(e) LWR scaled model) would be |

approximately 37 person-Sv (3700 person-rem) to the whole body. From stabilized tailings |

piles, the estimated 100-year environmental dose commitment would be approximately |

0.71 person-Sv (71 person-rem) to the whole body. Additional insights regarding national |

policy/resource perspectives regarding institutional controls comparisons with routine radon-222

exposure and risk, and long-term releases from stabilized tailings piles are discussed in

NUREG-1437.

Also in NUREG-1437, the staff considered the potential health effects associated with the

releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference reactor

year for the 1000 MW(e) LWR scaled model, or the total electric power rating for the site for a

year is 1.1 x 109

 Bq (0.03 Ci) from chemical processing of recycled UF6 before it enters the

isotope enrichment cascade and 7.4 x 108

 Bq (0.02 Ci) into the groundwater from a candidate

repository. The major risks from technetium-99 are from exposure of the gastrointestinal tract

and kidney, although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole body. Applying the

organ-specific dose weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 to the gastrointestinal tract and

kidney doses, the total-body 100-year dose commitment from technetium-99 was estimated to |

be 4 person-Sv (400 person-rem) for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. |

|
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-12 December 2006

| Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

| data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses and

| dose rates, below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem). However, radiation protection experts

| conservatively assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing cancer or a

| severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. Therefore, a

| linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the relationship between radiation

| dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the National Research

| Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose response model. 

| Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in

| health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for estimating health

| risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably overestimates those risks.

|

| Based on this model, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

| nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

| severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from International

| Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). This coefficient was

| multiplied by the sum of the estimated whole body population doses discussed above,

| approximately 66 person-Sv/yr (6600 person-rem/yr), to calculate that the U.S. population would

| incur a total of approximately 4.8 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects

| annually. This risk is quite small compared to the number of fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers,

| and severe hereditary effects that would be estimated to the U.S. population annually from

| exposure to natural sources of radiation using the same risk estimation method.

|

| Radon releases from tailings are indistinguishable from background radiation levels at a few

| kilometers from the tailings pile (at less than 1 km in some cases) (NRC Docket 50-488 1986). 

| The public dose limit specified by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation in

| 40 CFR Part 190, is 0.25 mSv/yr (25 mrem/yr) to the whole body from the entire fuel cycle, but

| most NRC licensees have airborne effluents resulting in doses of less than 0.01 mSv/yr

| (1 mrem/yr) (61 FR 65120).

|

| In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a

| study and published Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities in 1990 (NCI 1990). 

| This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as well as

| several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the U.S. in 1981 and found “no

| evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear facilities”

| (NCI 1990). The contribution to the annual average dose received by an individual from the fuel

| cycle-related radiation and other sources as reported in National Council on Radiation

| Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report 93 (NCRP 1987) is listed in Table 6-2. The

nuclear fuel cycle contribution to an individual’s annual average radiation dose is extremely

small (less than 0.01 mSv [1 mrem] per year).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Based on the analyses presented above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of

radioactive effluents from the fuel cycle are SMALL.

6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes

The quantities of buried radioactive waste material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic

wastes) are specified in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). For low-level waste disposal at land burial

facilities, the Commission notes in Table S–3 that there will be no significant radioactive

releases to the environment. For high-level and transuranic wastes, the Commission notes that

these are expected to be buried at a repository and that no release to the environment is |

expected to be associated with such disposal, because the gaseous and volatile radionuclides

contained in the spent fuel would have been released and monitored before disposal. In |

NUREG-0116 (NRC 1976), which provides background and context for the high-level and

transuranic Table S–3 values established by the Commission, the staff indicates that these

high-level and transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be released to the environment.

On February 15, 2002, subsequent to receipt of a recommendation by the Secretary of Energy,

the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a repository for the

geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste (White House Press |

Release 2002). |

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

Source Dose (mSv/yr)(a) Percent of Total

Natural

Radon 2 55

Cosmic 0.27 8

Terrestrial 0.28 8

Internal (body) 0.39 11

Total natural sources 3 82

Artificial

Medical x-ray 0.39 11

Nuclear medicine 0.14 4

Consumer products 0.10 3

Total artificial sources 0.63 18

Other

Occupational 0.009 <0.30

Nuclear fuel cycle <0.01 <0.03

Fallout <0.01 <0.03

Miscellaneous sources <0.01 <0.03

(a) To convert mSv/yr to mrem/yr, multiply by 100.

Source: NCRP Report 93, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population in the United States (NCRP 1987) |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-14 December 2006

The EPA developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository standards, which were subsequently

adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion, issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA’s radiation protection

standards for the candidate repository, which required compliance with certain dose limits over

| a 10,000 year period (U.S. Courts of Appeals 2004). The Court’s decision also vacated the

| compliance period in NRC’s licensing criteria for the candidate repository in 10 CFR Part 63. 

| In response to the Court’s decision, EPA issued proposed revised standards on

| August 22, 2005, that would revise the radiation protection standards for the candidate

| repository (70 FR 49014). As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 USC 10101

| et seq.) in order to be consistent with EPA’s revised standards, NRC proposed revisions to

| 10 CFR Part 63 on September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53313). The proposed standards are 0.15 mSv

| (15 mrem) per year for 10,000 years following disposal and 3.5 mSv (350 mrem) per year, after

| 10,000 years through 1 million years after disposal. The NRC’s Part 63 rulemaking will not be

| completed by the time this EIS is issued.

Therefore, for the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there is

some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of radioactive nuclides for

the current candidate repository site. However, before promulgation of the affected provisions

of the Commission’s regulations, the staff assumed that limits would be developed along the

lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain

Standards, and that in accordance with the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision,

10 CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely will be developed at some site that will comply with

| such limits, with peak doses to virtually all individuals of 100 mrem (1 mSv) per year or less

| (NAS 1995; NRC 1996).

Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent

fuel and high-level waste disposal should be made. The staff concludes that these impacts are

acceptable because the impacts would not be sufficiently great to require the NEPA conclusion

that the construction and operation of new units at the North Anna ESP site should be denied. 

For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of radioactive

waste disposal are SMALL.

6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose

In the review and evaluation of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, the staff considered

| a total net electrical output of 3200 MW(e) for the ESP site. This case is referred to as the

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the

fuel cycle for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model is about 24 person-Sv (2400 person-rem). 

This is based on the 6 person-Sv (600 person-rem) occupational dose estimate attributed to all
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

phases of the fuel cycle for the model 1000 MW(e) LWR (NRC 1996). Occupational doses

would be maintained to meet the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, which is 0.05 Sv/yr (5 rem/yr). |

On this basis, the staff concludes that environmental impacts from this occupational dose would

be SMALL.

6.1.1.8 Transportation

The transportation dose to workers and the public totals about 0.025 person-Sv

(2.5 person-rem) annually for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR per Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). 

This corresponds to dose of 0.1 person-Sv (10 person-rem) for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled

model. For comparative purposes, the estimated collective dose from natural background

radiation to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the ESP site is 9200 person-Sv/yr

(920,000 person-rem/yr) (Dominion 2006). On this basis, the staff concludes that environmental

impacts of transportation would be SMALL.

6.1.1.9 Conclusion

The staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle as given in Table S–3

(see Table 6-1); considered the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99; and appropriately

scaled for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. On the basis of this comparison, the staff

concludes that the impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors

As noted earlier, issues related to reactors based on other-than LWR designs are not resolved |

because of the lack of information to validate values and impacts. However, the following |

analyses were performed using data from Dominion for the purposes of estimation only. |

|

The gas-cooled reactors analyzed for the uranium fuel cycle are: |

|

& Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) – This reactor, developed by General |

Atomics, is a modular helium-cooled graphite-moderated reactor. |

|

& Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) – This reactor, developed by PBMR (Pty), Ltd., is |

a modular graphite-moderated helium-cooled turbine reactor. |

Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(a) can be used as a basis for bounding the environmental

impacts from the uranium fuel cycle only for LWRs. Dominion performed an assessment of the

environmental impacts of the fuel cycle for gas-cooled reactor designs by comparing key

parameters for these reactor designs to those used to generate the impacts in Table S–3

(Dominion 2006a). Key parameters are energy usage, material involved, and number of

shipments for each major fuel cycle activity (i.e., mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-16 December 2006

fabrication, and radioactive waste disposal). Dominion sought to demonstrate in the ER that the

impacts for the gas-cooled reactor designs were comparable to the environmental impacts

identified for LWRs in the technical basis document, WASH-1248, “Environmental Summary of

the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” and its Supplement 1 (NUREG-0116) for Table S–3 (NRC 1976).

As discussed in Section 6.1.1, the fuel cycle impacts in Table S–3 were based on a reference

1000 MW(e) LWR operating at an annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output

of 800 MW(e). This is termed the “reference reactor year.” For the purposes of evaluating fuel

cycle impacts for the North Anna ESP site or for any of the alternative sites, the staff assumed

that the additional LWR’s site-wide fuel impacts would be based on a total net electric output of

3200 MW(e). This was termed the 1000 MW(e) LWR scaled model and resulted in a factor

| approximately four times (i.e., 3200/800) the impacts in Table S–3 for the North Anna ESP site.

One of the other-than-LWRs considered by Dominion, the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor

(GT-MHR), is a four module 2400-MW(t), nominal 1140-MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an

annual capacity factor of 88 percent for a net electric output of 1003 MW(e). Therefore, the

maximum number of GT-MHR units that could be sited at the North Anna ESP site or at any of

the alternative sites and remain below the 3200 MW(e) total net electric output for the site is

three (i.e., 3 x 1003).

The second other-than-LWR reactor considered by Dominion, the pebble bed modular reactor

(PBMR), is an eight module, 3200 MW(t), nominal 1320 MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an

annual capacity factor of 95 percent for a net electric output of 1253 MW(e). Therefore, the

comparable number of PBMR units to remain below the 3200 MW(e) total net electric output for

the site is two (i.e., 2 x 1253).

Dominion (2006a) compared the impacts between the Table S–3 LWR to the gas-cooled reactor

designs. The comparison used an annual fuel loading as a starting point and then proceeded in

reverse direction through the fuel cycle (i.e., fuel fabrication, enrichment, conversion, milling,

| mining, radioactive waste). Table 6-3, derived from Table 5.7-1 of the ER (Dominion 2006),

provides an estimate of the impacts for each phase of the uranium fuel cycle assuming that the

North Anna ESP site or any of the alternative sites would host three four-module GT-MHR units

or two eight-module PBMR units.

6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication

The quantity of UO2 required for reactor fuel is a key parameter. The more UO2 required, the

greater the environmental impacts (i.e., more energy, greater emissions, and increased water

usage). The 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model described in Section 6.1.1 would require the

equivalent of 160 MT of enriched UO2 annually. This compares to 18 to 19 MT of enriched UO2

annually for the gas-cooled reactor technologies.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-17 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 6-3. Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts from Gas-Cooled Reactor Designs for the North

Anna ESP Site(a)

Reactor Technology Facility/Activity

GT-MHR (4 Modules)

(2400 MW(t) total)

(1140 MW(e) total)

88 percent Capacity:

Multiplier=3

PBMR (8 Modules)

(3200 MW(t) total)

(~1320 MW(e) total)

95 percent Capacity:

Multiplier=2

Mining Operations

Annual ore supply (Million MT) 1.01 0.67

Milling Operations

Annual yellowcake (MT) 909 606

UF6 Production

Annual UF6 (MT) 1137 758

Enrichment Operations

Enriched UF6 (MT) 24 25

Annual separative work unit (SWU) (MT) 612 388

Fuel Fabrication Plant Operations

Enriched UO2 (MT) 18 19

Annual fuel loading (MTU) 16 17

Solid Radioactive Waste

Annual LLW from reactor operations (Ci) 3300 Ci;(b) 400 m3 131 Ci;(b) 2400 drums

LLW from reactor decontamination and

decommissioning Ci per reference reactor-year

Data not available Data not available

(a) Values calculated by multiplying annual values from Table 5.7-1 of the ER (Dominion 2006) by a multiplier of

3 for the GT-MHR and a multiplier of 2 for the PBMR.

(b) To convert from curies to becquerels, multiply by 3.7 x 1010 Bq/Ci.

References: 10 CFR 51.51(a), Table S–3 Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data

Notes:

 1. The enrichment SWU calculation was performed using the United States Enrichment Corporation, Inc.

(USEC) SWU calculator and assumes a 0.30 percent tails assay.

 2. The information on the reference reactor (mining, milling, UF6, enrichment, fuel fabrication values) taken from

NUREG-0116, Table 3.2, no recycling (NRC 1976).

 3. The information on the reference reactor (solid radioactive waste) taken from 10 CFR 51.51, Table S–3.

 4. The calculated information on the reference reactor uses the same methodology as for the reactor

technologies.

 5. The normalized information is based on 1000 MW(e) and the reactor vendor-supplied unit capacity factor.

 6. For the new reactor technologies, the annual fuel loading was provided by the reactor vendor.

 7. The USEC SWU calculator also calculated the kilograms of uranium feed. This number was multiplied by

1.48 to get the necessary amount of UF6.

 8. The annual yellowcake number was generated using the relationship 2.61285 lb. of U3O8 to 1 kg U of UF6;

1.185 kgs of U3O8 to 1.48 kg.

 9. The annual ore supply was generated assuming an 0.1% ore body and a 90% recovery efficiency.

10. Cobalt-60 with a 5.26 year half-life and iron-55 with a 2.73 year half-life are the main nuclides listed for the

PBMR decontamination and decommissioning waste.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-18 December 2006

GT-MHR fuel consists of microspheres of uranium oxycarbide (UCO) coated with multiple layers

of pyrocarbon and silicon carbide referred to as TRISO coating. Two types of microspheres are

used in the GT-MHR fuel, one enriched to 19.8 percent uranium-235 and one with natural

uranium. The microspheres and graphite shims are bound together into a rod-shaped compact,

which is stacked into graphite blocks referred to as fuel elements. A reactor core consists of

1020 fuel elements.

PBMR fuel consists of UO2 kernels (enriched to 12.9 percent uranium-235) that are TRISO

coated, similar to the GT-MHR fuel. The TRISO-coated particles are imbedded into a graphite

matrix to form a fuel sphere that is 60 mm in diameter. Each fuel sphere contains approximately

15,000 TRISO-coated particles. Approximately 260,000 fuel spheres make up a core of a

single reactor module.

The fuel described above for gas-cooled reactors are fabricated differently than fuel for LWRs. 

Currently, there are no operating large-scale fuel fabrication facilities producing gas-cooled

reactor fuels in the United States, so a direct comparison of environmental impacts is not

possible. Based on some environmental impacts from a small-scale fuel fabrication facility

producing gas-cooled reactor fuel, Dominion concluded that the environmental impacts from

producing gas-cooled reactor fuel would be “not inconsistent” with those of LWRs (Dominion

| 2006). By comparison with the fuel fabrication impacts for LWR technologies, the staff expects

| that the environmental impacts from producing gas-cooled reactor fuel likely would be SMALL,

but these impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage when the staff will consider

the environmental data that become available on a large-scale, fuel fabrication facility for

gas-cooled reactors.

6.1.2.2 Enrichment

Dominion (2006) identified two quantities of interest for enrichment. These were (1) the amount

of energy required to enrich the fuel measured in SWUs and (2) the amount of UF6 needed. 

A SWU is a measure of energy required to enrich the fuel. The major environmental impacts for

the entire uranium fuel cycle are from the emissions of the fossil fuel plants used to supply

energy for the gaseous diffusion plants that enrich the uranium. An enrichment technology

developed since the impacts in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) were developed and evaluated

includes the gas centrifuge process that uses 90 percent less energy than the gaseous diffusion

process (NRC 1996).

To produce 160 MT of enriched UO2 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, the enrichment

plant would need to produce about 208 MT of UF6, which requires over 500 MT of SWUs. For

gas-cooled reactor technologies, the needed enriched UF6 ranges from 24 to 25 MT of UF6.

The amount of energy to produce these quantities of enriched UF6 for the gas-cooled reactor

designs ranges from 388 to 612 MT of SWU. The upper range is approximately 20 percent

higher than the energy required for the reference LWR. Dominion (2006) concluded that the
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-19 NUREG-1811, Volume I

large reduction in energy associated with using an alternate enrichment technology

(e.g., centrifuge) and its associated environmental impacts would more than offset the increase

in SWUs. The staff expects that, on balance, the environmental impacts of enriching

gas-cooled fuels by comparison with the impacts of enriching LWR fuel would likely be SMALL, |

but these impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage, when the staff will consider |

impacts from the enrichment technology in use at that time.

6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion

There are two uranium conversion processes: a wet process and a dry process. In

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the NRC stated that environmental releases are small from the

conversion facilities compared to the overall fuel cycle impacts and that changing from

100 percent use of one process to 100 percent use of the other would make no significant

difference in the overall impacts. Conversion technologies that would be used today to produce

UF6 are similar to those considered when determining the environmental impacts that were part

of Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51(a) (see Table 6-1).

The conversion facility would need to produce 1440 MT of UF6 annually for the reference

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model compared to 758 to 1137 MT of UF6 for the gas-cooled

reactors based on the USEC SWU calculator (see Table 6-3, footnote (a)). The other-than- |

LWR values are less than the amount of UF6 required for the LWR; therefore, the associated

environmental impacts are expected to be less. On this basis, the staff concludes that the

environmental impacts from producing UF6 for gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL.

6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling

Annual yellowcake production is the metric of interest for uranium milling. Plants required to

produce less yellowcake than the reference plant would require less energy, have fewer

emissions, and use less water.

The uranium mill for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would produce about 1200 MT of

yellowcake. The uranium mill for the gas-cooled reactor technologies would need to produce

606 to 909 MT of yellowcake, which is less than the amount of yellowcake needed for the

scaled LWR. On this basis, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts from uranium

milling for the gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL.

6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining

Annual ore supply is the metric of interest for uranium mining. The less ore mined, the smaller

the environmental impacts (i.e., less energy used, fewer emissions, less water usage). For the

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, 1.09 Million MT of raw ore would be required to produce

1200 MT of yellowcake. For the gas-cooled reactor technologies, the scaled ore requirements
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-20 December 2006

ranged from 0.67 to 1.01 Million MT of ore, a range that is less than the amount of ore required

for the reference 1000-MW(e) scaled-model LWR. On this basis, the staff concludes that the

environmental impacts from uranium mining for gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL.

6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations

Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) of 10 CFR 51.51(a) states that there are 3.4 x 1014 Bq (9100 Ci) of

low-level waste generated annually from operations of the reference LWR; the 1000-MW(e)

LWR scaled model would result in 1.3 x 1015 Bq (36,400 Ci) of low-level waste annually. 

Gas-cooled reactor technologies are projected to generate 4.8 x 1012 Bq to 1.2 x 1014 Bq (131 to

3300 Ci) of low-level waste scaled annually, well below the amounts generated by the reference

LWR. For this reason, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts from low-level

radioactive waste operations for gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL.

6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination and Decommissioning

In Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) the Commission states 5.6 x 107

 MBq (1500 Ci) per ReferenceReactor Year “...comes from reactor decontamination and decommissioning - buried at land

burial facilities.” Dominion (2006) noted that gas-cooled reactor technologies would (1) operate

much cleaner than the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR, as evidenced by lower estimates of lowlevel waste generated and (2) produce less heavy metal radioactive waste because of the

higher thermal efficiency and higher fuel burnup. The gas-cooled reactor designs are also more

compact than the reference LWR design, which would be expected to result in less

decontamination and decommissioning waste (Dominion 2006). Dominion concluded that lowlevel waste impact from decontamination and decommissioning are expected to be comparable

to or less than that of the reference LWR (Dominion 2006). On this basis, the staff expects that

the environmental impacts from solid low-level radioactive waste generated during

decontamination and decommissioning for gas-cooled reactors would likely be SMALL, but

these impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage.

6.1.2.8 Conclusions

The staff expects that the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle activities and solid

waste management activities for the proposed gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL. However,

because of the uncertainty in the final design of the gas-cooled reactors and the change in

technology that could be applied to uranium fuel cycle activities, this issue is not resolved. 

Should an applicant reference one of these designs, additional reviews would be needed at the

CP or COL stage in the following areas: fuel fabrication, enrichment, and solid low-level waste

operation during decontamination and decommissioning.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

(a) The transportation impacts associated with advanced reactors were normalized for a reference |

1100 MW(e) LWR at an 80 percent capacity factor for comparisons to Table 5-4. |

December 2006 6-21 NUREG-1811, Volume I

6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials

This section addresses both the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from

normal operating and accident conditions resulting from (1) shipment of unirradiated fuel to the

North Anna ESP site, (2) shipment of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage facility or a

permanent repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste to

offsite disposal facilities. Distinctions between transportation impacts of advanced LWR

designs and gas-cooled reactor designs are discussed.

The NRC evaluated the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste for light-watercooled nuclear power reactors in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975)

and found the impact to be small. These documents provided the basis for Table S–4 in

10 CFR 51.52 that summarizes the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to

and from one LWR of 3000 to 5000 MW(t) (1000 to 1500 MW(e)). Impacts are provided for

normal conditions of transport and accidents in transport for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR(a).

Dose to transportation workers during normal transportation operations was estimated to result

in a collective dose of 0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem) per reference reactor-year. The

combined dose to the public along the route and dose to onlookers were estimated to result in a

collective dose of 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) per reference reactor-year. 

Environmental risks (radiological) during accident conditions were determined to be SMALL. 

Nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents were estimated as one fatal injury in

100 reactor years and one nonfatal injury in 10 reference reactor-years. Subsequent reviews of

transportation impacts in NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977a) and Sprung et al. (2000) concluded that

impacts were bounded by Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), a full description and detailed analysis of transportation

impacts is not required when licensing an LWR (i.e., impacts are assumed bounded by

Table S–4) if the reactor meets the following criteria:

& The reactor has a core thermal power level not exceeding 3800 MW(t).

& Fuel is in the form of sintered UO2 pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not

exceeding 4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zirconium-clad fuel rods.

& Average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed

33,000 MWd/MTU, and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days

after it is discharged from the reactor.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-22 December 2006

& With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is

packaged and in solid form.

& Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated fuel is shipped from the

reactor by truck, rail, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped

from the reactor by truck or rail.

The environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from

nuclear power facilities were resolved generically in 10 CFR 51.52, provided that the specific

conditions in the rule (see above) are met; if not, then a full description and detailed analysis is

required for initial licensing. The NRC may consider requests for licensed plants to operate at

conditions above those in the facility's licensing basis; for example, higher burnups (above

33,000 MWd/MTU), enrichments (above 4 percent uranium-235), or thermal power levels

| (above 3800 MW(t)). Departures from the conditions itemized in 10 CFR 51.52(a) must be

| supported by a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects, as specified in

| 10 CFR 51.52 (b). Departures found to be acceptable for licensed facilities cannot serve as the

| basis for initial licensing for new reactors.

In its application, Dominion did not identify a specific reactor design, rather it used bounding

parameters from seven reactor designs. Five of the designs are LWRs, and include the

ACR-700 (3964 MW(t)/unit); the ABWR (4300 MW(t)/unit); the AP1000 (3400 MW(t)/unit); the

ESBWR (4500 MW(t)/unit), and the IRIS (3000 MW(t)/unit). For the ACR-700 reactor design,

two reactors make up a unit. For the IRIS design, three reactors (modules) make up a unit. For

the remaining LWR designs, one reactor makes up a unit. None of the proposed LWR designs

meets all the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52(a); therefore, a full description and detailed analysis

are required for each LWR design. This conclusion is based on the following:

& The ACR-700, ABWR, and surrogate ESBWR designs exceed the 3800 MW(t) core

thermal power level.

& The ABWR, AP1000, surrogate ESBWR, and IRIS designs require fuel that exceeds the

U-235 enrichment of 4 percent.

& The ABWR, surrogate AP1000, surrogate ESBWR, and IRIS designs are expected to

exceed the average irradiation level of 33,000 MWd/MTU.

The remaining two designs, the GT-MHR and the PBMR, are gas-cooled reactors. Each

GT-MHR unit is a four-module, 2400-MW(t), 1140-MW(e) gas-cooled reactor designed to

operate at a unit capacity factor of 88 percent. Each PBMR unit is an eight-module,

3200-MW(t), 1320-MW(e) gas-cooled reactor designed to operate at a unit capacity factor of

95 percent. This compares to the reference reactor in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which is a

single-unit, 1100-MW(e) LWR with a unit capacity factor of 80 percent. The gas-cooled reactor
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-23 NUREG-1811, Volume I

designs do not meet the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52 because these reactors are not LWR

designs upon which Table S–4 impacts were based. Therefore, a full description and detailed

analysis was required for each gas-cooled reactor design. This was provided by Dominion in its

response to a request for additional information on July 12, 2004 (Dominion 2004).

Dominion used a sensitivity analysis to show that transportation impacts from advanced LWR

designs would be bounded by the criteria identified in Table S–4 (Dominion 2006a). 

NUREG-1437, Addendum 1, (NRC 1999) was referenced as the basis for exceeding 4 percent

uranium-235 enrichment and 33,000 MWd/MTU. However, NUREG-1437, Addendum 1,

applies to reactor designs and locations that are listed in NUREG-1437, Appendix A; it does not |

address advanced reactors.

Dominion also used a sensitivity analysis to show that transportation impacts from the advanced

gas-cooled reactor designs would be bounded by the criteria identified in Table S–4

(Dominion 2006a); however, as discussed previously, this type of analysis does not meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 51.52. Dominion (2006a) identified the major contributors to

transportation risk to be the number and type of shipments (shipment risk) and the kind of

material being shipped (material risk). Its evaluation of shipment risk showed fewer shipments

of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and low-level waste would be required for the advanced

gas-cooled reactors compared to the reference LWR when averaged over 40 years of

operation. Regarding material risk, Dominion (2006a) stated the following:

& The estimated total spent fuel radioactive inventory and fission product inventory was

less for the gas-cooled reactors when compared to the reference LWR.

& Actinide inventories would be greater for the gas-cooled reactors (59 to 64 percent |

greater) because of the increased burnup rate for these types of reactors; however, |

because the GT-MHR was assumed to ship about one-third less spent fuel on a MTU |

basis, Dominion (2006a) determined the actinide inventory per shipment would be about |

one-half of that in the reference LWR shipment. The PBMR is assumed to ship the |

same amount of spent fuel in a spent fuel shipping cask as the reference LWR; |

consequently, there is about a 60 percent increase in per-shipment actinide inventories |

from PBMR spent fuel shipments relative to the reference LWR. |

& Gas-cooled reactors would generate fewer kilowatts of decay heat per MTU and fewer

kilowatts of decay heat per truck cask than the reference LWR at the time of shipment. |

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

The staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts of transporting

unirradiated (fresh) fuel to the proposed North Anna ESP site. Environmental impacts of normal
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-24 December 2006

operating conditions and transportation accidents are discussed in this section. Appendix G

provides the details of the analysis.

6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation

activities in which shipments reach their destination without releasing any radioactive material to

the environment. Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that

penetrate the unirradiated fuel shipping casks.

Truck Shipments

Table 6-4 provides an estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel for each

advanced reactor design compared to those of the reference 1100-MW(e) reactor specified in

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). Estimates are normalized to an equivalent 1100-MW(e) electric

generating capacity. The basis for the shipment estimates can be found in Appendix G of this

EIS. Only the ACR-700, PBMR, and GT-MHR reactor designs exceeded the number of truck

shipments of unirradiated fuel estimated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. The largest

| number of shipments, in excess of 700 shipments over 40 years, is for the GT-MHR. However,

| the combined annual shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste equate to

far less than the one truck shipment per day condition specified in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52

for all reactor types.

Shipping Mode and Weight Limits

In 10 CFR 51.52, a condition is identified that states all unirradiated fuel is shipped to the

reactor by truck. In information provided by Dominion, the applicant specifies that unirradiated

fuel will be shipped to the reactor site by truck for all reactor designs that it references

(INEEL 2003). Section 10 CFR 51.52 includes a condition that the truck shipments not exceed

33,100 kg (73,000 lbs) as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle weight restrictions. All

the advanced reactor designs would meet this weight restriction for unirradiated fuel

(INEEL 2003).

Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and The Public

Section 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4, includes conditions related to radiological dose to transport

workers and members of the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of many

variables, including the radiation dose rate emitted from the unirradiated fuel shipments, the

number of exposed individuals and their locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit

(including travel and stop times), and number of shipments to which the individuals are

exposed. For this EIS, the radiological dose impacts of the transportation of unirradiated fuel 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-25 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 6-4. Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor Type

Reactor Type

Number of Shipments per

Reactor Unit

Unit Electric

Generation,

MW(e)(c)

Capacity

Factor(c)

Normalized

,

Shipments

per 1100

MW(e)(d,e)

Initial

Core(a)

Annual

Reload Total(b)

Reference LWR

(WASH-1238)

18 6 252 1100 0.8 252

ABWR(e) 30 6.1 267 1500 0.95 165

Surrogate ESBWR(e) 30 6.1 267 1520(f) 0.96(f) 162

Surrogate AP1000 14 3.8 161 1150 0.95 130

ACR-700 30 15.3 628 1462 | (g) 0.9 420

IRIS 34 4.3 201 1005(h) 0.96 184

GT-MHR 51 20 831 1140(I) 0.88 729

PBMR 44 20 824 1320(j) 0.95 579

NOTE: The reference LWR shipment values have all been normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical generation.

(a) Shipments of the initial core have been rounded up to the next highest whole number.

(b) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of

average annual reload quantities).

(c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from INEEL (2003) except where indicated otherwise. |

(d) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100 MW(e) plant at 80 percent or net

electrical output of 880 MW(e)).

(e) Ranges of capacities are given in INEEL (2003) for these reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. The

unirradiated fuel shipment data for these reactors were derived using the upper limit of the ranges.

(f) Values taken from ER Revision 9 (Dominion 2006a).

(g) The ACR-700 unit includes two reactors at 731 MW(e) each. |

(h) The IRIS unit includes three reactors at 335 MW(e) each.

(I) The GT-MHR unit includes four reactors (modules) at 285 MW(e) each.

(j) The PBMR unit includes eight reactors (modules) at 165 MW(e) each.

were calculated for the worker and the public using the RADTRAN 5 computer code

(Neuhauser et al. 2003). Details of the calculations are found in Appendix G.

Table 6-5 presents the radiological impacts to workers, public onlookers (persons at stops and |

sharing the road), and members of the public along the route (i.e., residents within 800 m |

[0.5 mi] of the highway) for transporting unirradiated fuels to sites. The cumulative annual dose |

estimates in Table 6-5 were normalized to 1100 MW(e) (880 MW(e) net electrical output). The |

staff performed an independent review and determined that all dose estimates are bounded by

the Table S–4 conditions of 0.04 person-Sv/yr (4 person-rem/yr) to transportation workers,
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-26 December 2006

| 0.03 person-Sv/yr (3 person-rem/yr) to onlookers, and 0.03 person-Sv/yr (3 person-rem/yr) to

onlookers and members of the public along the route.

| Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

| data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

| below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

| experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

| causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

| exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the

| relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

| by the National Research Council (2005), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

| dose response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

| incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

| model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

| over estimates those risks.

| Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

| nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

| severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP

| Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). All the public doses presented in Table 6-5 are less than or equal

to 1.2 x 10-3 person-Sv/yr (1.2 x 10-1 | person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates

associated with these doses would all be less than 1 x 10-4 | fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and 

| severe heredity effects per year. These risks are very small compared to the fatal cancers,

| nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur annually in the

| same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. However, these impacts are not

| resolved for other-than-LWR designs and would need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage

| when specific information is available regarding other-than-LWR fuel performance and shipping

| containers, if the applicant selects such a design.

| Maximally-Exposed Individuals Under Normal Transport Conditions

| A scenario-based analysis was conducted to develop estimates of incident-free radiation doses

| to maximally exposed individuals (MEIs) for fuel and waste shipments to and from advanced

| reactors. The discussion in the following paragraphs apply to unirradiated fuel shipments to and

| spent fuel and radioactive shipments from advanced reactors. The analysis is based on

| information in DOE (2002) and incorporates information about exposure times, dose rates, and

| the number of times an individual may be exposed to an offsite shipment. Adjustments were

| made where necessary to reflect the fuel and waste shipments addressed in this EIS. In all

| cases, the staff assumed that the dose rate emitted from the shipping containers is 0.1 mSv/hr

| (10 mrem/hr) at 2 m (6.6 ft) from the side of the transport vehicle, the maximum dose rate
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-27 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 6-5. Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced Reactor Sites

Plant Type

Normalized

Average

Annual

Shipments

Cumulative Annual Dose; person-Sv/yr per

1100 MW(e)(a) (880 MW(e) net) |

Workers

Public -

Onlookers

Public -

Along Route

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 1.1 x 10 | -4 4.2 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-5 |

ABWR 4.1 7.1 x 10 | -5 2.7 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-6 |

Surrogate ESBWR 4.1 6.9 x 10-5 2.7 x 10-4 6.5 x 10-6

Surrogate AP1000 3.3 5.6 x 10-5 2.2 x 10-4 5.2 x 10-6

ACR-700 10.5 1.8 x 10-4 7.0 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-5

IRIS 4.6 7.9 x 10-5 3.1 x 10-4 7.4 x 10-6

GT-MHR 18.2 3.1 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-5

PBMR 14.5 2.5 x 10-4 9.6 x 10-4 2.3 x 10-5

10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4

Condition

<1 per day 4.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

allowed by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, even though unirradiated fuel |

and radioactive waste would have much lower dose rates than the regulations allow. An MEI is |

a person who may receive the highest radiation dose from a shipment to and/or from the |

advanced reactor site. The analysis is described below. |

|

Truck crew member. Truck crew members would receive the highest radiation doses during |

incident-free transport because of their proximity to the loaded shipping container for an |

extended period of time. The analysis assumed that crew member doses are limited to 0.02 Sv |

(2 rem) per year, which is the DOE administrative control level presented in DOE-STD-1098-99, |

DOE Standard, Radiological Control, Chapter 2, Article 211 (DOE 2005). This limit is |

anticipated to apply to spent nuclear fuel shipments to a disposal facility, as DOE will take title |

to the spent fuel at the reactor site. Spent nuclear fuel represents the bulk of the fuel and waste |

shipments to and from reactor sites, and those with the highest radiation dose rates; |

consequently crew doses from unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste shipments will be lower |

than the spent nuclear fuel shipments. The NRC limit for occupational exposures is 0.05 Sv/yr |

(5 rem/yr). |

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) does not regulate annual occupational |

exposures, but recommends limits to air crew members that are a 5-year effective dose of |

0.02 Sv/yr (2 rem/yr) with no more than 0.05 Sv (5 rem) in a single year (DOT 2003). As a |

result, a 0.02 Sv/yr (2 rem/yr) MEI dose to truck crews is a reasonable estimate. |

|

Inspectors. Radioactive shipments are inspected by Federal or State vehicle inspectors, for |

example, at State ports of entry. DOE (2002) assumed that inspectors would be exposed for |

1 hour at a distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from the shipping containers. The dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) is |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-28 December 2006

| about 0.14 mSv/hr (14 mrem/hr); therefore, the dose per shipment is about 0.14 Sv (14 mrem). 

| This is independent of the location of the reactor site. Based on this conservative value, the

| annual doses to vehicle inspectors were calculated to be in the range 9 to 18 mSv/yr (900 to

| 1800 mrem/yr), assuming the same person inspects all shipments of fuel and waste to and from

| the reactor sites. The high end of the range is the ACR-700 and the low end is the surrogate

| AP1000. All of the values are less than the 20 mSv/yr (2000 mrem/yr) DOE administrative

control level on individual doses.

|

| Resident. The analysis assumed that a resident lives 30 m (100 ft) from the point where a

| shipment would pass and would be exposed to all shipments along a particular route. 

| Exposures to residents on a per-shipment basis were extracted from RADTRAN 5 output files. 

| These dose estimates are based on an individual located 30 m (100 ft) from the shipments that

| are traveling 24 km/hr (15 mph). The potential radiation doses to maximally-exposed residents,

| which are independent of the location of the reactor site, ranged from about 0.00027 mSv/yr

| (0.027 mrem/yr) for the surrogate AP1000 to 0.00055 mSv/yr (0.055 mrem/yr) for the ACR-700.

|

| Individual stuck in traffic. This scenario addresses potential traffic interruptions that could lead

| to a person being exposed to a loaded shipment for one hour at a distance of 1.2 m (4 ft). The

| analysis assumed this exposure scenario would occur only one time to any individual, and the

| dose rate was at the regulatory limit of 0.1 mSv (10 mrem/hr) at 2 m (6 ft) from the shipment. 

| The dose to the MEI was calculated in DOE (2002) to be 0.016 mSv (1.6 mrem).

|

| Person at a truck service station. This scenario estimates doses to an employee at a service

| station where all truck shipments to and from the reactors would stop. DOE (2002) assumed

| this person is exposed for 49 minutes at a distance of 16 m (52 ft) from the loaded shipping

| container. This results in a dose of about 0.0007 mSv/shipment (0.07 mrem/shipment) and an

| annual dose in the range from 0.044 mSv (4.4 mrem) for the surrogate AP1000 to 0.09 mSv/yr

| (9 mrem/yr) for the ACR-700, assuming that a single individual services all unirradiated fuel,

| spent fuel, and radioactive waste shipments to and from the advanced reactors.

6.2.1.2 Accidents

Accident risks are a combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies

for transportation of fuel to and from reactors sites are expected to be lower than those used in

the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which forms the basis for Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52,

because of improvements in highway safety and security, and an expected decrease in traffic

accident, injury, and fatality rates. There is no significant difference in consequences of

accidents severe enough to result in a release of unirradiated fuel particles to the environment

between advanced LWRs and current-generation LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and

packaging are similar to those analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, the impacts of

accidents during transport of unirradiated fuel for advanced LWRs to the North Anna ESP site

are expected to be smaller than the impacts listed in Table S–4 for current generation LWRs.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-29 NUREG-1811, Volume I

With respect to the advanced gas-cooled reactors, accident rates (accidents per unit distance)

and associated accident frequencies (accidents per year) would be expected to follow the same

trends as for LWRs (i.e., overall reduction relative to the accident rates used in the WASH-1238

analysis). The consequences of accidents involving gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel,

however, are more uncertain. The staff assumed that the gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel

shipments would have the same capabilities as LWR unirradiated fuel to maintain functional

integrity following a traffic accident. This assumption is considered to be conservative because

gas-cooled reactor fuel operates at significantly higher temperatures, and thus maintains

integrity under more severe thermal conditions than LWR fuel. Detailed information about the

behavior of the gas-cooled reactor fuel under accident impact conditions was not available. 

However, packaging systems for unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel will be required to meet

the same performance requirements as unirradiated LWR fuel packages including fissile

material controls to prevent criticality during normal and accident conditions. Consequently, it is

expected that packaging systems for unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuels would provide

equivalent protection as those packages designed for unirradiated LWR fuels. In addition, the

fuel forms for the gas-cooled reactors are similar to LWRs (i.e., UO2 for the PBMR and uranium

oxycarbide for the GT-MHR versus UO2 for LWRs); therefore, the inherent failure resistance

provided by unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuels should be similar to that provided by LWR |

fuel. Based on the assumption that unirradiated gas-cooled and LWR fuels and associated |

packaging systems would provide similar resistance to various environmental conditions, the |

staff concludes that the impacts of accidents involving unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel

would likely not be significantly different than for unirradiated LWR fuel and will be within the

impacts listed in Table S–4 for current generation LWRs. However, for other-than-LWR fuel |

performance ,these impacts are not considered to be resolved, and would need to be assessed |

at the CP or COL stage when specific information becomes available.

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

The staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts of transporting spent

fuel from the proposed North Anna ESP site to a spent fuel disposal repository. For the |

purposes of these analyses, the staff considered the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site as a |

surrogate destination. The staff considers that an estimate of the impacts of the transportation |

of spent fuel to a possible repository in Nevada to be a reasonable bounding estimate of the

transportation impacts to a storage or disposal facility because of the distances involved and the

representativeness of the distribution of members of the public in urban, suburban, and rural

areas (i.e., population distributions) along the shipping routes. Environmental impacts of normal

operating conditions and transportation accidents are discussed in this section.

This analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in casks with

characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical

metal pressure vessels). Each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded

on a modified trailer. These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made in the
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-30 December 2006

evaluation of the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to

NUREG-1437 (NRC 1999). These assumptions are conservative because the alternative

assumptions involve rail transportation or heavy-haul trucks, which would reduce the overall

number of spent fuel shipments (NRC 1999), thus reducing impacts.

Environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5

computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Routing and population data used in the RADTRAN 5

for truck shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and

Michelhaugh 2000). The population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 census.

The staff's evaluation reviewed the impacts of spent fuel shipments originating from the North

Anna ESP site and the alternative sites (Surry Power Station [Surry], Portsmouth Gaseous

Diffusion Plant [Portsmouth], and Savannah River Site). Appendix G provides the details of the

analysis.

6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions

Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation

activities in which shipments reach their destination without an accident occurring en route. 

Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the

heavily shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Radiation exposures will occur to (1) persons

residing along the transportation corridors between the North Anna ESP site and the proposed

repository location; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the same route as a spent-fuel

shipment; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle inspections; and

(4) transportation crew workers.

| Shipping casks have not been designed for the spent fuel from advanced reactor designs. 

Information in INEEL (2003) indicated that advanced LWR fuel designs would not be

significantly different from existing LWR designs; therefore, current shipping cask designs were

used for the analysis for advanced LWR designs. No information is available on spent fuel

shipping cask designs for the gas-cooled reactor designs. For purposes of this analysis, their

design was assumed to be the same as those for the existing LWRs. Spent fuel shipping cask

designs for gas-cooled reactor designs will be evaluated at the CP or COL stage if the applicant

references such designs.

Radiation doses are a function of many parameters, including vehicle speed, traffic count, dose

rate, packaging dimensions, number in the truck crew, stop time, and population density at

stops. A listing of the values for these and other parameters, is provided in Appendix G. 

Table 6-6 presents radiation dose estimates to the transport workers and the public for the ESP

and alternative sites. Doses are presented on a per-shipment basis. The per-shipment dose

estimates are independent of reactor technology because they were calculated based on an

assumed external radiation dose rate emitted from the cask, which was fixed at the regulatory

maximum limit for the advanced reactor designs (i.e., 0.10 mSv/h [10 mrem/h] at 2 m).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-31 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Population dose estimates per reactor-year are presented in Table 6-7 for specific advanced

reactor designs. Population doses were calculated by multiplying the number of spent fuel

shipments per year for each advanced reactor design and the dose per shipment from

Table 6-6. Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR design in WASH-1238

(880 net MW(e)). This corresponds to an 1100-MW(e) LWR operating at 80 percent capacity. 

Appendix G provides the basis for the number of spent fuel shipments for each advanced

reactor design.

The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S–4 are

& 0.04 person-Sv/reactor-year (4 person-rem/reactor-year) to transport workers

& 0.03 person-Sv/reactor-year (3 person-rem/reactor-year) to general public (onlookers), |

and members of the public along the route. |

Population doses to the crew and the onlookers for all the reactor types including the reference

reactor found in Table 6-7, exceed Table S–4 values. Two key reasons for the higher

population doses relative to Table S–4 are the higher number of spent fuel shipments estimated

for some of the reactor technologies and the longer shipping distances assumed for the

analyses (i.e., to a possible repository in Nevada) than were used in WASH-1238. WASH-1238

used a “typical” distance for a spent fuel shipment of 1600 km (1000 mi), whereas the shipping

distances used in this assessment ranged from about 3000 km (1800 mi) to 4700 km (2900 mi). 

The higher numbers of shipments are based on spent fuel shipping casks designed to transport

shorter-cooled fuel (i.e., 150 removed from the reactor). It was assumed in this analysis that the

shipping cask capacities are 0.5 MTU/shipment, roughly equivalent to one PWR or two BWR

spent fuel assemblies per shipment.

Newer designs are based on longer-cooled spent fuel (i.e., 5 years removed from the reactor)

and have larger capacities than those used in this assessment. DOE (2002) spent fuel shipping

cask capacities were approximately 1.8 MTU/shipment, or up to four PWR or nine BWR fuel

assemblies per shipment. Use of the newer shipping cask designs will reduce the number of

spent fuel shipments and the associated environmental impacts. 

Other conservative assumptions in the staff's calculation include:

& Use of the regulatory maximum dose rate (0.1 mSv/hr [10 mrem/hr] at 2 m) in the

RADTRAN5 calculations. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS prepared by DOE in

support of the application for a geologic repository at the proposed Yucca Mountain

repository (DOE 2002) were designed to transport spent fuel that has cooled for 5 years. 

Most spent fuel will have cooled for much longer than 5 years before it is shipped to a

possible geologic repository. Based on this, shipments from the North Anna and |

alternative sites are also expected to be cooled for longer than 5 years. Consequently, |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-32 December 2006

Table 6-6. Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public

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

Disposal Facility

ESP Site

Population Dose, person-Sv/shipment(a)

Crew Onlookers Along Route

North Anna 1.0 x 10-3 3.5 x 10-3 9.2 x 10-5

Portsmouth 9.1 x 10-4 3.2 x 10-3 7.3 x 10-5

Savannah River Site 9.9 x 10-4 3.5 x 10-3 1.0 x 10-4

Surry 1.1 x 10-3 3.5 x 10-3 9.7 x 10-5

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

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

Normalized to Reference Light-Water Reactors

Reactor

Type

Reference LWR

(WASH-1238) ABWR

Surrogate

AP1000 ACR-700

Shipments

per Year 60 41 40 90

Environmental Effects, person-Sv per reactor-year(a)

Reactor

Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

| North Anna 0.06 0.21 <0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.09 0.32 <0.01

Portsmouth 0.06 0.19 <0.01 0.04 0.13 <0.01 0.04 0.12 <0.01 0.08 0.28 <0.01

| Savannah

River Site

0.06 0.21 <0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.09 0.32 <0.01

| Surry 0.06 0.21 <0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.10 0.32 <0.01

Reactor

Type

Surrogate

ESBWR IRIS GT MHR PBMR

Shipments

per Year 40 35 34 12

Environmental Effects, person-Sv per reactor-year(a)

Reactor

Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

| North Anna 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.04 0.12 <0.01 0.03 0.12 <0.01 0.01 0.04 <0.01 

| Portsmouth 0.04 0.13 <0.01 0.03 0.11 <0.01 0.03 0.11 <0.01 0.01 0.04 <0.01

Savannah

River Site

| 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.03 0.12 <0.01 0.03 0.12 <0.01 0.01 0.04 <0.01

| Surry 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.04 0.12 <0.01 0.04 0.12 <0.01 0.10 0.04 <0.01

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-33 NUREG-1811, Volume I

the estimated population doses in Table 6-7 could be further reduced if more realistic dose |

rate projections are used.

& Use of 30 minutes as the average time at a truck stop in the calculations. Many stops

made for actual spent fuel shipments are of short duration (i.e., 10 minutes) for brief

visual inspections of the cargo (e.g., checking the cask tie-downs). These stops typically

occur in minimally populated areas, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an

unpopulated area. Furthermore, empirical data provided in Griego et al. (1996) indicate

that a 30-minute duration is toward the high end of the stop time distribution. Average

stop times observed by Griego et al. (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes. Based on

these observations, the stop model assumptions used in this study overestimate public

doses at stops by at least a factor of two. Consequently, the doses to onlookers given in

Table 6-7 could be further reduced to reflect more realistic truck shipping conditions. |

Dominion performed its own RADTRAN 5 calculations to determine the impact of “incident-free”

transport of spent fuel to a spent fuel disposal facility. The assumed transport of spent fuel

originated from the Maine Yankee Nuclear Plant (a distance further than North Anna site) and

terminated at the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Dose estimates per

shipment were similar to those calculated by the staff.

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

by the National Research Council (2005), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

dose response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

over-estimates those risks.

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 mrem]) from ICRP Publication 60

(ICRP 1991). All the population doses presented in Table 6-7 are less than 1 person-Sv/yr

(100 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates associated with these population

doses would all be less than 1 x 10-1 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary

effects per year. These risks are quite small compared to the fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers,

and severe hereditary effects that the same population would incur annually from exposure to

natural sources of radiation.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-34 December 2006

| Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and wastes under

| normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1.

6.2.2.2 Accidents

As discussed previously, the staff used the RADTRAN 5 computer code to estimate impacts of

transportation accidents involving spent fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5 considers a spectrum of

postulated transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and low

consequences (e.g., “fender benders”) to those with low frequencies and high consequences

(i.e., accidents in which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical and thermal

conditions). Details of the analysis are discussed in Appendix G.

Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The

radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were from Early Site Permit Environmental Report

Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003). This report includes hundreds of

radionuclides for each reactor type. A screening analysis was conducted to select the dominant

contributors to accident risks to simplify the RADTRAN 5 calculations. The screening identified

the radionuclides that would contribute more than 99.999 percent of the dose from inhalation of

radionuclides released following a transportation accident. The dominant radionuclides are

similar regardless of the fuel type (i.e., advanced LWR fuel or gas-cooled reactor fuel). Spent

| fuel inventories used in the staff analysis are presented in Table 6-8. The list of radionuclides

| set forth in the table includes all of the radionuclides that were included in the analysis

| conducted by Sprung et al. (2000). However, INEEL (2003) did not provide radionuclide source

| terms for radioactive material deposited on the external surfaces of LWR spent fuel rods

| (commonly called “crud”). In addition, data on activation products was provided for only the

| advanced BWR. The advanced BWR spent fuel transportation risks were calculated assuming

| the entire cobalt-60 inventory is in the form of crud. Therefore, the source term assumed for

| this analysis is about two orders of magnitude greater than that given in Sprung et al. (2000). 

| Because crud is deposited from corrosion products generated elsewhere in the reactor cooling

| system and the complete reactor design and operating parameters are uncertain, the quantities

| and characteristics of crud deposited on advanced reactor spent fuel are unknown at this time. 

| Consequently, the impacts of crud and activation products on spent fuel transportation accident

| risks will need to be examined at the CP/COL stage. No radionuclide inventory data were

| presented in INEEL (2003) for the ACR-700 and IRIS advanced reactors; therefore,

transportation accident risks were not quantified for these reactor types and would need to be

assessed at the CP/COL stage.

Robust shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the radiation shielding and

accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must be certified

Type B packaging systems, meaning they must withstand a series of severe postulated

| accident conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding capability. These casks 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-35 NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

Each Advanced Reactor Type, Bq/MTU(a)(b)

Radionuclide

ABWR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

Surrogate

ESBWR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

Surrogate

AP1000

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

GT-MHR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

PBMR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

Am-241 4.96 x 1013 4.81 x 1013 2.69 x 1013 8.18 x 1013 7.55 x 1013

Am-242m 1.24 x 1012 1.02 x 1012 4.85 x 1011 5.03 x 1011 8.51 x 1011

Am-243 1.20 x 1012 1.21 x 1012 1.24 x 1012 5.14 x 1011 4.77 x 1012

Ce-144 4.22 x 1014 5.00 x 1014 3.28 x 1014 2.15 x 1015 1.19 x 1015

Cm-242 2.04 x 1012 1.80 x 1012 1.05 x 1012 1.51 x 1012 2.78 x 1012

Cm-243 1.37 x 1012 1.28 x 1012 1.14 x 1012 2.02 x 1011 1.96 x 1012

Cm-244 1.80 x 1014 1.84 x 1014 2.87 x 1014 2.83 x1013 5.48 x 1014

Cm-245 2.43 x 1010 2.50 x 1010 4.48 x 1010 1.65 x 108 5.29 x 1010

Co-60(c) 1.01 x 1014 1.06 x 1014 (c) (c) (c)

Cs-134 1.78 x 1015 1.92 x 1015 1.78 x 1015 2.21 x 1015 4.03 x 1015

Cs-137 4.59 x 1015 4.70 x 1015 3.44 x 1015 1.08 x 1016 1.41 x 1016

Eu-154 3.81 x 1014 3.90 x 1014 3.38 x 1014 3.23 x 1014 3.74 x 1014

Eu-155 1.93 x 1014 2.00 x 1014 1.71 x 1014 8.77 x 1013 1.08 x 1014

Pm-147 1.25 x 1015 1.31 x 1015 6.51 x 1014 6.92 x 1015 5.07 x 1015

Pu-238 2.27 x 1014 2.28 x 1014 2.25 x 1014 1.17 x 1014 4.55 x 1014

Pu-239 1.43 x 1013 1.43 x 1013 9.44 x 1012 2.25 x 1013 1.11 x 1013

Pu-240 2.28 x 1013 2.30 x 1013 2.01 x 1013 3.96 x 1013 3.32 x 1013

Pu-241 4.51 x 1015 4.51 x 1015 2.58 x 1015 8.33 x 1015 7.18 x 1015

Pu-242 8.29 x 1010 8.29 x 1010 6.73 x 1010 1.56 x 1011 4.51 x 1011

Ru-106 6.07 x 1014 6.88 x 1014 5.74 x 1014 1.48 x 1015 1.68 x 1015

Sb-125 1.99 x 1014 2.14 x 1014 1.42 x 1014 2.21 x 1014 2.51 x 1014

Sr-90 3.27 x 1015 3.36 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

Y-90 3.27 x 1015 3.36 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

(a) Divide becquerel/metric ton Uranium (Bq/MTU) by 3.7 x 1010 to obtain curies/MTU |

(b) The source of the spent fuel inventories is INEEL (2003) except for the surrogate ESBWR inventories, which |

were taken from Dominion (2006b). The surrogate ESBWR inventories reflect the increased core thermal |

power assumed in Dominion (2006a). |

(c) Cobalt-60 is an activation product. Only the ABWR/ESBWR submittal in INEEL (2003) provided inventory |

data for activation products; it was scaled up for the surrogate ESBWR. |

are also designed with fissile material controls to ensure the spent fuel remains subcritical under |

normal and accident conditions. According to Sprung et al. (2000), the probability of |

encountering accident conditions that would lead to shipping cask failure is less than
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

| (a) Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered as the staff assumed

| evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a postulated transportation accident.

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-36 December 2006

0.01 percent (i.e., more than 99.99 percent of all accidents would result in no release of

radioactive material from the shipping cask). The staff assumed that shipping casks for

advanced reactor spent fuels will provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the

spent fuel cargo.

The RADTRAN 5 accident risk calculations were performed using unit-specific radionuclide

inventories (Bq/MTU) for the spent fuel shipments from the various reactor types. The resulting

risk estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent fuel shipments (MTU/yr) to derive

estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel shipments from each potential

advanced reactor site. As was done for routine exposures, the staff assumed that the numbers

of shipments of spent fuel per year are equivalent to the annual discharge quantities.

For this assessment, release fractions for current generation LWR fuel designs (Sprung et al.

2000) were used to approximate the impacts from the advanced reactor spent fuel shipments. 

This assumes that the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel coatings)

| behave similarly to current LWR fuel under reactor mechanical and thermal conditions. 

| Because of the lack of experimental data on gas-cooled reactor fuels, the staff could not

determine whether this approach is bounding. However, gas-cooled reactors operate at much

higher temperatures than LWRs; therefore, high temperature conditions anticipated in

transportation accident fires should have less of an effect on radionuclide releases than they do

for LWR fuels. Thus, smaller release fractions are anticipated for advanced gas-cooled reactor

fuels than for LWR fuels subjected to thermal transients.

| The NRC staff used RADTRAN 5 to calculate the population dose from the released radioactive

material from four of five(a) | possible exposure pathways. These pathways are:

& External dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material (cloudshine).

& External dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume

(groundshine). The staff's analysis included the radiation exposure from this pathway

even though the area surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated

and decontaminated, thus preventing long-term exposures from this pathway.

& Internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants (inhalation).

& Internal dose from resuspension of radioactive materials that were deposited on the

ground (resuspension). The staff's analysis included the radiation exposures from this
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-37 NUREG-1811, Volume I

pathway even though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a

potential accidental release would prevent long-term exposures.

Table 6-9 presents the environmental consequences of transportation accidents when shipping

spent fuel from the North Anna ESP site and alternative sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain

repository. The shipping distances and population distribution information for the routes were

the same as those used for the normal “incident-free” conditions (for details, see Appendix G). 

The table presents estimates of population dose (person-Sv/reactor year) for several of the

advanced reactor designs. These values are normalized to the WASH-1238 reference reactor

(880-MW(e) net electrical generation, 1100-MW(e) reactor operating at 80 percent capacity).

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses |

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection |

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of |

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation |

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the |

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report |

by the National Research Council (2005), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold |

dose response theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an |

incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative |

model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably |

over-estimates those risks. |

|

Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the |

nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and |

severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP Publication |

60 (ICRP 1991). All the population doses presented in Table 6-9 are less than 1 x 10-5 person- |

Sv/yr (1 x 10-3 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates associated with these |

population doses would all be less than 1 x 10-6 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe |

hereditary effects per year. These risks are quite small compared to the fatal cancers, nonfatal |

cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur annually in the same |

population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. |

6.2.2.3 Conclusion

The values determined by this analysis represent the contribution of such effects to the

environmental costs of licensing the reactor. Because of the conservative approaches and data 

used to calculate doses, actual environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated

in the EIS. Thus, the staff concludes that the overall transportation accident risks associated

with advanced reactor spent fuel shipments are likely to be SMALL and are consistent with the

risks associated with transportation of spent fuel from current generation reactors presented in
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-38 December 2006

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

Normalized to Reference 1100-MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR

Surrogate

ESBWR

Surrogate

AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

MTU/yr 20.3 20.3 19.7 6 5.8

Population Dose, person-Sv/yr(a)

North Anna 4.7 x 10-6 5.0 x 10-6 4.2 x 10-7 1.9 x 10-7 3.1 x 10-7

Portsmouth 5.2 x 10-6 5.5 x 10-6 4.0 x 10-7 1.8 x 10-7 3.0 x 10-7

Savannah River Site 5.3 x 10-6 5.6 x 10-6 4.7 x 10-7 2.2 x 10-7 3.5 x 10-7

Surry 4.9 x 10-6 5.1 x 10-6 4.3 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-7 3.2 x 10-7

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain person-rem/yr.

Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The fuel performance characteristics, shipping casks, and

accident risks for other-than-LWR designs would need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage if

the applicant references such designs.

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste

This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting waste from advanced reactor

sites. The environmental conditions listed in 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to shipments of

radioactive waste are as follows:

& Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be packaged and in solid form.

& Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be shipped from the reactor by truck or rail.

& The weight limitation of 33,100 kg (73,000 lb) per truck and 90,700 kg (100 tons) per

cask per railcar would be met.

| & Traffic density would be less than the one truck shipment per day or three railcars per

| month condition.

| Dominion (2006), states that all the radioactive waste will be transported by truck, and Dominion

plans to solidify and package its waste regardless of which advanced reactor technology is

chosen. In addition, waste from any of the advanced reactor technologies will be subject to

NRC (10 CFR Part 71) and DOT (49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, and 178) regulations for the

shipment of radioactive material.

Radioactive waste from any of the advanced reactor technologies are expected to be capable of

being shipped in compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-39 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 6-10 presents estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste shipment numbers

for the advanced reactor types normalized to the reference 1100-MW(e) LWR defined in

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). Annual waste volumes and waste shipments for the advanced

reactor technologies were less than the 1100-MW(e) reference reactor that was the basis for

Table S–4 for all designs except the PBMR. As shown in the table, only the PBMR would be

expected to generate a larger volume of radioactive waste than the reference LWR in

WASH-1238. However, the GT-MHR and PBMR information in INEEL (2003) assumed the

applicant would ship their wastes using two different packaging systems: one that hauls

28.3 m3

/shipment (1000 ft3/shipment) and one that hauls 5.7 m3/shipment (200 ft3/shipment).

Under those conditions, the number of shipments of radioactive waste per year, normalized to

1100 MW(e) electric generation capacity (880 MW(e) net electrical output), would be about six |

shipments/year per 1100 MW(e) (880 net MW(e)) for the GT-MHR and seven shipments/year

per 1100 MW(e) for the PBMR. These estimates are well below the reference LWR

(46 shipments/yr per 1100 MW(e)). However, impacts from other-than-LWR designs are not

resolved because of the lack of verifiable information.

The sum of the daily shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste is well

below the one truck shipment per day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4 for all reactor

types. Doubling the shipment estimates to account for empty return shipments of fuel and

waste is still well below the one-shipment-per-day-condition.

Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste under |

normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. |

6.2.4 Conclusions

An analysis was conducted of the impacts under normal operating and accident conditions of

transporting unirradiated fuel to advanced reactor sites and spent fuel and wastes from

advanced reactor sites to disposal facilities. To make comparisons to Table S–4, the

environmental impacts are normalized to a reference reactor year. The reference reactor is an

1100-MW(e) reactor that has an 80-percent capacity factor, for a total electrical output of

880 MW(e) per year. The environmental impacts can be adjusted to calculate impacts per site

by multiplying the normalized impacts by the ratio of the total electric output for the advanced

reactor sites to the electric output of the reference reactor.

Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate doses, actual

environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated in the EIS. Thus, the staff

concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and

from advanced LWR designs would be SMALL, and would be consistent with the risks

associated with transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors

presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. For gas-cooled designs, the impacts are likely to be
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-40 December 2006

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

Reactor Type

INEEL

(2003)

Waste

Generation

Information

Annual Waste

Volume, m3

/yr

per Unit

Electrical

Output,

MW(e) per

Unit

Normalized

Rate, m3

/1100

MW(e) Unit

(880 MW(e)

Net)(a)

Shipments/

1100 MW(e)

(880 MW(e)

Net)

Electrical

Output(b)

Reference

LWR

(WASH-1238)

100 m3/yr

per unit

108 1100 108 46

ABWR 100 m3

/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

Surrogate

ESBWR

100 m3

/yr

per unit

100 1520(c) 60 26

Surrogate

AP1000

55 m3

/yr

per unit

56 1150 45 20

ACR-700 47.5 m3

/yr

per unit

47.5 731 64 28

IRIS 25 m3

/yr

per module

74 (3 modules) 1005

(3 modules)

67 29

GT-MHR

|

98 m3/yr

(4 module

plant)

98 (4 modules) 1140

(4 modules)

86 37(d)

|

PBMR 100 drums/yr

per module

168 (8 modules) 1320

(8 modules)

118 51(d)

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3).

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output

are given in Table 6-3 for each reactor type. All are normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical output (1100-

MW(e) unit with an 80 percent capacity factor).

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste

shipment capacity of 2.34 m3

 per shipment (108 m3/yr divided by 46 shipments/yr).

(c) This value was taken from the ER, Revision 9 (Domion 2006a)

(d) The applicant states in INEEL (2003) that 90 percent of the waste could be shipped on trucks carrying 28 m3

(1000 ft3) of waste and the remaining 10 percent in shipments carrying 5.7 m3 (200 ft3) of radioactive waste. 

This would result in six to seven shipments per year after normalization to the reference LWR electrical

output.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-41 NUREG-1811, Volume I

small, but this issue is not resolved because of the lack of verifiable information on these

designs. At the CP or COL stage, an applicant referencing such designs would need to provide

the necessary data and the staff would need to validate the assumptions used in this

transportation analysis.

Assumptions that will need validation if a gas-cooled design is selected include:

& Verifying that unirradiated and spent fuel from gas-cooled reactors have the same

abilities as LWR unirradiated and spent fuel to maintain fuel and cladding integrity

following a traffic accident.

& Verifying that shipping cask design assumptions (for example, cask capacities) are

equal to or bounded by the assumptions in this analysis.

& Verifying that unirradiated fuel initial core/refueling requirement, spent fuel generation

rates, and radioactive waste generation rate assumptions are equal to or bounded by

the assumptions in this analysis.

& Verifying that shipping cask capacities and accident source terms, including spent fuel

inventories, severity fractions, and release fractions, are equal to or bounded by the

assumptions in this analysis.

Should the ACR-700 or IRIS reactors be chosen for the ESP site, a transportation accident

analysis will be performed as spent fuel inventories were not available for this analysis.

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, the NRC regulations require that the facility

undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the removal of a facility safely from service and

the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The

regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.75

and 50.82.

Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any LWR

before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586, (NRC 2002). If an applicant for a

CP or COL referencing the North Anna ESP applies for a license to operate one or more

additional units at the North Anna ESP site, there is a requirement to certify that sufficient funds |

will be available to assure radiological decommissioning at the end of power operations. At the |
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-42 December 2006

time an application is submitted, the requirements in 10 CFR 50.33, 50.75, and 52.77 (and any

other applicable requirements) would have to be met.

At the ESP stage, applicants are not required to submit information regarding the process of

decommissioning, such as the method chosen for decommissioning, the schedule, or any other

aspect of planning for decommissioning. Dominion did not provide this information in its

application. For the new nuclear unit or units, if LWR designs are chosen or if other-than-LWRs

that were considered in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 are chosen, the impacts from

decommissioning are expected to be within the bounds described in NUREG-0586,

Supplement 1 for both the North Anna ESP site and the alternative sites. In such cases, the

staff expects the impact from decommissioning are likely to be small. However, for whatever

design that is selected, the impacts from decommissioning are not resolved and would have to

be assessed at the CP or COL stage.

6.4 References

Note: Because the web pages cited in this document may become unavailable, the staff has

entered the appropriate pages into ADAMS. The accession number of the package containing

the Web-sites used as references in Chapter 6 of the North Anna ESP EIS is ML051150239.

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.”

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

of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of

High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.”

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-43 NUREG-1811, Volume I

49 CFR Part 171. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, Part 171, “General |

Information, Regulations, and Definitions.” |

|

49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, Hazardous |

Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency |

Response Information, and Training Requirements.” |

49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, “Shippers - General

Requirements for Shipments and Packaging.”

49 CFR Part 178. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, “Specifications for

Packaging.”

61 FR 65120. “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of Radioactive Materials; |

Clean Air Act.” Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 238. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. |

December 10, 1996.

70 FR 49014. “Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca

Mountain, NV.” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 161. August 22, 2005. 

70 FR 53313. “Implementation of a Dose Standard after 10,000 years.” Vol. 70, No 173. 

September 8, 2005.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1976. The Seventh Annual Report of the Council on

Environmental Quality. Executive Office of the President, Administrative Operations Branch. 

Washington, D.C.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. Letter from L. N. Hartz (Dominion) to |

NRC in response to request for additional information, October 4, 2004, Glen Allen, Virginia. |

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

dated May 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. “Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model

Input Parameters for Truck Stops,” in Conference Proceedings - Waste Management 96,

CONF-960212-44. Tucson, Arizona.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-44 December 2006

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit

Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File

Number 3747. Idaho Falls, Idaho.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon

Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Johnson, P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2000. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic

Information System (WebTRAGIS) User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-2000/86, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Available at

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106749.pdf.

| National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards.

| National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

| National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities.

| NIH Publication 90-874. National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987. Ionizing Radiation

Exposure of the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No. 93, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 2 USC 4321, et. seq.

| National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

| Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels

| of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Neuhauser, K.S., F.L. Kanipe, and R.F. Weiner. 2003. RADTRAN 5 User Guide.

SAND2003-2354, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available on the

Internet at http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand_doc/2003/032354.pdf.

| Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. 42 USC 10101, et seq.

Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills,

K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of

Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

December 2006 6-45 NUREG-1811, Volume I

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel

Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Court of Appeals. 2004. Nuclear Energy Institute v. EPA, 373 F.3d 1251 9th Cir. 2004). |

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. DOE Standard Radiological Control. |

DOE-STD-1098-99. Washington, D.C. |

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. What Aircrews Should Know About Their |

Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. DOT/FAA/AM - 3/16, Federal Aviation |

Administration, Washington, D.C. |

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG-75/038,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing

and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to

WASH-1248), Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Final Environmental Statement on

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Public Comments and Task Force

Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management

Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248),

Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, Volume I 6-46 December 2006

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

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-8511 Draft, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

| White House Press Release. 2002. “Yucca Mountain Statement.” Available at

| http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release/2002/02/20020215-11.html.
December 2006 7-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

7.0 Cumulative Impacts

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff considered potential cumulative impacts

during its evaluation of information applicable to each of the impact categories of constructing

and operating reactors at the proposed North Anna Power Station (NAPS) early site permit

(ESP) site for reactor designs that fall within the plant parameter envelope (PPE)

(Dominion 2006). For the purpose of this analysis, past actions are those occurring after Lake

Anna was created, but prior to operation of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2. Present actions

are those from the start of operation of existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 until the start of

construction of the proposed Units 3 and 4 (hereafter referred to as Units 3 and 4). Future

actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through construction and operation of Units 3

and 4, including decommissioning. The geographical area over which past, present, and future

actions could contribute to cumulative impacts depends on the type of impact evaluated.

The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the NAPS site that

would affect the same resources impacted by NAPS Units 1 and 2 regardless of what entity

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts

are defined as “cumulative” in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1508.7

and include individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of

time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or

LARGE impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the

affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL

individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource

decline.

7.1 Land Use

For purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered for cumulative impacts resulting

from construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 includes the three-county area of Louisa,

Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, Virginia, because the impacts to land use are insignificant

outside the three-county area. The staff reviewed the available information on land-use impacts

of constructing two additional nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Accordingly, the staff

concludes that, while lower tax rates or better services could encourage development, the

comprehensive land-use plans would control development. As a result, cumulative land-use

impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 7-2 December 2006

7.2 Air Quality

The NAPS site is located in an area that is in attainment for criteria pollutants. In Section 5.2 of

this EIS the staff evaluates the impacts of the discharge of warm moist air from the wet cooling

tower portion of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The existing units

use a once-through cooling system, and Unit 4 would use a dry cooling system, neither of which

discharges warm moist air. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the cooling system are the

same as the impact analyzed in Section 5.2. The discharge from the Unit 3 wet cooling tower

portion of the wet and dry cooling system would have a SMALL impact. In addition, the

Commonwealth of Virginia regulates emissions to the atmosphere. The air quality impacts of

construction and operations are estimated to be small. No other significant impacts from other

actions were identified. Based on its evaluation, the staff concludes that the cumulative air

quality impacts would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

7.3 Water Use and Quality

There would be two primary surface water resource parameters affected by the operation of

Unit 3 on the Lake Anna reservoir: (1) the lake level and (2) the downstream flow. Variations in

these parameters impact water use, aquatic ecosystems, and socioeconomics. The cumulative

effects on those parameters are discussed in each category in this chapter. 

The staff, while preparing this assessment, did not identify other currently planned industrial,

commercial, or public installations that would consume water within the general vicinity of the

North Anna ESP site. The intake of water from, and the discharge of water to, Lake Anna from

the new units would be regulated by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ)

just as the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 are currently regulated by the VDEQ. The intake and

discharge limits for each installation are established considering the overall or cumulative

impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. The staff expects that compliance with

Clean Water Act and regulations of the Commonwealth of Virginia are adequate to minimize the

cumulative effects on water resources. Operation of Units 3 and 4 would require National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the Commonwealth. NPDES

permits must be renewed every 5 years, which will ensure that the Commonwealth of Virginia

| addresses changes in water quality during the operating life of the facility. The Commonwealth

has the authority to designate the North Anna drainage as a surface water management area,

which would ensure that water supply changes during the operating life of the facility are

addressed. Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers and would not consume water from Lake Anna

for cooling; therefore, its operation would have little operational impact on Lake Anna.

In Chapter 5, the staff evaluated the combined impacts of the existing Units 1 and 2 and the

effects of adding the proposed Units 3 and 4 on Lake Anna. A cumulative evaluation of the

effects of Units 3 and 4 on Lake Anna begins with the existing lake conditions and adds the
Cumulative Impacts

December 2006 7-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

effects of construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 to derive a cumulative impact

assessment. Based on the fact that the Lake Anna drainage is largely rural and the shoreline is

largely residential, the staff concludes that it is unlikely that future development will appreciably

alter the hydrology of Lake Anna. In non-drought years, the projected incremental decline of the

lake level attributable to Unit 3 using the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling tower

system is relatively minor. The lowest pool elevation and greatest incremental decline would

most likely occur during the month of October.

The operation of Unit 3 would increase the frequency and duration of periods of low lake level |

during drought conditions when the Lake Level Contingency Plan would be applied. 

Implementation of the Lake Level Contingency Plan reduces flow from Lake Anna should the

level in the lake declines to a minimum flow of 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs) (Louisa County 2001). 

Hanover County, one of four downstream counties, has identified a need for additional water for

future development (Hanover County Department of Public Utilities 2004). Resolution of any

future conflicts over water use would fall within the regulatory authority of the Commonwealth of

Virginia. There are three basic approaches considered by the staff to mitigate water conflicts

including (1) alternative design of the Unit 3 cooling system, (2) alternative operation of the

proposed Unit 3, and (3) alternative operating procedures for the North Anna Dam. Alternative

cooling system designs are discussed in Section 8.2 of this Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS). Dry cooling eliminates the consumptive water loss associated with Unit 4. |

If water conditions become severe, then the Commonwealth of Virginia has the regulatory

authority to require Dominion to derate or terminate operation of one or more of the North Anna

units. Finally, the release of water from Lake Anna is regulated by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. The Lake Level Contingency Plan is an explicit statement of the Commonwealth’s

policy to balance the demands of lake and downstream water needs. The Commonwealth can

alter the normal pool elevation and the trigger elevation at which releases are reduced, and can

specify the timing, duration, and magnitude of discharge flows from the North Anna Dam.

Based on the staff’s independent water budget assessment, which includes the cumulative

impact of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4, the staff concludes |

that the water use impacts would be SMALL except in drought years when the impacts would be

MODERATE. In drought years, the Commonwealth of Virginia may determine that Dominion

must derate or cease operation. Water quality impacts are anticipated to be small. However,

because specific bounding water quality parameters were not provided in the PPE for all

discharge streams, the cumulative water quality impact is not resolved. |

7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem

For purposes of this analysis, the geographic area in which adverse cumulative effects on

terrestrial resources, such as wildlife populations and habitat areas could occur, includes the

areas around Lake Anna, within the North Anna ESP site, and within the existing transmission

line rights-of-way.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 7-4 December 2006

Although the rate of housing and recreational development around Lake Anna has been

relatively high, the habitats at the North Anna ESP site and in the vicinity of Lake Anna are

| common in central Virginia, and are not considered critical for the survival of Federally listed

threatened or endangered species. Therefore, the staff concludes that the development of the

North Anna ESP site on the cumulative habitat loss in the region would be SMALL.

There are no important terrestrial species (e.g., threatened or endangered species) or important

habitats (e.g., critical habitats, wildlife sanctuaries) in the vicinity of the site or transmission line

rights-of-way, and wildlife has adapted to the noise levels from the existing Units 1 and 2. The

nearest bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest is more than 4 km (2.5 mi) from of the site

and would not be affected by noise from the NAPS site. Therefore, cumulative noise effects on

wildlife are expected to be minimal.

The closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system, as proposed for Unit 3, and dry

cooling towers, as proposed for Unit 4, include elevated structures that could pose a risk of

avian collisions. In NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants, the staff reviewed the issue of avian collisions with elevated

structures at nuclear power plants in the United States and concluded that cooling towers pose

a very small hazard for birds (NRC 1996). Therefore, impacts to birds from collisions with heat

dissipation structures of the kind proposed for Unit 3 and Unit 4 cooling systems and existing

facilities at the NAPS site are expected to be minimal. The North Anna ESP site is in an area

with relatively few tall facilities or features that would pose collision hazards to birds and

| additional industrial development involving tall physical structures is not likely in the foreseeable

future. Therefore, cumulative effects on birds resulting from collisions would be expected to be

minimal.

Because there would be no new transmission lines, no changes expected in transmission line

operation and maintenance, and no alterations of rights-of-way, no changes to the level of

impact on terrestrial resources are expected to occur if additional power is transmitted through

this system. Also, the addition of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system for

Unit 3 and the dry cooling towers for Unit 4 are not expected to adversely impact avian

populations in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. The staff concludes that the potential

regional cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecology contributed by the construction and operation

of Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem

The construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 were evaluated to determine whether

interactions with past, present, and future actions could contribute to adverse cumulative

impacts to aquatic resources. For the purpose of this analysis, the geographic area of interest

is the Lake Anna reservoir, the Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF), and the portion of the

North Anna River downstream of North Anna Dam. Factors contributing to cumulative aquatic
Cumulative Impacts

December 2006 7-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

impacts include the operations of NAPS (with or without the addition of Units 3 and 4),

anthropogenic activities not directly related to NAPS (e.g., increased urban development and

recreational activity in or near the lake and river), and natural environmental stressors

(e.g., short- or long-term changes in precipitation or temperature, and the resulting response of

the aquatic community). The staff considered these potential sources of impacts in its

evaluation of the cumulative aquatic ecology impacts of Dominion’s ESP application.

The studies conducted by Dominion have demonstrated that operation of Units 1 and 2 are in |

compliance with sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Thermal discharges from |

Units 1 and 2 have increased the overall temperature of the WHTF and Lake Anna; however,

heat-sensitive species are able to find refuge in deeper parts of the lake and uplake area, and

heat shock or cold shock events have not resulted in detectible changes to resident or stocked |

fish populations. Biocide releases from Units 1 and 2 currently comply with the Commonwealth

of Virginia NPDES permit requirements, and will continue to be monitored in the future. 

The cooling towers proposed for Unit 4 would not result in measurable impingement, |

entrainment, or discharge-related impacts. The closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

system proposed for Unit 3 would increase overall impingement and entrainment at NAPS by

approximately 2 to 3 percent. This is not expected to result in detectible changes in the resident

and introduced fish communities in Lake Anna.

The thermal impacts of Unit 3 to the WHTF, Lake Anna, and the North Anna River are expected

to be minor because the temperature of the small volume of blowdown water released to the

WHTF is within the temperature range currently observed in the discharge canal. Without |

changes to the discharge from the North Anna Dam, operation of Unit 3 would result in a |

decrease in the level in Lake Anna that would affect the downstream release of water over the

North Anna Dam, especially during the summer months and drought years. The decreases in

lake level would not be expected to adversely impact aquatic organisms in the lake. The

consumptive water use by Unit 3 could have some adverse impact on aquatic communities

downstream of the North Anna Dam during summer months or drought years. However, the

aquatic communities of the North Anna River have adapted to changes in stream flow over time,

and it is expected that the overall impacts associated with Units 3 and 4 would be negligible.

Anthropogenic stressors not directly associated with NAPS activities may contribute to the

cumulative impacts to the lake and river. These impacts include habitat loss and nonpoint

pollution related to increased urbanization along the shores of the reservoir and river, increased

recreational use of the North Anna reservoir, impacts to the lake fishery from changes in VDGIF

management practices or increased fishing pressure, and downstream impacts from increased

consumptive water use for human needs. Because the Lake Anna reservoir is essentially a

closed system that is regulated by Federal, State, and local resource agencies, the staff
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 7-6 December 2006

assumes the cumulative impacts to the lake and river associated with urbanization and

increased resource use would be managed within the existing system of rules and guidelines to

ensure the aquatic communities are protected and the fishery resources continue to be

sustainable.

The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in

precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts to Lake

Anna and the North Anna River. These impacts are not related to NAPS activities and are

difficult to predict. At certain times of the year, NAPS operations, other anthropogenic

stressors, and climactic events could combine to adversely impact the aquatic populations of

Lake Anna and the North Anna River. The staff expects that these events would be of short

duration and that the impacted resources would quickly recover after normal patterns resume. 

At present, Lake Anna represents a balanced community and supports a thriving population of

game fish and the forage species that support them. A diverse community is also present in the

North Anna River below the dam. Long-term monitoring has shown that the lake and river

communities are capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions resulting from

natural or anthropogenic sources of impact, and this adaptation is expected to continue to occur

with or without the addition of Units 3 and 4. Accordingly, the construction and operation of

proposed Units 3 and 4 is not expected to change the overall aquatic impacts of NAPS.

Based on 25 years of aquatic monitoring data conducted by Virginia Power, there is no

| evidence that Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species are present in Lake

Anna or the North Anna River. Although aquatic species listed could occur in counties adjacent

to NAPS, there is no evidence that they have been observed in those locations. Based on this

assessment, the staff concludes the cumulative impacts to threatened or endangered aquatic

species from the construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 are SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.

Consumptive water use for Unit 3 may exacerbate low-water conditions in Lake Anna and the

North Anna River during the summer months or droughts, but the overall impacts of Units 3

and 4 are not expected to be environmentally detectible or to contribute significantly to the

cumulative aquatic impacts that currently exist. The presence of anthropogenic or natural

stressors unrelated to NAPS operations currently influence the aquatic resources of Lake Anna,

the WHTF, and the North Anna River, and will continue to do so. These impacts would be

considered by Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies, and the various management

plans for the lake would be modified, as necessary. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes

that the cumulative aquatic impacts of the construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 would be

SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Cumulative Impacts

December 2006 7-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

7.6 Socioeconomic, Historic and Cultural Resources,

Environmental Justice

Much of the analyses of the socioeconomic impacts presented in Sections 4.5 and 5.5

incorporate cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for analysis are placed in the

total or cumulative context. The geographical area of the cumulative analysis varies depending

on the particular impact considered, and may depend on specific boundaries, such as taxation

jurisdictions, or distance, as in the case of environmental justice. The construction and

operation of Units 3 and 4 would not add any cumulative socioeconomic impacts beyond those

already evaluated in Sections 4.5 and 5.5. The staff concludes that construction impacts would

generally be SMALL, but there could be greater impacts if more workers than expected settle in

Louisa and Orange Counties, in which case MODERATE impacts may be reached for physical

impacts on roads, housing, and some public services. In addition, during times of severe

drought, the impacts to aesthetics and recreation during operations may also reach

MODERATE levels and there could be periodic MODERATE aesthetic impacts from cooling

tower plumes. In terms of cumulative effects, the impact on regional economies and tax

revenues would be beneficially SMALL to LARGE.

With regard to historic and cultural resources, construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 would

not add to any cumulative impacts to these resources beyond those identified in Sections 4.6

and 5.6. Dominion would implement the existing NAPS procedures to ensure that either known

or newly discovered potential historic and cultural sites would not be inadvertently impacted

during onsite activities that involve land disturbances (Dominion 2006). The staff concludes that

the cumulative impacts of construction and operation on historic and cultural resources would

be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices through which minority or

low-income populations would be disproportionately affected. As a result, cumulative impacts of

environmental justice would be SMALL.

Based on the above considerations, the staff concludes that under some circumstances,

construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 could make a detectable adverse contribution to the

cumulative effects associated with some socioeconomic issues under certain circumstances,

including aesthetics and recreation. The individual impacts range from MODERATE ADVERSE

to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

7.7 Nonradiological Health

The cumulative impacts of construction and operation of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and

the proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4 on the ambient temperature of Lake Anna with regard to

potential formation of thermophilic microorganisms was evaluated in Section 5.8.1. The
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 7-8 December 2006

evaluation indicated that the addition of two new units would not significantly increase the

temperature in Lake Anna, and existing temperatures are not sufficiently high to create an

environment conducive to the optimal growth of thermophilic organisms. Further, health risks to

workers can be expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the average

| U.S. industrial rates. Noise, dust emissions, and acute effects from electromagnetic fields were

also evaluated and found to have small impacts. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes

that the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 on

| nonradiological health would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. Chronic effects from

| electromagnetic fields are not resolved.

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

The radiological exposure limits and standards for the protection of the public and for

occupational exposures have been developed assuming long-term exposures, and therefore

incorporate cumulative impacts. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses

predicted from the operation of Units 3 and 4 would be well below regulatory limits and

standards. Specifically, the site boundary dose to the maximally exposed individual from the

existing Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 combined would be well within the

regulatory standard of 40 CFR Part 190. For purposes of this analysis, the geographical area is

the area included within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the North Anna ESP site.

As stated in Section 2.5, Dominion has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring

program (REMP) around NAPS since 1976. The REMP measures radiation and radioactive

materials from all sources, including NAPS. The Commission would regulate any reasonably

foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore,

the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operation of the proposed Units 3

and 4 and the existing operating NAPS Units 1 and 2 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted.

7.9 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

The addition of the Units 3 and 4 on the North Anna ESP site would result in the need for

additional fuel. The impacts of producing this fuel include mining of the uranium ore, milling of

the ore, conversion of the uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment of the uranium

hexafluoride, fuel fabrication where the uranium hexafluoride in converted into uranium oxide

fuel pellets, and disposition of the spent fuel in a Federal waste repository. As discussed in

Section 6.1 of this EIS, the environmental impacts of fuel cycle activities for the proposed units

would be a maximum of four times those presented in Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51. Table S–3

provides the environmental impacts from uranium fuel cycle operations for a model 1000-MW(e)

LWR operating at 80 percent capacity with a 12-month fuel loading cycle and an average

fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. Per 10 CFR 51.51(a), the staff considers the impacts in
Cumulative Impacts

December 2006 7-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table S–3 to be acceptable for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. As discussed in

Section 6.1.1, advances in reactors since the development of Table S–3 impacts will have the

effect of reducing environmental impacts of the operating reference reactor. For example, a

number of fuel management improvements have been adopted by nuclear power plants to

achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and separative work (enrichment) requirements. 

Fuel cycle impacts would occur not only at the North Anna ESP site but would also be scattered

through other locations in the United States or, in the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in

other countries. The staff considers the cumulative fuel cycle impacts of operating NAPS

Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 for the 1000-MW(e) light-water scale model to be

SMALL. Cumulative impacts for other than light-water reactor designs are not resolved.

The addition of Units 3 and 4 would result in additional shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site

and additional shipments of spent fuel and waste from the site. Cumulative impacts would be

approximately twice that of the existing operating plants. Environmental impacts from

transportation of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste are discussed in Section 6.2 of this EIS

based on specific reactor types proposed for Units 3 and 4. The following conclusions were

derived from the staff's analysis of unirradiated fuel shipments:

 • The number of unirradiated fuel shipments equates to less than one truck shipment per day

within criteria specified in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52.

 • Annual dose to workers and the public would be less than dose specified in Table S–4. 

 • Health impacts are projected to be small (i.e., less than 1 x 10-4 detriment/yr, where detriment

includes fatal cancer, non-fatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects).

The following conclusions were derived from the staff's analysis of spent fuel: (1) after

accounting for conservative assumptions in the staff's evaluation, doses to the worker and the

public would be within criteria specified in Table S–4, and (2) health impacts from normal

conditions and accident conditions would be small (i.e., less than 0.1 detriment/yr). Regarding

transportation of waste shipments, the staff concluded that the normalized number of waste

shipments would be within the value specified in Table S–4 for the 1100-MW(e) reference

reactor. Cumulative impacts of transportation for operating both NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the

proposed Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL. Cumulative impacts for other than light-water reactor

designs are not resolved.

As discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIS, environmental impacts from decommissioning are

expected to be small as the licensee would have to comply with decommissioning regulatory

requirements. In Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, the NRC found the impacts on radiation dose to workers
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 7-10 December 2006

and the public, waste management, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, and

socioeconomics to be small (NRC 2002). However, because Dominion was not required to (and

did not) submit information regarding decommissioning in its ESP application, this issue is not

resolved.

7.10 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The staff considered and evaluated the potential impacts resulting from construction and

operation of proposed Units 3 and 4 together with past, present, and future actions at the

proposed North Anna ESP site and surrounding area. For several impact areas, the staff

concludes that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation are

SMALL, and mitigation beyond the actions discussed in Sections 4.10 and 5.10 is not

warranted. However, some areas have the potential for MODERATE impacts, most of which

would occur under temporary circumstances such as drought conditions or as the result of a

larger than expected concentration of construction workers settling near the NAPS site. Further

mitigation is not warranted because of the temporary nature of the impacts.

7.11 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

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

Part 1508, “Council on Environmental Quality, Terminology and Index.”

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

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 8, Richmond, Virginia.

Hanover County Department of Public Utilities. 2004. Letter to Chief, Rules and Directives

Branch, NRC., regarding Dominion’s ESP application, January 7, 2004, Hanover, Virginia.

Louisa County. 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive

Plan, Chapter V, September 4, 2001, Louisa, Virginia.

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

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

December 2006 7-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Washington, D.C.
December 2006 8-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

8.0 Impacts of the Alternatives

The purpose of this chapter of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to examine the

environmental impacts of alternatives to constructing and operating the proposed two nuclear

units at the proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) site. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff considered the no-action alternative, system design alternatives, and

alternative sites. For the purposes of this EIS, the staff considered the alternative sites selected

by Dominion North Anna LLC (Dominion) in its ESP application (Dominion 2006). The results of

the analysis described in this chapter were used and analyzed in Chapter 9 to determine

whether any alternative site considered is obviously superior to the proposed site.

Consideration of alternative sites involves a two-part examination as set forth in NUREG-1555,

Section 9.3 (NRC 2000), in accordance with an NRC decision related to licensing the Seabrook

Nuclear Power Plant (Public Service Company 1977). The first stage evaluates a full suite of

environmental issues to determine whether any of the alternative sites is environmentally

preferable to the proposed site. If not, then the evaluation of alternative sites ends at the first

stage. If an alternative site appears environmentally preferable to the proposed site, the

analysis proceeds to the second stage. The second stage of the test considers economic,

technological, and institutional factors among the environmentally preferred sites to determine

whether any alternative site that was considered is “obviously superior” to the proposed site. If

there is no such obviously superior site, then the proposed site prevails; a staff conclusion that

an alternative site is obviously superior to the proposed site would normally lead to a

recommendation that the ESP application be denied.

Section 8.1 discusses the no-action alternative. Section 8.2 examines the station design

alternatives. Section 8.3 reviews Dominion’s region of interest (ROI) and examines the

suitability of the ROI and Dominion’s alternative site selection process, describing the method

Dominion used to select the candidate and alternative sites. Section 8.4 examines issues that

are common to all the sites, and addresses them collectively. Sections 8.5 through 8.7

individually evaluate the selected alternative sites. Section 8.8 provides a summary of

alternative site impacts, and Section 8.9 cites the references relevant to this chapter.

8.1 No-Action Alternative

For this ESP application, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC would

deny the ESP request. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of new nuclear

power reactors at the proposed North Anna ESP site in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 process would not occur.

The no-action alternative consists of two parts. First, the no-action alternative would include a

scenario in which the NRC would not issue the ESP. There are no environmental impacts

associated with not issuing the ESP except that the impacts associated with site preparation
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-2 December 2006

| and preliminary construction activities, allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c) and

10 CFR 52.25(a), would be avoided. Second, given that the EIS addresses the environmental

impacts of construction and operation as directed by the Commission (10 CFR 52.18(a)(2)), the

no-action alternative would result in no such construction and operation. Therefore, the impacts

predicted in this EIS would not occur. Nonetheless, Part 52 does not require an ER or EIS

prepared in conjunction with an ESP application to include consideration of the benefits of

| construction and operation of a reactor or reactors at the ESP site (see 10 CFR 52.18), nor

does it require that such an ER or EIS include consideration of alternative energy sources (see

Exelon Generation Co., LLC et al., CLI-05-17, 62 NRC 5 [2005]). Dominion did not include

these matters in its ER, and this EIS did not consider them. Accordingly, should the NRC

ultimately determine to issue an ESP for the North Anna ESP site, and a CP or COL application

that references such an ESP is docketed, these matters will be considered in the EIS prepared

in connection with the review of that CP or COL application.

However, the no-action alternative would not achieve the benefits intended by the ESP process,

which would include (1) early resolution of siting issues prior to large investments of financial

capital and human resources in new plant design and construction, (2) early resolution of issues

on the environmental impacts of construction and operation of reactors that fall within the site

parameters, (3) the ability to bank sites on which nuclear plants may be located, and

(4) facilitation of future decisions on whether to build new nuclear plants.

The no action alternative to the proposed action of issuing an ESP for the North Anna ESP site

would avoid the environmental impacts associated with site preparation and preliminary work

allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c) and 52.25. Because this site preparation and preliminary

work could in any event be redressed by the site redress plan described in Section 4.11 of this

EIS, the impacts of the proposed action and the no action alterative are similar.

8.2 System Design Alternatives

Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.3 contain information regarding alternative plant cooling systems for

the proposed Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP site. Section 8.2.1 discusses once-through cooling

systems; Section 8.2.2 discusses wet cooling heat-dissipation systems; and Section 8.2.3

discusses dry cooling heat dissipation systems for Unit 3. A dry cooling tower has been

proposed for Unit 4 at the North Anna ESP site. Water and energy balance studies of Lake

| Anna suggest that it would be difficult for the lake to support a once-through cooling system, a

wet cooling tower heat dissipation system, or a combination wet and dry cooling system for

Unit 4. (Refer to Appendix K for more detail on the water budget analysis.) Therefore, none of

these alternatives is considered for Unit 4 at the North Anna ESP site.

The purpose of the plant cooling system is to dissipate heat to the environment. The various

cooling system options differ in how and where the heat transfer takes place and, therefore,
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

have different environmental impacts. In the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

system proposed for Unit 3, heat is transferred to the atmosphere through evaporation,

long-wave radiation, and conduction. With the wet tower portion of the system, only a fraction

of the water withdrawn from the lake is returned as blowdown, with the majority being

evaporated. The dry tower portion of the system consumes a negligible amount of water.

8.2.1 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Once-Through Cooling System

A once-through cooling system for Unit 3 would transfer heat to the atmosphere and aquatic

environment of the Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF), Lake Anna, and the North Anna

River downstream of the dam by convection, evaporation, long-wave radiation, and conduction. 

As described below, when compared to the proposed design, increased impingement,

entrainment, circulation changes in the WHTF and Lake Anna, temperature in the aquatic

environment, and consumptive use of water would result from the once-through design.

A once-through cooling system design would withdraw a larger volume of water from Lake Anna

through the intakes, and more than double the impingement and entrainment losses currently |

occurring from the operation of Units 1 and 2. The once-through design for Unit 3 was |

estimated to withdraw 71,900 L/s (1,140,000 gpm) compared to the maximum of 1405 L/s

(22,269 gpm) for the proposed Unit 3 closed-cycle design operating in Energy Conservation

(EC) mode. The additional recirculation from this flow combined with the existing recirculation

in Lake Anna could further erode the limited water volume below the lake thermocline that may

be an important refugium for certain fish populations in Lake Anna.

A once-through design would initially transfer all the reject heat to the aquatic environment. The

increased heat load would dispense warm water out of the WHTF further into Lake Anna. The

staff estimated that WHTF-type conditions would be extended into about 19 percent of the

volume of Lake Anna. This could reduce the productivity of certain fish populations in Lake

Anna that are sensitive to temperature. Some of the heat entering the WHTF and Lake Anna

would be lost to the atmosphere through evaporation. This additional evaporation resulting from

the increased lake surface temperatures would reduce the total water supply. Dominion

estimated that induced evaporation from once-through cooling could result in water loss at an

average annual rate of 0.79 m3

/s (28 cfs), whereas the combined-cycle, wet and dry cooling

system proposed in the Environmental Report (ER) (Dominion 2006) would induce evaporative

losses at a lesser average annual rate of about 0.57 m3

/s (20 cfs).

The staff evaluated mitigation for the once-through cooling system to reduce cooling water

discharge temperatures into Lake Anna. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers could be

employed as helper towers along with the once-through cooling design on an as-needed basis

during the late summer and early fall. Use of these towers in a helper mode would reduce the

station discharge temperature to Lake Anna but would result in an increase in consumptive

water use that would be greater than the combination wet and dry cooling system. Based on
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-4 December 2006

the combination wet and dry cooling tower system’s expected smaller impact on the aquatic

environment, the staff concludes that a combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 would

be preferable to a once-through cooling system.

8.2.2 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Wet Cooling System

Wet, mechanical and natural draft cooling towers transfer heat to the atmosphere through

evaporation and conduction. Assuming all the heat transfer is through evaporation, a wet

cooling design would consume more water than either the once-through design or the

combination wet and dry cooling system proposed in the ER (Dominion 2006). The increased

use of makeup water requirements for a wet cooling design would increase impingement and

entrainment slightly over the proposed design.

The use of a wet cooling tower design versus the proposed combination wet and dry cooling

system design for Unit 3 would increase water withdrawals from Lake Anna. The impact of the

increased evaporative losses of a wet cooling tower design would be particularly noticeable

during drought years. The results of water balance calculations suggest that the use of a wet

cooling tower system for the 2001 through 2003 critical water period would have resulted in an

additional 1.0 m (3.4 ft) drawdown of the lake in September 2002. In comparison, use of the

proposed combination wet and dry cooling system would only have drawn the lake down by an

additional 0.5 m (1.6 ft). The use of a wet cooling tower design would also prolong the duration

of low-flow conditions downstream of the dam. The staff concludes that based on the expected

smaller impact on the lake level and downstream flows, a combination wet and dry cooling

system design for Unit 3 is preferable to a wet cooling tower design.

8.2.3 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Dry Cooling System

The use of a dry cooling design versus the proposed combination wet and dry cooling system

design for Unit 3 would largely eliminate the impacts on aquatic biota in Lake Anna and the

North Anna River downstream. The lake would not be heated by rejected heat from Unit 3, and

there would be no additional consumptive water use.

A dry cooling tower designed to dissipate heat may reduce water-related impacts of operating

Unit 3, but it also has some disadvantages. In particular, dry cooling systems are more

expensive to build and are not as efficient as wet cooling systems. To achieve the necessary

cooling, dry systems move a large amount of air through a heat exchanger, and the fans that

force the air through the heat exchanger use a significant amount of power. Dominion

estimates that the power needed to operate dry cooling towers would be 8.5 to 11 percent of the

plant power output (Dominion 2006). The power needed to operate a dry tower for Unit 3 would

be about 150 MW(e). This power demand reduces the net power output of the plant. The

power needed for operating the combination wet and dry cooling system would be 1.7 to

| 4 percent. This, in turn, would increase the environmental impacts of fuel use and spent fuel
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

transport and storage. The fans and the large volume of air required for cooling also result in |

elevated noise levels. The dry cooling tower would also occupy more land than a once-through

or wet tower cooling system.

The staff concludes that based on its analysis that Lake Anna could support Unit 3 using a

combination wet and dry cooling system and given the environmental impact of increased use

of resources needed by using a less efficient dry cooling system, a combination wet and dry

cooling system is preferable to a dry cooling system for Unit 3.

8.3 Alternative Sites, Region of Interest, and Selection and

Evaluation Process

NRC regulations require that the ER submitted in conjunction with an application for an ESP

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

alternative to the site proposed (10 CFR 52.17(a)(2)). An ESP applicant has the option to

provide as much or as little information regarding the impacts of constructing and operating the

proposed unit(s); however, the ER must address all environmental impacts of construction and

operation necessary to make the comparison and determination regarding alternative sites. For

the North Anna ESP review, the staff concluded that it had sufficient information on the relevant

environmental issues to determine that none of the alternative sites was environmentally

preferable to the proposed site. This is the minimum determination that must be made;

otherwise the staff would recommend that the ESP request be denied. At the CP/COL stage of

the process, the applicant will be required to provide sufficient information to resolve

environmental issues not considered in the ESP proceeding as well as any new and significant

information regarding issues that were resolved in the ESP proceeding.

In the discussion that follows, based on the approach used by the staff to estimate

environmental impacts and on the staff's expert judgment, the staff believes that the impact

levels that were assigned for the resource areas are defined sufficiently to be used for the

purposes of a comparison between the proposed and the alternative sites. While these impact

determinations are estimates, the staff relied on higher level information (i.e., reconnaissancelevel information) was informed by the provisions of state and local regulations, by extensive

institutional experience with the licensing of existing reactors (including analyses developed

during recent license renewal reviews, such as those in the associated License Renewal GEIS),

and by the judgment and professional experience of individual staff reviewers with respect to

their areas of expertise. The staff applied the same methodology to the North Anna ESP site

and the alternative sites review. Therefore, although the comparisons in the alternatives

analysis described in the following sections are based on reconnaissance-level information, the

staff considers them to be informed comparisons, and has concluded that they are sufficient for

making the determination concerning the existence of an obviously superior site. For certain

environmental issues, there may not have been sufficient site-specific generated information to
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-6 December 2006

resolve an issue for the purpose of utilizing the site for a specific design (and therefore, the

issue is "not resolved"), but was sufficient for comparative purposes to resolve whether there

was an "obviously superior" site. With respect to unresolved issues, the staff will determine and

disclose the environmental impacts of plant construction and operation in its environmental

review of a CP or COL application.

This section includes subsections discussing Dominion’s Region of Interest (ROI) for selecting

alternative sites and its alternative site-selection process. The three alternative sites examined

in detail in this EIS are Dominion’s Surry Power Station (Surry) site in Surry County, Virginia; the

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth) site in

Pike County, Ohio; and DOE’s Savannah River Site, located in Aiken and Barnwell Counties,

South Carolina.

Dominion stated that the two DOE sites were selected as candidate sites because:

& The sites represent valuable national assets with prior or existing nuclear energy

potential.

& New nuclear power facilities would represent potentially promising new missions for

these sites.

& The sites have the potential to support reactor demonstrations and/or commercial

reactor development.

& There is extensive site information and an available infrastructure that could help to

reduce site development costs.

& The partially or fully developed site environment and the available infrastructure reduces

the incremental environmental impacts associated with the new plant construction and

operation on land use, ecological resources, aesthetics, and local transportation

networks.

& The sites are not in proximity to major population centers (Dominion 2006).

The Surry site was selected by Dominion as an ESP candidate site because:

& The existing environmental conditions and the environmental impacts are known from

data collected during years of monitoring air, water, ecological, and other parameters.

& Construction of new transmission line rights-of-way may potentially be avoided if the

existing transmission system (lines and rights-of-way) can accommodate the increased

power generation.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

& No additional land acquisitions would be necessary if a new transmission line can be

avoided, and the resulting land-use impacts of the new plant would be small.

& The Surry site was recently subjected to an environmental review process during its

license renewal review.

& The Surry site had extensive environmental studies performed during the original

site-selection process, which could be updated and used for new units.

& Site physical criteria, including primarily geologic/seismic suitability, have been

characterized.

& Plant construction, operation, and maintenance costs would be reduced because of

existing site infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission line rights-of-way, water source, and

intake/discharge system).

& The Surry site has nearby power markets.

& The Surry site has local community acceptance and support (Dominion 2006).

NRC’s environmental review guidance for alternative nuclear plant sites recognizes that there

will be special cases in which the proposed site was not selected on the basis of a systematic

site-selection process, but was selected on the basis of environmentally acceptable operating

experience at the site or because the site was previously found acceptable on the basis of a

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) review. In such cases the NRC will analyze

the applicant’s site-selection process only as it applies to the alternative sites. The site

comparison may then be restricted to a site-by-site comparison of the alternative sites with the

proposed site (NRC 2000).

8.3.1 Dominion’s Region of Interest

The ROI is the geographic area considered in searching for candidate ESP sites. More

specifically, the ROI is:

The geographical area initially considered in the site selection process. This area may

represent the applicant’s system, the power pool or area within which the applicant’s

planning studies are based, or the regional reliability council or the appropriate

subregion or area of the reliability council (NRC 2000).

In its ESP application, Dominion selected its ROI for examining potential sites as the

Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the United States. These regions were selected

because of Dominion’s interest in continuing to grow and operate deregulated marketplaces in
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-8 December 2006

the region (Dominion 2006). Within this ROI, Dominion used the candidate site criteria

identified by NRC (NRC 2000) to identify candidate sites (Dominion 2006). The staff concludes

that the ROI used by Dominion in its ESP application is appropriate for consideration and

analysis of potential ESP sites because it is consistent with the major load centers to be

supplied by the proposed plant and desirable candidate areas have not been excluded on the

basis of an arbitrarily defined ROI. The staff determined that Dominion’s basis for defining its

ROI did not arbitrarily exclude desirable candidate areas.

8.3.2 Dominion’s Alternative Site Selection Process

Dominion evaluated its proposed North Anna ESP site and the three alternative sites using

45 site suitability/screening criteria (Dominion 2006). The criteria were grouped into four major

categories: (1) economic, (2) engineering, (3) environmental, and (4) socioeconomic (see

Table 8-1). The economic category was given a relative weight of 40 percent by Dominion, and

the other three categories were weighted 20 percent each. A ranking or score for each of the

45 criteria was assigned by Dominion (from 0 to 5, with 5 being the most favorable). The

relative importance of each criterion to the overall evaluation was established by assigning

weights that reflected the collective judgment of Dominion’s experts involved in the process. 

The sum of the weighted scores for all criteria represented a total site merit score. The

preferred site was chosen based on the highest site merit score. Based on its study, Dominion

found the North Anna site to be the preferred ESP site followed by the Savannah River,

Portsmouth, and Surry sites, respectively (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Accordingly, Dominion

submitted its ESP application for the North Anna site. However, Dominion concluded that all

four sites are suitable locations for deployment of new nuclear power plants.

Among the issues reviewed by Dominion in its site selection process were cooling water use,

ground water, aquatic and terrestrial resources, transmission lines, socioeconomic, land use, air

quality, and population density. The range of issues evaluated by Dominion in its site selection

process was sufficient for the staff to determine that Dominion had employed a reasonable site

selection process that resulted in identifying reasonable alternative sites within Dominion’s ROI.

8.3.3 NRC’s Evaluation of Alternative Sites

The staff independently performed an evaluation of the alternative sites identified by Dominion,

i.e., the Surry, Portsmouth, and Savannah River sites. Because the sites were evaluated at an

overview level using readily available information rather than using the more detailed approach

applied to the North Anna ESP site, which included independent analysis and modeling as

necessary, this evaluation is viewed as a “reconnaissance” level evaluation. All three

alternative sites previously had been characterized by their operators, but the basis for these

characterizations was not specific to an ESP action. In the Study of Potential Sites for the
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 8-1. Dominion Site Screening Criteria

Economic Engineering Environmental Socioeconomic

Electricity Projections Site Size Terrestrial Habitat Present/Planned Land

Use

Transmission System Site Topography Terrestrial Vegetation Demography

Stakeholder Support Environmentally

Sensitive Areas

Aquatic Habitat/

Organisms

Socioeconomic Benefits

Site Development Costs Emergency Planning Groundwater Agricultural/Industrial

Labor Supply Surface Water Aesthetics

Transportation Access Population Historic/Archaeological

Security Transportation Network

Hazardous Land Use Environmental Justice

Ease for

Decommissioning

Water Rights and Air

Quality Permits

Regulatory

Schedule

Geologic Hazards

Site-Specific Safe

Shutdown Earthquake

Capable Faults

Liquefaction Potential

Bearing Material

Near-Surface Material

Groundwater

Flooding Potential

Ice Formation

Cooling Water Source

Temperature and

Moisture

Winds

Rainfall

Snow

Atmospheric Dispersion
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-10 December 2006

Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States, Dominion and Bechtel evaluated DOE

sites at Portsmouth, Savannah River, and Idaho Falls along with the Dominion Surry site with

relation to economic, engineering, environmental, and sociological factors using preliminary

advanced reactor design information (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). This report, funded by

DOE, concluded that the three DOE sites and the two Dominion sites (North Anna and Surry)

were suitable for potentially siting new nuclear power plants. This report also concluded that

the North Anna site ranked highest overall of the sites evaluated and scored slightly higher with

regard to environmental issues than the Surry, Portsmouth, and Savannah River sites.

In its evaluation of the alternative sites, the staff toured each of the sites and discussed topics

specifically relevant to the ESP evaluation process including potential sources of cooling water,

transmission line access, local ecology, and socioeconomics with site experts. The staff relied

primarily on direct observation, information provided by the site experts, DOE environmental

reviews on the Portsmouth and Savannah River Federal sites, and site-specific information

provided in the Dominion and Bechtel report for DOE (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). In the case

of the Surry alternative site, the staff relied on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 6 Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1 and

2 for much of the site background documentation (NRC 2002). The staff also reviewed reports

from relevant State and Federal agencies and other regional information sources in evaluating

the alternative sites.

8.3.4 Greenfield and Brownfield Alternative Sites

Dominion also considered other existing nuclear power plant, greenfield, and brownfield sites

within the ROI. In as much as sites of current nuclear facilities have space for additional units,

the greenfield and brownfield sites were determined not to be environmentally preferable

because of the large land area that would need to be disturbed to build a new plant and to

support necessary transmission line rights-of-way. The associated land use, ecological

resource impacts, and the aesthetic impacts were determined to be large in comparison to

impacts at alternative sites with existing nuclear power plants.

The staff reviewed Dominion’s alternative site-selection process as it applies to greenfield and

brownfield sites and concludes that the approach used and the findings of impacts are

reasonable.

8.4 Generic Issues Consistent Among Alternative Sites

In evaluating the alternative sites, the NRC staff found that certain impact areas would not vary

significantly among sites, and as a result, would not affect the evaluation of whether an

alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. These impact areas include

air quality, nonradiological health, radiological health during construction and operations for
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

members of the public and workers, radiological health during construction and operations for

biota, and postulated accidents.

The staff evaluated the fuel cycle and solid waste management impacts for the proposed site in

Section 6.1 of this EIS and found the impacts to be SMALL. The impacts from the fuel cycle

and solid waste management are likely to affect the alternate sites equally as no site-specific

differences among the alternate sites related to the fuel cycle and solid waste management

were identified by the staff. The staff evaluated the transportation impacts of radioactive

materials for the proposed and alternate sites in Section 6.2 and Appendix G of this EIS and

found the impacts to be SMALL at all sites.

Decommissioning impacts were analyzed in Section 6.3 for all sites and were determined to be

unresolved, because the reactor design has not been selected at the ESP stage. The impacts |

from decommissioning are likely to affect all sites equally. In Chapter 5 the staff concluded that |

severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) are unresolved for North Anna ESP site, |

because the reactor design is not known at the ESP stage. SAMAs are also unresolved at all |

the alternative sites for the same reason. The analysis of SAMAs is likely to show the same |

result at all sites. In addition, the impacts to public service facilities (e.g., schools, water supply, |

and wastewater treatment) would not materially impact whether an alternative site is selected or

not. As a result, the impacts of these various impact areas are not evaluated as part of the

site-specific alternatives analysis. However, the impacts on air quality and health, and radiation

exposures are discussed generically in the following sections.

8.4.1 Air Quality Impacts

During construction at any of the alternative sites, it is expected that some minor air quality

impacts would occur in terms of fugitive dust emissions from general construction activities and

the potential for elevated ambient levels of criteria pollutants caused by automotive emissions

from the workforce traffic and emissions from construction equipment. The criteria pollutants of

concern would be particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), reactive organic

gases, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide from combustion engines of the

construction equipment.

Air pollutants and fugitive dust would be emitted from operations of construction equipment and

earth-moving and material-handling activities, respectively. In addition, operation of other

equipment for hauling debris, equipment, and supplies on unpaved roads will produce fugitive

dust emissions. Estimation of direct and indirect emissions is beyond the scope of the

reconnaissance-level information. However, all activities would be conducted in accordance

with State air quality agency requirements for visible and fugitive dust emissions as well as

emission standards for mobile sources. If the Surry site were chosen as the alternative site, the

same requirements set forth for the North Anna ESP site would apply because both are in the

Commonwealth of Virginia. If the Savannah River Site were chosen, then requirements
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-12 December 2006

established by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control would

apply. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency would be consulted if the Portsmouth site

were chosen. In addition, if construction activities include burning of construction materials, a

permit would need to be secured from the State, and Dominion would need to contact local

county officials to determine which local ordinances, if any, must be followed.

Dominion estimated that during construction activities, approximately 5000 workers would be

divided between two 10-hour shifts (Dominion 2006). Using an assumption of 1.8 workers per

vehicle, this would represent 2800 additional vehicles per day traveling on roads into and out of

the proposed site (Dominion 2006). For any of the alternative sites, the estimate of work is

similar to that proposed for the North Anna ESP site. Some roadways leading into the site

chosen may or may not experience congestion. This situation will impact the local ambient air

quality because of emissions from vehicles both during normal operation and during congestion

periods when vehicles are idling. However, because the current ambient air quality pollutant

levels at the alternative sites are well below current national standards, the resulting impact is

estimated to be insignificant and would not create an air quality impact. Therefore, the staff

concludes that air quality impacts from construction at any of the alternative sites would be

SMALL, temporary and similar to those at the proposed site.

The meteorological and air quality impacts would be limited to additional nonradiological

pollutants during the operation of the wet cooling portion of the combination wet and dry cooling

system, auxiliary boilers, emergency generators, and emissions from onsite service vehicles. 

The amount of pollutants emitted to the atmosphere is anticipated to be less than 91 MT/yr

(100 tons/yr) for any alternative site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) and is considered

insignificant. However, Dominion would require approval under the existing Federal, State, or

local air quality laws and regulations on new sources for any activities undertaken.

The current status of compliance regarding criteria pollutants in the regions surrounding the

alternative sites is the following (EPA 2005; 70 FR 30396, 70 FR 33771):

& Various areas around the Surry site have been designated as non-attainment areas

regarding the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8-hour ozone level

requirements. This includes James City and Isle of Wight Counties along with the City of

Williamsburg.

& No non-attainment areas were identified in the counties near the Portsmouth site.

& None of the counties around the Savannah River Site have been designated as

non-attainment. However, an Early Action Compact (EAC) was developed among the

counties in the region called the Lower Savannah Area; this includes Aiken, Allendale,

and Barnwell Counties that surround the Savannah River Site as well as Columbia and

Richmond counties in Georgia. The concept of EACs was developed by the EPA for
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

those areas that were classified as non-attainment with regard to the new 8-hour ozone

criteria pollutant level, to delay official designation as non-attainment and allow the areas

to develop their own means to achieve attainment. Some EACs, such as the Lower

Savannah Area EAC, were established and are participating in the EAC review and

evaluation process to demonstrate their support of cleaner air statewide including ozone

pollutant levels.

Although there are some existing air quality issues near the Surry and Savannah River

alternative sites, the issues would not be expected to be a limiting factor in considering these

sites, and the staff concludes that the air quality impacts from operation at any of the alternative

sites would be SMALL and similar to those at the proposed site.

8.4.2 Nonradiological Health Impacts

Nonradiological health impacts from construction of new nuclear power plants on

the construction workers at all the alternative sites would be similar to those evaluated in

Section 4.8. They would include occupational injuries, noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, and dust |

emissions. During the plant construction phase, activities would comply with applicable State

regulations regarding fugitive dust emissions and air pollution control. The alternative sites

considered by Dominion are in rural areas, and construction impacts on the surrounding

population would be minimal. Accordingly, the staff concludes that health impacts to

construction workers and the public resulting from the construction of two new units at any of

the alternative sites would be SMALL.

Health impacts to operational employees and the public would be expected to be the same for

all the alternative sites. Thermophilic microorganisms would not be a concern at alternative

sites for any facilities using either a wet or a combination wet and dry cooling process because

the temperatures in the water bodies receiving the cooling system discharges are below those

known to be conducive to the optimal growth and survival of thermophilic pathogens. Health

impacts to workers from occupational injuries, noise, and electromagnetic fields would be |

similar among the sites. Noise and electromagnetic fields would be monitored and controlled in

accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. Based

on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the health impacts to employees and the public from

the proposed units at any of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

With respect to transmission systems, the potential exists for impacts to members of the public

from operation of the transmission system in terms of electrical shock, electromagnetic field

exposure, noise, and aesthetics. The impacts at the alternative sites are expected to be similar

to those evaluated in Section 5.8.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-14 December 2006

8.4.2.1 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

All transmission lines, either constructed or used as part of an existing nuclear site, are

designed to standards established by the most current version of the National Electrical Safety

Code (NESC) (IEEE 2001), which is the standard that is applicable to the systems and

equipment operated by utilities. The areas of particular concern are (1) the potential to create

an electric shock that could disrupt the operation of pacemakers and health assistance devices

and (2) the potential for chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with the transport

of electric current through large conductors, such as high-voltage transmission lines.

Currently, to limit the potential for electric shock, NESC requires transmission lines to be

designed so that electrostatic effects from operation do not create a steady-state current that

exceeds 5 mA root mean square. For the alternative sites considered, it is likely that NESC

requirements for preventing electric shock from induced current would be met, and the impact to

the public would be insignificant.

8.4.2.2 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

There has been considerable debate in scientific circles regarding the potential impact from

exposure to 60-Hz electromagnetic fields resulting from energized transmission lines. The

potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and consensus results are

still outstanding. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs

related research through the DOE. A 1999 NIEHS report contains the following conclusion

(NIEHS 1999):

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant

aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States

uses electricity and is exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as

a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means

aimed at reducing exposure. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer

health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impact as significant

to the public. In any event, the impacts would be similar at the proposed site and any of the

alternative sites.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

8.4.3 Radiological Health Impacts

Exposure pathways for gaseous and liquid effluents from the proposed new Units 3 and 4 at the

North Anna ESP site would be similar for the alternative locations. Gaseous effluent pathways

would include external exposure to the airborne plume, external exposure to contaminated soil,

inhalation of airborne activity, and ingestion of contaminated agricultural products. Liquid

effluent pathways would include ingestion of aquatic foods, ingestion of drinking water, external

exposure to shoreline sediments, and external exposure to water through boating and

swimming.

8.4.3.1 Radiation Doses and Health Impacts to Members of the Public

Section 5.9 provides an estimate of doses to the maximally exposed individual and the general

population at the North Anna ESP site for both the liquid effluent and gaseous effluent pathways

during operation. The same bounding liquid and gaseous effluent releases would be used to

evaluate doses to the maximally exposed individual and the population at each alternative site. 

However, there would be differences in the estimated doses at each of the sites. The

differences would result from the use of site-specific atmospheric and water dispersion data,

different exposure pathways, and site-specific population data for the dose calculations.

Section 5.9 shows that the estimated dose to the maximally exposed individual at the North

Anna ESP site would be well within the design objectives (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I). 

Considering the differences in pathways analyzed, atmospheric and water dispersion factors

and population, doses estimated to the maximally exposed individual for the alternative sites

would also be expected to be well within the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I design objectives. 

Population dose within 80 km (50 mi) of these alternative sites would be expected to be small

compared to the population dose from natural background radiation.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the proposed system would likely result in

annual doses to the public well within regulatory limits, and there would be no observable health

impact to the public from construction or normal operation of the proposed North Anna ESP

facility or from any of the alternative sites. Therefore, the staff concludes that radiation doses

and resultant health impacts from construction or operation of new nuclear units at the

alternative sites would be SMALL.

8.4.3.2 Occupational Doses to Workers

Doses to construction workers during construction of the two proposed units were estimated

and compared against the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20. These doses were well below limits

for members of the public. In addition, annual collective doses were estimated and appeared

realistic and reasonable. Occupational doses to workers during construction would be expected

to be approximately the same for the alternative sites as for the proposed North Anna ESP site. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-16 December 2006

Therefore, the staff concludes that health impacts from radiological doses to construction

workers would be SMALL.

Occupational doses to workers during operations would be expected to be approximately the

same for facilities at the alternative sites as for the North Anna ESP site. The same

(accumulated) annual occupational dose estimates of 1.5 person-Sv (150 person-rem) would be

expected for units regardless of the site location. The staff concludes that the occupational

radiation doses from operation of units at the alternative sites would be SMALL.

8.4.3.3 Impacts to Biota

Table 5-12 provides the annual whole body dose estimates to surrogate biota species for the

two proposed units at the North Anna ESP site. The staff reviewed the available information

relative to the radiological impact on biota, other than humans, and performed an independent

estimate of dose to the biota. The staff concludes that no measurable radiological impact on

populations of biota would be expected from the radiation and radioactive material released to

the environment as a result of the construction or routine operation of the proposed units, or of

operation at any of the alternative sites. The staff concludes that the impacts to biota of

radiation doses from the construction or operation of units at the alternative sites would be

SMALL.

8.4.4 Postulated Accidents

A suite of design basis accidents (DBAs) has been considered for the new nuclear units at the

North Anna ESP site. The evaluation involved calculation of doses for specified periods at the

exclusion area and low population zone boundaries, and comparison of those doses with doses

based on regulatory limits and guidelines. Similar analyses have not been conducted for the

alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, differences in the results would be

expected to be caused by differences in meteorological conditions and distances to the site

boundaries. The release characteristics would be similar at all sites because the reactor

designs are the same.

For the North Anna ESP site meteorology, the doses for each accident sequence considered

were well below the corresponding regulatory limits and guidelines. Because the general

climatological conditions at the North Anna ESP site are sufficiently similar to the conditions at

the alternative sites, it is highly unlikely that differences in local meteorological conditions would

be sufficient to cause doses from DBAs for new nuclear units at any of the alternative sites to

exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. Similarly, because each of the alternative sites is located

at a nuclear facility (although not necessarily a nuclear reactor site), it is unlikely that differences

in distances to the exclusion area and low population boundaries would be sufficient to cause

doses from DBAs for new nuclear units at any of the alternative sites to exceed regulatory limits

or guidelines. Similarly, doses at the alternative site are unlikely to be significantly lower than
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-17 NUREG-1811, Volume I

doses estimated at the North Anna ESP site. Therefore, the staff concludes that for the

purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impact of DBAs at each of the alternative sites

would be SMALL.

A detailed analysis of the potential consequences of severe accidents for the postulated plants

has been conducted for the North Anna ESP site. Similar analyses have not been conducted

for the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in the results

would likely have been limited to site-specific factors such as meteorological conditions,

population distribution, and land-use distribution. The release characteristics would be similar

at all sites because the reactor designs would be the same.

The probability-weighted consequences estimated for severe accidents for the proposed units

at the North Anna ESP site would be well below the consequences estimated for severe

accidents at current generation reactors (see Section 5.10). This result suggests that, as at the

North Anna ESP site, the consequences of severe accidents at any of the alternative sites

would be less than the consequences of a severe accident for a current-generation operating

plant at each site. These risks are well below the NRC safety goals. In addition, the

Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents is

SMALL for all existing plants (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart B, Table B-1). On this basis, the staff

concludes that for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impact of severe

accidents at each of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

8.5 Evaluation of Surry Power Station Site

The Surry site, operated by Dominion, was recently evaluated in a supplemental EIS prepared

by NRC in connection with an operating license renewal application (NRC 2002). The analysis

of environmental impacts for this section draws from the data and conclusions gathered in the

licence renewal process, the analysis provided by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), and the staff’s

independent review.

The following assumptions were made by the staff in the review of the Surry site as an

alternative to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

& The units would use closed-cycle cooling.

& Mechanical draft towers would most likely be employed to avoid visual aspects of natural

draft towers.

& The existing intake structures would be used with possible modifications to

accommodate two additional units.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-18 December 2006

& The existing discharge canal would be used for cooling-water discharge.

& The land for additional reactors would be within the existing Surry site.

No additional transmission lines are assumed to be needed for power transmission for

alternative units.

The station is on the Gravel Neck Peninsula on the south side of the James River, in an

unincorporated portion of Surry County, Virginia. The station is approximately 40 km (25 mi)

upstream of the point where the James River enters Chesapeake Bay. The James River is

about 4 km (2.5 mi) wide at the Surry site. The Surry site, shown in Figure 8-1, occupies

approximately 340 ha (840 ac).

The Surry site is 10 km (7 mi) south of Colonial Williamsburg and 13 km (8 mi) east-northeast of

the town of Surry. Jamestown Island, part of the Colonial National Historic Park, is to the

northwest on the northern shore of the James River. The area within 16 km (10 mi) of the site

includes Surry, Isle of Wight, York, and James City Counties, and parts of the cities of Newport

News and Williamsburg. The counties surrounding the Surry site are predominantly rural,

characterized by farmland, woods, and marshy wetlands. East and south of the site, at

distances between 16 and 48 km (10 and 30 mi), are the urban areas of Hampton, Newport

News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth, Virginia, and others, collectively known as Hampton Roads.

The site has two Westinghouse-designed light-water reactors, each with a design rating for a

gross electrical power output of 855 megawatts-electric (MW(e)). The Surry site was originally

planned for four units. Construction permits were issued for Units 3 and 4; however, the units

were never built. Cooling for the existing Surry site reactors is provided by a once-through

cooling system to remove waste heat from the reactor-steam electric system. Cooling water is

withdrawn from and returned to the James River.

Distinctive features of the Surry site include the 40-m (135-ft)-diameter cylindrical containment

buildings with hemispherical domes and the cooling canal. When the plant was designed, there

was a concern about the containment structures being visible from historic Jamestown Island;

consequently, the containment buildings were designed so the elevation would be sufficiently

low so as to blend with the surrounding forested lands. In addition to the two nuclear reactors

and their turbine building, intake and discharge canals, and auxiliary buildings, the Surry site is

the location of Dominion’s Gravel Neck Combustion Turbine Station, a switchyard, and an

independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

Gravel Neck Peninsula is at the upstream limit of saltwater incursion to the James River;

upstream of Gravel Neck is tidal river and downstream is an estuary. Surry extends as a band

across the peninsula. Steep bluffs drop to the river on either side and to the tip of the
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-19 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 8-1. Surry Vicinity Map
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-20 December 2006

peninsula. Hog Island Wildlife Management Area, a Commonwealth of Virginia wildlife

management area, is located on the tip of the Gravel Neck Peninsula, and contains primarily

tidal marshes. Areas within 16 km (10 mi) of the site to the west, south, and east are

predominantly rural, characterized by farmland, forests, and marshy wetlands. The tidal flats

and marshes of Hog Island State Wildlife Management Area provide habitat for large numbers

and numerous species of migratory shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. It also provides

habitat for numerous amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and upland game birds.

The terrestrial community at the Surry site consists of remnants of mixed pine-hardwood forests

interspersed with early succession fields and developed areas. Wildlife species, found primarily

in the forested portions of the site, are those typically found in upland forests of coastal Virginia. 

With the exception of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Federally and State-listed as

threatened), terrestrial species that are Federally and/or State-listed as endangered or

threatened are not known to exist at the Surry site or along the rights-of-way of its associated

transmission lines (NRC 2002). The barking tree frog (Hyla gratiosa), State-listed as

threatened, is believed to be in the general vicinity but has not been observed at the Surry site.

The Surry site is located in one of the strongest economic areas in Virginia, and Dominion is the

major employer in Surry County (NRC 2002). At present, because of the location of the Surry

Power Station in Surry County, Dominion has a significant impact on the economic well-being of

the county.

The following sections examine the major environmental issues reviewed by the staff. 

Section 8.5.1 evaluates land-use issues, including the site and transmission lines. Section 8.5.2

examines hydrology, water use, and water quality. Sections 8.5.3 and 8.5.4 evaluate the

terrestrial and aquatic resources including endangered species, and Section 8.5.5 evaluates

socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources and environmental justice issues.

8.5.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

Similar to the North Anna ESP site, the Surry site was originally designed for the construction of

four reactor units. Surry Units 3 and 4 were to be constructed to the east of Unit 2 where the

existing construction building and parking area are now situated. The original plans called for

Units 3 and 4 to be offset from Units 1 and 2, with the turbine building roughly in line with the

Units 1 and 2 containment buildings. The containment buildings for Units 3 and 4 were

originally to be located farther north of the intake canal than the existing Units 1 and 2

containment buildings.

For purposes of its ESP application, Dominion determined that the originally planned location

for Units 3 and 4 continues to be the best choice for two new nuclear units at the Surry site

(Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The potential location for new nuclear generating units at the

Surry site is shown in Figure 8-2 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). This location is east of the 
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-21 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 8-2. Surry Power Station Site
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-22 December 2006

radwaste facility and includes construction, maintenance, and miscellaneous buildings and the

uncleared area west of the ISFSI. Relocation of these existing buildings to another onsite

location would therefore be necessary. The existing cleared area measures approximately

300 m (900 ft) in the east-west direction. According to Dominion and Bechtel (2002), an

additional 300 m (900 ft) could be cleared to the east, while still maintaining approximately

150 m (500 ft) to the ISFSI outer fence. An earthen berm around the ISFSI would likely be

constructed to reduce construction and occupational radiation doses. Any expansion of the

ISFSI would be to the east, away from the nuclear power units. In the north-south direction, the

cleared area measures approximately 350 m (1100 ft), including the contractor parking area. 

An additional 30 to 45 m (100 to 150 ft) could be cleared without encroaching too close to the

north site boundary. The areas to the north and east of the ISFSI could also be used, if needed.

The Surry site is in a district classified as M-2 General Industrial District by Surry County (Surry

County 1975). Location of nuclear power plants and associated radioactive waste-handling

facilities is permitted as a conditional use in this district upon approval by the County Board of

Supervisors. Dominion has received such approval for Surry Units 1 and 2, but would need

additional approval for new units.

The Surry site has an existing exclusion area that is consistent with NRC regulations. New

nuclear units sited at the Surry site would likely have the same exclusion area as the existing

units.

The residential locations of employees currently working at Surry are shown in Table 8-2

(NRC 2002). Approximately 60 percent of the employees live in Isle of Wight, James City, or

Surry Counties, or the City of Newport News, Virginia. The remaining 40 percent of employees

reside in other counties and cities within Virginia and adjacent states. The staff assumes that

the residences of the workforce needed to construct two units at the Surry site would be

similarly dispersed. Offsite land-use impacts associated with construction of new units would

likely be relatively limited, given the temporary nature of the construction (about 5 years). 

Construction of new rental housing and/or manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks

could be expected to accommodate construction workers.

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) requires that

applicants seeking a Federal permit to conduct an activity that affects a coastal zone area

provide to the permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the

enforceable policies of the State’s coastal zone program. Surry is within the Virginia coastal

resources management area (VDEQ 2004). If construction of new nuclear units at Surry were

planned, Dominion would need to submit a certification to the Virginia Department of 
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-23 NUREG-1811, Volume I

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

County/City

County/Independent

City

Number of

Personnel

Percentage of Total

Personnel Cumulative Percentage

Isle of Wight County 212 24 24

James City County 98 11 35

Newport News (city) 97 11 46

Surry County 90 10 57

Hampton (city) 71 8 65

Suffolk (city) 52 6 71

Chesapeake (city) 42 5 75

Chesterfield County 25 3 78

Portsmouth (city) 23 3 81

Virginia Beach (city) 21 2 83

York County 20 2 85

Prince George County 19 2 88

Sussex County 18 2 90

Southampton County 11 1 91

Others 79 9 100

Total 878 100

Source: NRC 2002.

Environmental Quality (VDEQ) stating that construction of the new units is consistent with the

Virginia Coastal Management Program. This submission would be reviewed by VDEQ.

New land-use impacts associated with operation of new nuclear generating units at the Surry

site would be expected to be limited. Some new housing in surrounding communities would

likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The incremental

property tax revenue from the new units could affect future land use in Surry County as a result

of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue. In the supplemental EIS

related to renewal of the operating licenses for Surry Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that tax

revenue impacts on land use during the 20-year license renewal term would be small

(NRC 2002). The staff concludes that although new units would be licensed for 40 years, the

incremental land-use impacts would be minor. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that |

the land-use impacts on the site and vicinity of construction and operation would be SMALL.

The transmission line rights-of-way from the Surry site consist of three 500-kV transmission

lines from the breaker, a 500-kV switchyard, and six 230-kV transmission lines from the 230-kV
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-24 December 2006

switchyard. The lines are not at or near capacity (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). For the

addition of two advanced boiling water reactor-size units, it appears that the 500-kV

transmission line rights-of-way would be able to transmit the new load; however, system-study

(load-flow) modeling of the transmission lines and the new nuclear units would need to be

performed to be certain whether any additional lines are required from the site. Based on the

evaluation conducted by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), it is likely that no additional electrical

transmission line rights-of-way would be needed to transmit the power generated by additional

units at the Surry site to the regional power grid. This impact would be similar to land-use

impacts for construction and operation in the transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas

associated with the North Anna ESP site. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the staff

concludes that the land-use impacts of transmission system construction and operation would

be SMALL.

8.5.2 Water Use and Quality

The Surry site is located adjacent to the James River estuary. The consumptive use of water to

support mechanical-draft cooling towers for new units would be undetectable relative to the

supply available in the estuary. Discharges to the James River could contain water treatment

chemicals that would be subject to regulation by the VDEQ to ensure protection of the

environment. The additional small amount of heat from blowdown water would likely be

undetectable if commingled with the once-through discharge of Surry Units 1 and 2. Therefore,

based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts to water use and water supply at

| the Surry site from construction and operation of two new units would be SMALL. Discharge of

| thermal and chemical effluents would be regulated by Commonwealth of Virginia’s Pollutant

| Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permitting process to limit water quality impacts to the

| James River. Therefore, the staff concludes that water quality impacts during construction and

| operation would be SMALL.

8.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

A maximum of approximately 200 ha (500 ac) of land would be disturbed to develop two

additional units with cooling towers at the Surry site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Much of this

area has been previously disturbed during development of the existing nuclear units and

associated facilities. Habitats in the area are a mixture of industrial areas, early successional

grasslands, and remnant mixed pine-hardwood forests. There are no threatened, endangered,

or other important terrestrial species known to exist within the Surry alternative site, although

Federally threatened bald eagles are known to nest near the Surry site. Federally and

State-listed threatened or endangered species reported to occur in Surry County are listed in

Table 8-3.

Potential construction impacts include erosion, dust generation, and noise which are typical of

large construction projects. These impacts could be mitigated using standard industrial 
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-25 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 8-3. Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

Reported Within Surry County, Virginia

Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T T

Lanius ludovicianus(a) loggerhead shrike SC

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon T

Mammals

Plecotus rafinesquii macrotis eastern big-eared bat E

Amphibians

Hyla gratiosa barking tree frog T

Ambystoma mabeei Mabee’s salamander T

Insects

Speyeria diana Diana fritillary SC

Vascular Plants

Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint-vetch T T

T = threatened, E= endangered, SC = species of concern.

Sources: VDGIF 2004; VDCR 2004.

(a) The migrant subspecies L.I. migrans is a Federal species of concern; all loggerhead shrikes in Virginia are

State threatened.

procedures or best management practices. Standard practices to limit potential construction

impacts including silt fences to control sedimentation and water sprays to limit dust generation

should protect wetlands and other ecological resources in the site vicinity.

Construction noise could affect bald eagles nesting in the vicinity of the site. Prior to initiation of

major construction activities, the presence and distribution of bald eagle nests in relation to the

location of planned facilities would need to be determined. If eagle nests are in the area,

mitigation measures would need to be developed. According to the Bald Eagle Protection

Guidelines for Virginia (FWS and VDGIF 2000), no major construction activities should occur

within 400 m (1300 ft) of an active eagle nest, and loud noises (such as blasting) should not

occur during the nesting/breeding season. No active nests currently exist within 400 m (1300 ft)

of the Surry construction site.

The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operation of new nuclear units, including operation

of the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on terrestrial threatened or

endangered species as follows. If new reactor units are constructed, very little usable habitat

would remain within the development area at the Surry site. Operation of additional units would

typically result in some noise generation, salt drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise

would likely be typical of operating reactor units and cooling towers, which have been found to

be a SMALL impact (NRC 1996). However, it is possible that such noise could deter bald

eagles from nesting near the site. There are no sensitive habitat areas adjacent to the site that

would be adversely affected by noise from plant operations. The terrestrial vegetation in the
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-26 December 2006

immediate vicinity of the Surry site is not believed to be unusually sensitive to salt drift, fogging,

or icing (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). However, because the cooling tower makeup water from

the James River estuary is brackish (up to 17 parts per thousand of salt), the cooling tower drift

could have higher salt content than at freshwater sites. Because it is likely that mechanicaldraft towers with their much shorter towers would be used rather than natural-draft towers, bird

collisions would not be likely (NRC 1996). Based on the above evaluation, the staff concludes

that the impacts of operating two new units on terrestrial resources, including threatened and

endangered species, would be SMALL.

According to the analysis performed by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), no additional

transmission lines would be needed to transmit electrical power generated by new units at the

Surry site to the regional distribution grid. The staff based its evaluation on the assumption that

new transmission lines would not be required to support two new units. Therefore, maintenance

and operation of the existing transmission line rights-of-way would likely not be affected by two

new nuclear units at the Surry site. NRC determined that the impacts of continued operation of

these transmission lines and maintenance of the rights-of-way would have a small impact on

terrestrial ecosystems (NRC 2002). However, some monitoring and mitigation for nesting bald

eagles might be warranted.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impact to terrestrial ecological

resources of both construction and operation of two new units and associated cooling systems

and transmission line rights-of-way at the Surry site would be SMALL. However, some

monitoring and mitigation for nesting bald eagles might be warranted.

8.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The aquatic environment near the Surry site is associated with the James River. The James

River rises in the Allegheny Mountains near the Virginia/West Virginia border and flows in a

southeasterly direction to Hampton Roads (that area of Virginia that includes Newport News,

Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, and surrounding cities and towns), where it enters Chesapeake

Bay. The James River flows 692 km (430 mi) from its headwaters (the confluence of the

Cowpasture and Jackson Rivers) to Chesapeake Bay, crossing portions of the Blue Ridge,

Valley and Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. The river drains an area

of 25,900 km2

 (10,000 mi2), which is just over 25 percent of the total land area of Virginia. 

Overall, about 71 percent of the basin is forested, 23 percent is agricultural, and 6 percent is

urban. The lower James River flows through the Coastal Plain of Virginia, which is virtually flat

in tidewater areas, generally ranging from 0 to 30 m (0 to 100 ft) above mean sea level (MSL).

Two major tributaries enter the river between Richmond and Hampton Roads. The Appomattox

River enters the James River from the south, in the stretch of river between Richmond and

Petersburg. The Chickahominy River enters from the north, just west of Williamsburg. Although

the James River downstream of Richmond was severely polluted for many years, the passage
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-27 NUREG-1811, Volume I

of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and implementation of associated regulations, such as the

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, have reduced the flow of point-source

pollutants into the James River watershed. Pollution prevention measures and programs

carried out by industrial entities in the area have further reduced chemical discharges to the

James River. At present, nutrients from sewage treatment facilities, agricultural operations, and

urban runoff and bacteria from combined sewer systems (those that combine storm water and

sewage) are considered the chief threats to the water quality of the lower James River.

In the vicinity of the Surry site, the James River is approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) wide. Cobham

Bay lies west (just upstream) of the Gravel Neck Peninsula and represents the approximate limit

of saltwater incursion, effectively dividing the James River into a tidally influenced freshwater

river upstream (to the fall line at Richmond) and an estuary downstream. The U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers historically has dredged the main channel of the lower James River so

ocean-going vessels can proceed upriver as far as Hopewell, approximately 80 river km

(50 river mi) northwest of the Surry site.

The lower James River supports a diverse assemblage of finfish species, ranging from

exclusively marine species near Chesapeake Bay to exclusively freshwater species at the fall

line in Richmond. Approximately 80 fish species are known from the brackish portion of the

James River downstream of Surry, with another 40 or so species recorded from the tidally

influenced freshwater portion of the river upstream of the Surry site. Distributions and

abundances of particular species vary between seasons and years, depending on salinity

differences and natural fluctuations in fish populations.

Dominion’s predecessors conducted extensive surveys of James River aquatic biota in the

1970s. While preparing its ER for the ESP application, Dominion contacted the Virginia Institute

of Marine Sciences for more recent information (Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences 2001). 

The following paragraphs describe the historic Virginia Electric and Power Company (Virginia

Power) data and the more recent data collected by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.

From 1970 to 1978, Virginia Power collected 63 fish species in monthly haul seine surveys

conducted to characterize fish populations of the shore zone in the vicinity of the Surry site. 

Five species made up more than 75 percent of fish collected. These were the Atlantic

menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), inland silverside

(Menidia beryllina), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius).

Over the same period, 42 fish species were collected in otter trawl samples that were intended

to characterize fish populations in deeper waters (the shelf zone) adjacent to the main river

channel. Five species comprised more than 80 percent of fish collected in trawl samples: the

hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), channel catfish

(Ictalurus punctatus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), and bay anchovy.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-28 December 2006

Between 1996 and 2000, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences conducted approximately

350 deep-water ichthyoplankton trawl surveys in the James River in the vicinity of Hog Island. 

In those collections, four species comprised more than 80 percent of the catch: hogchoker,

white perch (Morone americana), Atlantic croaker, and bay anchovy. Spot was the fifth most

abundant species. Salinity appears to be the most important factor influencing the relative

abundances of fishes between the two sampling periods.

In addition to finfish, several invertebrate aquatic species were found in the vicinity of the Surry

site. These include zooplankton (dominated by copepods), amphipods (notably the scud

[Gammarus spp.]), and a variety of benthic organisms (e.g., polychaetes and shellfish). 

Shellfish formed the bulk of the benthic biomass from the transition zone in the vicinity of the

Surry site to Chesapeake Bay. The brackish water clam (Rangia cuneata), a species capable

of tolerating a wide range of salinities, dominated the benthic community in the vicinity of the

Surry site. Larval American oysters (Crassostrea virginica) occurred in the area as

meroplankton, but adults were uncommon. The more recent trawl survey collected American

oysters, blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), spider crabs (Libinia emarginata), eight species of

shrimp (Penaeidae), and five species of clams (Bivalvia). The diversity of benthic

macroinvertebrate is usually low in a transition zone, increasing downstream to seawater and

upstream (moderately) to freshwater. A combination of physical, chemical, and biological

factors influence the distribution of benthic organisms, but as with the finfish, salinity appears to

exert the greatest influence.

No areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as critical habitat for

endangered species exist in the James River (Virginia Natural Heritage Program 2003). Virginia

Power and its contractors conducted extensive surveys of fish and aquatic invertebrates in the

lower James River in the vicinity of the Surry site in the 1970s. Based on these historical

surveys and a review of the scientific literature, no Federally listed aquatic species is found in

the lower James River. On Virginia’s endangered species list, Jenkins and Burkhead (1994)

identify only one threatened or endangered fish species in the entire James River drainage, the

orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti), which occurs in the headwaters of the river, several

hundred miles upstream of the Surry site.

The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), a candidate for Federal listing, was reported in

the vicinity of the Surry site in the early 1970s and was subsequently collected in research and

monitoring studies conducted by Virginia Power and Virginia Power-funded entities in the

mid-to-late 1970s. A number of authorities on the fishes of Virginia and the mid-Atlantic coast

also list this species as occurring in the lower reaches of the James River. The blackbanded

sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon), listed as endangered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, is

reported to occur in Prince George, Surry, and Sussex Counties west of the Surry site. 

However, this sunfish primarily inhabits thickly vegetated ponds, swamps, and pools and is not

reported to occur in the James River Drainage (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994.)
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-29 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Although not recorded in Virginia for more than 100 years, the shortnose sturgeon

(Acipenser brevirostrum) is on the Commonwealth’s list of rare animal species. This listing is

based on the fact that the species occurs in major river systems north and south of the

Chesapeake Bay, is presumed to have spawned in the four major estuarine drainages of the

Chesapeake Bay (including the James River) in Virginia as late as the 19th century, and may

reappear in the future if restoration efforts are successful. At present, the shortnose sturgeon is

listed as endangered by the National Marine Fisheries Service and by Virginia. The Virginia

Department of Conservation and Recreation lists the shortnose sturgeon “LE” or “Listed as

Endangered” in their Natural Heritage Program, Rare Animal Species.

The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operating new nuclear units, including operating the

plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on aquatic threatened and endangered

species. Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of constructing and

operating new units on aquatic threatened and endangered species at the Surry site would be

SMALL.

The potential for impingement and entrainment of aquatic resources is expected to be minimal

because of closed-cycle cooling. The potential impacts of heated water would be expected to

be mitigated by the placement of the discharge structures. The overall impact on aquatic

ecological resources of construction and operation of two new units and associated cooling

towers and transmission facilities at the Surry site would be SMALL.

8.5.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at the Surry site, the staff used the

license renewal supplemental EIS information (NRC 2002) and Dominion and Bechtel’s (2002)

analysis of potential sites. The staff also conducted a reconnaissance survey of the site using

readily obtainable data from the Internet or published sources and a one-day audit trip to |

confirm various aesthetic and cultural issues. No new data were collected. The socioeconomic |

sections follow the organizational structure of the socioeconomic discussions in Sections 2.8,

4.5, and 5.5. Both construction and station operation impacts are addressed.

8.5.5.1 Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise,

odor, vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public

roadways, railways, and barges would be necessary to transport construction materials and

equipment. Dominion anticipates that the roadways could need some minor repairs or

upgrading, such as patching and filling potholes, to allow safe transport of these materials and

equipment. However, no extensive work is planned to the existing roads or railways, and no

new routes would be needed (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). All construction activities would

occur within the existing Surry site. Offsite areas that would support construction activities
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-30 December 2006

(e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites) are expected to be already permitted and

operational. Impacts on those facilities from construction of the new units would be small

incremental impacts associated with their normal operation.

Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and

visual intrusions. Noise would be produced by the operation of pumps, cooling fans,

transformers, turbines, generators, switchyard equipment, and traffic. Dominion states in its ER

that any noise coming from the North Anna ESP site would be controlled in accordance with

applicable local county regulations. By inference, this is also expected to apply to the Surry

site. Virginia has no regulations or guidelines regarding noise limits. Commuter traffic would be

controlled by speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize

the noise level generated by the workforce commuting to the Surry site (Dominion 2006).

The new units would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems. Permits

obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. In

addition, the generators would be operated on a limited short-term basis. During normal plant

operation, the new units would not use a significant quantity of chemicals that could generate

odors exceeding odor threshold values. Good access roads and appropriate speed limits would

minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of

the Surry site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

supporting the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

managed in accordance with local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the

| diesel generators, and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Visual

| aesthetics in areas across the James River would be affected. Except for culturally significant

| areas, these impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE. (See Section 8.5.5.3 for additional

| details.) Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of construction

| and operation would be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.5.5.2 Demography

The population base is considered to be the population of significant population centers within a

80-km (50-mi) radius of the Surry site. The combined population of the Richmond-Petersburg

and Norfolk-Virginia Beach and Newport News, Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area is

2,566,050 (USCB 2000a). The estimated population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Surry

site is 2,387,353 and is projected to grow by approximately 41 percent to 3,365,040 by

2030 (NRC 2002).

Most of the construction workforce is expected to come from within the region, and those who

might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the larger population base. 

While the station operation workforce is expected to relocate into the region, their numbers are
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-31 NUREG-1811, Volume I

small (720 new operating employees and their families) when compared to the total base

population and their locations of residence would probably be scattered throughout the region. 

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that any environmental impacts caused by

population increases within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site would be SMALL.

8.5.5.3 Community Characteristics

Economy

The Surry site is located in one of the strongest economic areas in Virginia. The RichmondPetersburg area is the primary economic driving force in the area within an 80-km (50-mi) radius

of the Surry site. The Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News area is characterized by the

U.S. Navy’s significant presence in the area (NRC 2002). Hampton Roads relies heavily on

defense-related industry, particularly shipbuilding. In recent years, the regional economy has

become more diversified with major businesses, financial and health care components, and a

growing “high-tech” sector. Regionally, the service sector now offers the most employment

opportunities. The construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the Surry site would

be expected to benefit the economy of the region, especially Surry County.

Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers more than 5 years to

build two new nuclear units at the Surry site (Dominion 2006). Dominion is expected to be able

to attract the necessary workforce for construction activities at the Surry site because of its

proximity to the major population centers of Richmond-Petersburg and Norfolk-Virginia Beach

Newport News. While the availability of craft workers for outages at Surry is reported as very

limited, this can be attributed to the short duration of the projects. However, the availability of

craft workers for regular construction projects of longer duration is reported to be good

(Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The construction workforce within 80 km (50 mi) of the site was

estimated to number approximately 98,000 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Approximately 990 employees work at Surry Units 1 and 2, (about 110 contract employees and

880 permanent employees). The addition of new units would result in an increase in the

operations workforce of 720 employees. In its ER, Dominion stated that it expected most of the

operations workforce for the new units to relocate from outside the region. The ER does not

address from where these employees would come (Dominion 2006). Some nuclear defense

sites are reducing their workforces as they change missions (such as the Portsmouth and the

Savannah River sites), and workers from these sites could be potential pools of labor for the

operating workforce at Surry.

The staff concludes that construction labor would be available from within the region, and there

would be little problem recruiting the required labor skills to enable the construction of the

nuclear units at the Surry site and the operations workforce would relocate to the region.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-32 December 2006

Based on the foregoing, the staff reviewed the impacts of station construction and operation on

the economy of the region and concludes that the impacts would be SMALL BENEFICIAL

everywhere in the region except Surry County, where the impacts could be MODERATE

BENEFICIAL. The magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger

economic bases of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News area, including Isle of Wight,

Surry, York, and James City Counties. With Surry County’s smaller economic base, the

economic impacts would be more noticeable.

Taxes

Construction and operations workers would pay income, sales, and use taxes to Virginia and

the local governments in the region where sales take place and property taxes to the counties in

which they own a residence. Sales and use taxes would be paid from the sales of construction

materials and supplies purchased for the project and on expenditures of both the construction

and operations workforce for goods and services. Dominion estimates that about half of the

day-to-day expenditures during construction would occur in the region (Dominion 2006). 

Corporate income taxes on profits would also be paid by those companies engaged in

construction at the site.

There are two types of property taxes in Virginia. The first is the tangible personal property tax

paid by contractors during construction of the additional units. This tax is based on the value of

property owned by the contractors that acquire taxable status in Surry County during the

construction period. The second is the real property tax levied for the incremental increase in

value to the entire site from the operation of the additional units. It is expected that Surry

County would be the only beneficiary of this tax. Dominion has a significant impact on the

economic well-being of Surry County, with Dominion paying well over 70 percent of the property

taxes between 1996 and 2000 (NRC 2002).

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impacts from construction and

operation of taxes collected through the income, sales and use, and property taxes would be

SMALL (with the exception of Surry County for property taxes). The taxes paid, while

substantial, are nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes collected

by Virginia and local governments in the region. The staff concludes that the overall impacts of

the property taxes collected in Surry County would be beneficially MODERATE (construction)

and LARGE (operation) relative to the total amount of taxes the county collects through

property taxes.

Transportation

The area around the Surry site is served by several major freeways and State and Federal

highways (NRC 2002). The most direct vehicular access to the Surry site is from the more

populous cities and counties on the north bank of the James River via State Route (SR) 31 and
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-33 NUREG-1811, Volume I

the James River Ferry service, operated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The

principal road access to the Surry site is via SR 650, which is a two-lane paved road. SR 650

carries a level-of-service (LOS) designation of “A,” which reflects a free flow of traffic and users

unaffected by the presence of others.

The construction of new nuclear units would involve additions to the workforce. In addition,

construction materials, wastes, and excavated materials would be transported both to and from

the site. These activities would result in increases in operation of personal-use vehicles by

commuting construction workers, in commercial truck traffic, and in traffic associated with daily

operations. However, five of the seven reactor types under consideration for this project are

generally smaller and modular in nature. Consequently, transportation of plant equipment could

be less challenging and workforce needs are expected to be less than those for conventional

nuclear plants (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The LOS designation on SR 650 would likely be degraded from “A” to “C” (which reflects a

stable flow that marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual

users is significantly affected by interactions with the traffic stream) during the peak construction

period for a new nuclear plant at the Surry site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

SR 650 intersects SR 10 approximately 8 km (5 mi) from the plant. SR 10 in the vicinity of the

site, from Surry County Courthouse to the divergence of the business and bypass north of

Smithfield, carries a LOS designation of “C.” Portions of Highway 10 would receive significantly

more traffic during plant construction (NRC 2002; Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

No direct rail access is available to the Surry site, so large equipment would have to be

offloaded and transported by road and/or barge from the nearest rail access points in Richmond

or Norfolk. Surry has an excellent barge slip adjacent to the cooling water intake. This slip was

used for the transport of the replacement steam generators in the late 1970s and is regularly

used to receive spent fuel storage casks and other large loads (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The Williamsburg-Jamestown Airport, Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, Norfolk

International Airport, and the Richmond International Airport all serve the area. The airports in

Richmond and Norfolk provide regular freight and passenger jet services and are of sufficient

size to accommodate the relatively small air shipments normally associated with a construction

project (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The impact of station operation employees on the transportation system would be less than the

impact incurred during construction. There would be increases in operation of personal-use

vehicles by commuting operators of both the existing and new units and in traffic associated

with daily operations. Portions of SR 10 may be impacted by commuters to the plant site,

particularly during shift changes. During new plant operation, the LOS designation on SR 650

may retain its “A” status or perhaps degrade to “B” designation, which reflects a condition of
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-34 December 2006

stable flow instead of the free flow indicated under an “A” designation. This change in

designation indicates that the freedom to select speed is unaffected, but the freedom to

maneuver is slightly diminished (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction workforce and

related transportation of construction supplies and materials on transportation infrastructure at

Surry would be SMALL to MODERATE (but temporary). Some of the local roads could have

their LOS degraded during construction to the point where operations of individual drivers could

be significantly affected by interactions with other traffic. This would be at LOS levels of C or

lower. Also it is possible that, given the heavy loads carried by vehicles transporting

construction materials to the Surry site, some of the roads may need repair to carry the

additional load. The impacts during operation would be SMALL.

Aesthetics and Recreation

Although the Surry site is clearly an industrial site, its current structures are not visually intrusive

from any vantage point, even from across the James River. However, Surry Units 1 and 2 are

visible from the highest amusement rides at Busch Gardens (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) and

at certain points of Jamestown Island and the Colonial Parkway. The reasons for the lack of

visual intrusiveness are the general wooded habitat surrounding the site and the fact that the

Units 1 and 2 reactor containment buildings are sunk into the ground to minimize visual

obtrusion from offsite. The licensee for Units 1 and 2 took this unusual step because of the

highly sensitive nature of the historic resources across the James River (i.e., Jamestown and

Williamsburg) (VEPCo 1970). Not all of the seven new reactor technologies being considered

for the Surry site could be designed to allow the reactor containment building to be placed lower

in the ground. For example, the AP1000, which has a reactor containment building

approximately 71 m (234 ft) above grade, could potentially be more easily seen from

Williamsburg across the James River from the Surry site. The design of this building includes a

hatch that determines the height that it must be above ground. Dominion states that

redesigning the AP1000 would be prohibitively expensive to allow the building to be placed

lower in the ground. In its ER, Dominion did not address the feasibility of adapting the

remaining reactor technology to minimize visual intrusiveness (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The Surry site is a minimum of 5 km (3 mi) from any point across the James River. Except for

the west side of the site, which is open to the James River, the dense tree stands surrounding

the site effectively screen the existing unit from all but a few locations. No parks or recreational

areas are within 3 km (2 mi) of the Surry site. The closest recreational park is Chippokes

Plantation State Park located 4 km (2.5 mi) to the southwest (NRC 2002). The only

distinguishable view of the transmission lines by offsite observers is available from the James

River (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-35 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The addition of new units at the site would likely involve the use of cooling towers. Given the

historical nature of some of the surrounding communities (e.g., Jamestown), Dominion would be

more likely to use mechanical-draft cooling towers rather than the taller, natural-draft towers,

which may be considered unacceptable. Traditionally, visible plumes generated by the

operation of cooling towers could cause a negative aesthetic effect. These plumes would be

visible a majority of the time.

Most construction activities would be screened from offsite viewing. The exception may be the

reactor containment building as it nears completion. The AP1000 at 71 m (234 ft) would be

visibly intrusive.

Concerns regarding the design and operation of additional units on the viewshed of the Colonial

National Historic Park were raised by the National Park Service. The Colonial National Historic

Park includes Jamestown, the Yorktown Battlefield, and the Colonial Parkway. The staff and its

contractor met with the Park Service prior to conducting a supplemental visit to the Surry site on

September 19, 2005, to assess the potential adverse effects at Surry as an alternative site to

the proposal for the North Anna ESP site. The summary of the site visit is contained in a trip

report dated July 6, 2006 (ML061720366) (NRC 2006). In its letter dated October 25, 2005, the

National Park Service suggested that the physical size of the units and the operational impacts,

would have an adverse effect on the viewshed from both Jamestown and the Colonial Parkway

(NPS 2005).

In its summary (NRC 2006), the staff found:

The Colonial National Historical Park (NHP), particularly the Jamestown Unit and the

associated initial stretch of the Colonial Parkway that extends eastward along the shoreline

of the James River, and the Jamestown National Historic Site would be the most directly

visually impacted. The Colonial NHP is managed by the National Park Service while the

adjoining Jamestown National Historical Site is owned and managed by the Association for

the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. In the words of the co-managers: “Jamestown is a

world-class cultural historic site that needs to be promoted, explored, and fully presented to

communicate its significance in history.”

and

Based on the high level of historical significance attributed to the Jamestown historical

features and the fact that current views of the Surry Power Plant range from full to partial,

from both the island and the Colonial Parkway, even more visible plant structures and the

added cooling towers and condensation plumes would constitute a major visual intrusion

from this significant historic property. ...In the context of an ESP with a building height of

234 feet at the Surry site, the visual impacts to Colonial NHP and the Jamestown National
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-36 December 2006

| Historical Site would be considered clearly noticeable and would be sufficient to possibly

| destabilize the viewshed.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation on

aesthetics in the vicinity of the Surry site generally would be SMALL to MODERATE, but that a

LARGE impact could occur at historically important sites (Section 8.5.5.4).

Housing

A 10 percent vacancy rate out of a total 110,250 housing units currently exists in Isle of Wight,

Surry, and James City Counties and the city of Newport News Independent City. Surry County

has the highest vacancy rate at 20 percent (NRC 2002). Given the proximity of the Surry site to

four major metropolitan areas, housing for construction workers, most of whom will be coming

from within the region, and the operations workforce is expected to be available.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction and operations

workforce on the demand and housing availability would be SMALL. The conclusion is based

on approximately 10,000 vacant housing units in the region and the Surry site’s proximity to the

larger metropolitan areas in the region.

Public Services

Water Treatment Facilities

Isle of Wight County has municipal water supply systems in the towns of Windsor, Smithfield,

and Franklin. Permitted groundwater wells supply these systems. Surry County has municipal

water supply systems in the towns of Claremont, Dendron, and Surry. The municipal water

supply for James City County is provided by the Newport News Waterworks and the James City

Service Authority. Newport News Waterworks is one of the top 100 largest water utilities in the

United States and one of the three largest in Virginia. James City Service Authority’s water

system consists of the central system with 29 well facilities and six independent water systems

with five well facilities servicing them. Public water supply for Newport News is provided by the

Newport News Waterworks. Water is supplied to nearly 400,000 residents of Poquoson,

Hampton, and Newport News, and to portions of York and James City Counties. The primary

source of raw water is the Chickahominy River. Water supply needs in the intermediate term

are expected to be met, with all towns and cities in the region having excess capacity

(NRC 2002).

Water supply needs near the Surry site are not a current concern with all towns and cities in the

region having excess capacity. Most of the construction workforce would come from within the

region and, therefore, are already accounted for in the demands being placed on the systems

and their excess capacities. The station operating workforce, while relocating to the region,
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-37 NUREG-1811, Volume I

would probably take up residence across the region, thus not particularly impacting any one

community or jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction and operation on water supply treatment facilities would be SMALL.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

In the larger metropolitan areas of Richmond and Henrico County and the cities of Norfolk,

Hampton Roads, and Virginia Beach, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be materially

impacted by an increase in the construction workforce. Many of the construction workers are

anticipated to already live in the region and would commute to the Surry site. As a result, these

workers are already served by existing services and facilities.

The operations workforce of about 720 workers and their families is anticipated to relocate to

the site from outside the region. Most likely they would locate in residences across the region

and would not concentrate in one location. As such, inordinate demands are not likely to be

placed on these services and facilities.

Most construction workers already live within the region. The incoming operations workforce

would likely have residences scattered across the region. As a result, there should be minimal

new demands placed on these services and facilities by either construction or operations

employees. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and

operations workforce on police, fire, and medical facilities would be SMALL.

Social Services

Social services in the Commonwealth are provided in each county by the Virginia Department of

Social Services. The Department, which provides a variety of services to children and adults,

has 131 local departments located throughout Virginia (VDSS 2004). During the construction

phase at the Surry site, there may be an increased demand for social services.

Generally, construction and operation of new units on the Surry site would be viewed as

economically beneficial to the disadvantaged population segments served by the Department. 

The workforce associated with the Surry site would be relatively higher paid than other

employment categories in the region. Construction and operation of the new units, through the

multiplier effect, may enable members of the disadvantaged population to improve their social

and economic position by moving up to higher paying jobs. At a minimum, the expenditures of

the construction and operations workforce in the counties for items such as food and services

could, through the multiplier effect, increase the number of jobs that could be filled by the

disadvantaged population.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the demand for social and related services as a

result of construction and operation of two new units would be SMALL. Construction and
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-38 December 2006

operation of two new units would be expected to have a beneficial economic impact to the

economically disadvantaged population of the region, which should lessen the demand for

social services. There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the

beginning of the construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited.

Education

The Surry County School system has just over 1200 students (Great Schools 2004). There

currently is no overcrowding in the system (NRC 2002). In the other counties and cities of the

region, it is anticipated that the construction and operations workforce would minimally impact

school infrastructure. Many construction workers already live within the region. Those that do

not live within the area are not expected to move their families into the area. This conclusion is

based on Dominion’s assertions in its ER for the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2006), and by

inference is applicable to the Surry site because of the geographical proximity of the two sites. 

The operations workforce, while coming from outside and relocating into the region, would

probably be scattered throughout the region, placing little demand on school infrastructure as a

result.

It is anticipated that most of the construction workforce would come from within the area and

would not relocate their families. Those construction and operations workers potentially

relocating to the region would most likely be scattered throughout the region and, as a result,

would not be in sufficient concentrated pockets to place an undue burden on the existing

infrastructure. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of the construction

and operations workforce on education facilities in Surry County and the area would be SMALL.

8.5.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

Historic and cultural resources at the Surry site have been addressed in the recent

supplemental EIS relating to renewal of the existing operating licenses for Surry Units 1 and 2

(NRC 2002) and supporting information (Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2001). Associated with that

effort was consultation with eight Commonwealth of Virginia-recognized Native American Indian

Tribes: the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, Chickahominy Indians-Eastern Division, Mattaponi

Indian Tribe, Monacan Indian Nation, Nansemond Indian Tribe, the Pamunkey Indian Tribe, the

Rappahannock Tribe, and the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe.

While there are no currently recorded historic and cultural resources at the Surry site,

evaluations of the potential for such occurrences included acreages with the following

designations: No Potential (areas previously disturbed during initial construction of the plant),

Low Potential (areas that may or may not have been disturbed during construction and areas

with little potential for human occupation), and Moderate-to-High Potential (areas with little past

surface disturbance and with a likelihood for prehistoric and historic sites based on regional

comparative data). Should this alternate site be selected for an ESP, the staff expects that
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-39 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion would consult with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources concerning the need

for additional field inventory of acreage for historic and cultural resources prior to undertaking

any ground-disturbing activities.

As noted in Section 8.5.5.3, the existing Units 1 and 2 containment structures were originally

constructed below grade so as to minimize visibility of the Surry plant from historic Jamestown

Island, located across the James River about 4.8 km (3 mi) from the plant. Because new units |

could involve construction of a taller containment structure and the addition of mechanical draft |

cooling towers at Surry, the potential for visual impacts to the area’s significant historical

resources would be increased through increased visibility of the new structures and view of a

condensation plume from the cooling towers during plant operation, or both. In addition to the

Colonial National Historical Park, which includes both Jamestown Island and the Colonial

Parkway, other historic sites/districts that could be affected include the Williamsburg Historic

District and Carter’s Grove Plantation on the north side of the James River. South of the river,

other historic properties that could experience visual intrusions include Bacon’s Castle and

Smith’s Fort Plantation, both owned and operated as visitor attractions by the Association for

the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and the Chippokes Plantation Historic District, a

component of the Chippokes Plantation State Park managed by the Virginia Department of

Conservation and Recreation. Under certain weather conditions, such as cooler winter days,

taller plumes of condensation could possibly be seen from other historic properties, such as

some of the James River Plantations located upriver from the Surry plant.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the potential impacts within the plant site

boundaries on historic and cultural resources from construction and operation of two new

nuclear units at the Surry site would be SMALL. However, the potential exists for visual

intrusion at the area's significant historic properties, districts and landscapes. The potential

impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE depending on distance and geographic orientation

from the Surry site. At the Colonial National Historic Park where there are vantage points from

historic Jamestown and the Colonial Parkway, the physical size of additional units and the

presence of condensation plumes from operation of units within the bounds of the PPE could be

considered a MODERATE to LARGE visual impact to the historic qualities of this nationally

significant cultural landscape.

8.5.5.5 Environmental Justice

As part of the evaluation of the potential environmental justice impacts related to the Surry site,

the staff used information from NRC’s supplemental EIS for the license renewal of Surry Units 1

and 2 (NRC 2002). The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with the

construction of two additional new nuclear units at the Surry site could affect human populations

were ascertained. The staff then evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could

be disproportionately affected by these impacts. The staff found no unusual resource

dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-40 December 2006

the populations could be disproportionately affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any

location-dependent disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income

populations.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and

operation of the new units at the Surry site to minority and low-income populations would be

SMALL. No disproportionately high and adverse impacts affecting minority and low-income

populations were identified.

8.6 Evaluation of the Portsmouth Site

Dominion identified a 138-ha (340-ac) parcel of land in the northeastern portion of the

Portsmouth site in Ohio as a possible location for two commercial nuclear units (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). The parcel has been evaluated by DOE and slated for transfer from DOE to the

Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative for possible reindustrialization (66 FR 64963).

For this evaluation, the following assumptions were made by the staff about locating the new

units at the Portsmouth alternative site:

& The units would use closed-cycle cooling.

& Natural- or mechanical-draft cooling towers would be employed.

& Groundwater would be the source of cooling water (indirectly from the Scioto River).

& The plant would discharge blowdown water to the Scioto River.

& The land-area needed for the site would be approximately 140 ha (340 ac).

& Additional transmission lines would be needed.

The Portsmouth site is located in Pike County, Ohio, approximately 35 km (22 mi) north of the

Ohio River and 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the town of Piketon. The Portsmouth site vicinity is

shown in Figure 8-3.

Pike County’s largest community, Waverly, is about 16 km (10 mi) north of the Portsmouth site

and has a population of about 4400 residents. The nearest residential center to the site is

Piketon, which is about 5 km (3 mi) north on U.S. 23; its population in 2000 was approximately

1900 people. Additional population centers within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant are Portsmouth

(population 20,909), 35 km (22 mi) south; Chillicothe (population 21,796), 43 km (27 mi) north;

and Jackson (population 6184), 29 km (18 mi) east (Bechtel Jacobs 2003). Approximately

90 percent of Portsmouth site workers reside in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-41 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 8-3. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Vicinity Map
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-42 December 2006

In 2003, the estimated population of the four counties was 215,700 (DOE 2003). The primary

facility at the Portsmouth site is the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a gaseous diffusion

uranium enrichment plant previously operated first by DOE until 1993 and since then by the

United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). Uranium enrichment operations were

discontinued in May 2001, and the plant was placed in cold standby, a nonoperational condition

in which the plant retains the ability to resume operations within 18 to 24 months.

In December 2002, USEC announced that the Portsmouth site will be the location for a Lead

Cascade Demonstration Facility for advanced centrifuge enrichment technology (SAIC 2004). 

NRC has recently authorized possession and use of source and special nuclear material at the

proposed enrichment facility (69 FR 3956). In addition, USEC announced on January 12, 2004,

that the Portsmouth site was selected as the location for a new $1.5 billion advanced centrifuge

commercial plant (referred to as the American Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Plant), expected

to be operational by the end of the decade (DOE 2003). USEC submitted a license application

for this proposed facility to the NRC on August 23, 2004.

The Portsmouth site encompasses approximately 1500 ha (3714 ac), including a 320-ha

(800-ac) fenced core area that contains the former production facilities. The 1180-ha (2914-ac)

area outside the core area includes restricted buffers, waste management areas, plant

management and administrative facilities, gaseous diffusion plant support facilities, and vacant

land. The site is 3 km (2 mi) east of the Scioto River in a small valley that runs parallel to and

approximately 37 m (120 ft) above the Scioto River floodplain (Bechtel Jacobs 2003). Wayne

National Forest borders the plant site on the east and southeast, and Brush Creek State Forest

is located to the southwest, slightly more than 1.6 km (1 mi) from the site boundary. On the

basis of an analysis of Landsat satellite imagery from 1992, dominant land cover categories in

Pike County include deciduous forest (64.6 percent), pasture/hay (21.6 percent), and row crops

(10.3 percent) (DOE 2003).

Water for the Portsmouth site comes from an onsite water treatment plant that in turn draws

water from offsite supply wells adjacent to the Scioto River. The Ohio Valley Electric

Corporation supplies the site with electrical power.

The topography of the Portsmouth site area consists of steep hills and narrow valleys, except

where major rivers have formed broad floodplains. The site is underlain by bedrock composed

of shale and sandstone. The most common type of vegetation on the Portsmouth site is

managed grassland, which makes up approximately 30 percent of the site or about 445 ha

(1100 ac). Approximately 28 percent of the site is forested, predominately by stands of

oak-hickory and mixed hardwood (DOE 2003).

The Portsmouth site is located in the humid continental climatic zone and has weather

conditions that vary greatly throughout the year. The site is in a rural setting, and no residences

or other sensitive locations (e.g., schools or hospitals) exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-43 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The Portsmouth site has direct access to major highway and rail systems, a nearby regional

airport, and barge terminals on the Ohio River. Use of the Ohio River barge terminals requires

transportation by public road to or from the Portsmouth site.

The site is located within the Western Allegheny Plateau ecological province (Omernik 1987). 

The hilly, forested areas of the 138-ha (340-ac) site were harvested for timber before the

Portsmouth facilities were established. The eastern portion of the site has steep forested

slopes while the central and western areas are composed mainly of old fields and managed

grasslands that are not considered unique habitat or environmentally sensitive areas. Little

Beaver Creek runs through the southwestern part of the 138-ha (340-ac) alternative site area

and is identified as having riparian forest along its banks (DOE 2003). Oak-hickory forest

borders the riparian forest. Other than Little Beaver Creek, there is only about 1 ha (2 ac) of

wetlands within the alternative site. There is one Federally listed endangered species, the

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and one non-listed Federal species of concern, (the timber

rattlesnake Crotalus horridus), that potentially could be found on the site.

The Portsmouth site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the surrounding

communities over the last 50 years, including jobs with above-average salaries. DOE does not

pay property taxes to the local communities around the Portsmouth site. However, it has

provided $12.9 million in grants to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative. Other economic

benefits include the collection of sales tax on uranium enrichment services. Sales, property,

and income taxes have been paid over the years to Ohio and local governments by employees

working at the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Major economic activities around Portsmouth consist mainly of farming, lumbering, and small

businesses. Other industries include a cabinet manufacturer and an automotive parts

manufacturer. The site itself has no prime agriculture lands. Sufficient public transportation (rail

and road) is present to support activities at the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

8.6.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

The alternative ESP parcel at the Portsmouth site is irregular in shape. At its widest points, the

parcel spans about 1737 m (5700 ft) in the north-south direction and about 1798 m (5900 ft) in

the east-west direction. The parcel is in a mostly undisturbed part of the site. No hazardous

substances have been stored, released, or disposed of on the parcel (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). The closest disturbed land is used by security personnel for training and as a

firing range. The firing range is outside the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel, but is adjacent to the

parcel’s boundary lines. The location of the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel is shown in Figure 8-4. Two

commercial nuclear units sited at the Portsmouth site would need to have an exclusion area that

meets NRC requirements (10 CFR 100.21(a)). The exclusion area is the area surrounding the

reactor within which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all activities, including

exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area (10 CFR 100.3).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-44 December 2006

Figure 8-4. Potential New Nuclear Station Site at Portsmouth
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-45 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Six wetland areas comprise approximately 1 ha (2 ac) within the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel

(66 FR 64963). Five of these areas are ditches within a borrow area. The remaining wetland is

associated with a previously disturbed natural area. Dominion determined that construction

activities could take place without affecting the wetland areas (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Land within 8 km (5 mi) of the Portsmouth site is used primarily for farms, forests, and urban or

suburban residences (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). About 10,291 ha (25,430 ac) of farmland,

including cropland, wooded lots, and pasture, are within 8 km (5 mi) of the site. The cropland is

mostly found on or adjacent to the Scioto River floodplain and is farmed extensively, particularly

with grain crops. The hillsides and terraces are used as pasture for both beef and dairy cattle. 

There are no state or national parks, conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, or other areas

of recreational, ecological, scenic, or aesthetic importance within the immediate vicinity of the

Portsmouth site. There are approximately 9874 ha (24,400 ac) of forestland within 8 km (5 mi)

of the site. This land includes some commercial woodlands and a small portion of Brush Creek

State Forest. A relatively small area of urban land, about 206 ha (510 ac), is also within 8 km

(5 mi) of the Portsmouth site. This land is situated primarily in and around Piketon,

approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) north of the center point of the site.

The Portsmouth site is about 113 km (70 mi) south of Columbus, Ohio, and 121 km (75 mi) east

of Cincinnati, Ohio, the two closest metropolitan areas. Huntington, West Virginia, is

approximately 140 km (87 mi) southeast of the site. The cities of Portsmouth, Jackson, and

Chillicothe, Ohio, are approximately 40 km (25 mi) from the facility (south, east, and north,

respectively). There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of the site. Together,

these communities could supply an adequate workforce for construction of new generating units

and are within a 2-hour commuting distance via local transportation routes (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). The regional transportation network consists of two major highways,

U.S. Route 23 and SR 32, and numerous state routes including SRs 35, 52, 124, and 139. 

Offsite land-use impacts associated with construction of new nuclear generating units are likely

to be relatively limited, given the temporary nature of the construction. Construction of new

rental housing and/or new manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks could be

expected to accommodate construction workers.

The majority of current Portsmouth workers live in Scioto and Pike Counties and in the city of

Portsmouth, which is the county seat of Scioto County (DOE 2003). The staff assumed that

workers at two units located at the Portsmouth site would also primarily live in Scioto and Pike

Counties. Some new housing in Scioto and Pike Counties plus surrounding communities would

likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The property tax

revenue from the new units could affect future land use in the area surrounding the plant as a

result of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts on the site and in the

vicinity of construction and operation would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-46 December 2006

An extensive existing electric power transmission system serves the Portsmouth site. During

previous full-power operations of the enrichment facility, the site imported approximately

1900 MW(e) of power with a reported system capacity of approximately 2260 MW(e) (Dominion

and Bechtel 2002). One or more relatively short transmission lines (approximately 900 m

[3000 ft]) could be used to connect to the existing transmission system serving the Portsmouth

site. Transmission lines that would be constructed to connect new power reactors with the

existing Portsmouth transmission system would primarily cross previously developed industrial

lands within the boundaries of the Portsmouth site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Otherwise,

relatively little land would be altered for the construction of the new lines. Accordingly, the staff

concluded that the overall impacts of constructing new lines and operating and maintaining

them would be SMALL.

8.6.2 Water Use and Quality

Whether the consumptive water use for new nuclear units at the Portsmouth site would be

provided indirectly from the Scioto River aquifer via groundwater wells or directly from the river

itself, the consumptive water use for a power reactor at the Portsmouth site would impact the

Scioto River. Groundwater in the aquifer is directly connected to the Scioto River. The aquifer

is a major source of water to domestic, industrial, and agricultural users in the region.

The staff reviewed streamflow records reported by the USGS for stream gauge 03231500

(Scioto River at Chillicothe, Ohio). This gauge reflects runoff from a drainage of 9969 km2

(3849 mi2) and has data for the period from 1921 to present. Using these data, the staff

independently estimated the lowest 7-day discharge for low water condition that is estimated

every 10 years (7Q10) and the lowest 30 days of flow in an average year (30Q2) values. For

this gauge, the 7Q10 was estimated to be 5.72 m3

/s (202 cfs) and the 30Q2 was estimated to

be 11.4 m3

/s (403 cfs). The 7Q10 provides an estimate of the short-term, low-flow conditions in

a dry year. The 30Q2 provides an estimate of the intermediate-term low-flow conditions in an

average year.

The maximum make-up water flow rate for a single unit is estimated in the PPE as 2.78 m3

/s

(98.0 cfs); however, the portion of the flow not evaporated is ultimately returned to the river as

blowdown flow. Based on the PPE, the maximum evaporation for a single unit using

mechanical draft cooling towers is 1.23 m3

/s (43.5 cfs). For either one or two units, this

represents a significant fraction of both the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 values. Some mitigation, such

as aquifer recharge, offstream storage, etc., may be warranted to limit the impacts to other

water users in the region. Therefore, the staff estimates water use impacts at the Portsmouth

site during construction would be SMALL, and during operation would be SMALL to

MODERATE except during drought years when the impact is expected to be MODERATE. 

Discharge of thermal and chemical effluents would be regulated by the State of Ohio’s National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process to limit water quality
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-47 NUREG-1811, Volume I

impacts to the Scioto River. Therefore, the staff concludes that water quality impacts during

construction and operation would be SMALL.

8.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

Site preparation and construction of one or more nuclear reactor units at the Portsmouth

alternative site would result in the loss of wildlife habitat in the developed portion of the

approximately 140 ha (340-acre) site. In general, the types of habitat that would be lost are

relatively common in south-central Ohio, and are not considered to be unique or sensitive. Less

than 0.4 ha (1 ac) of wetlands would be disturbed for the development of this site (Dominion

and Bechtel 2002). Site development would have the potential to result in erosion, dust

generation, and noise impacts that are typical of large construction projects. These could be

mitigated using standard methods of erosion control, dust suppression, and noise abatement.

Site development could result in the loss of habitat for several Federally or State-listed species

(Table 8-4). The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) could inhabit the riparian forest along Little Beaver

Creek, while the rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter

striatus) may inhabit the forested portions of the Portsmouth site. The timber rattlesnake

(Crotalus horridus) has not been observed on the Portsmouth site, but is believed to occur in

the vicinity. DOE has indicated that additional field surveys and evaluations would be needed

prior to development of this location (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Development of the site could adversely affect at least two Ohio State-listed plant species, the

Virginia meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica) and the Carolina yellow-eyed grass (Xyris difformis).

Evaluations for these species would be necessary prior to site development. Pending sitespecific surveys for Federally and State-listed species, site preparation and construction within

the Portsmouth alternative site would not result in noticeable or destabilizing impacts to the

terrestrial ecology of the site. Therefore, pending more detailed evaluations of threatened and

endangered species, the construction impacts would be SMALL. If the Federally or State-listed

animal species are observed at the site, the impacts could be larger.

If new reactor units were constructed at the Portsmouth alternative site, it would be expected

that very little usable habitat would remain within the site. Operation of the facility would likely

result in noise generation, and if wet cooling towers were employed, there could be impacts

caused by salt drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise is likely to be typical of operating

reactor units and cooling towers, which has been found to have a minimal impact in most

instances (NRC 1996). There are no sensitive habitat areas adjacent to the Portsmouth site

that would be adversely affected by noise from plant operations. The terrestrial vegetation in

the vicinity of the site is not believed to be unusually sensitive to salt drift, fogging, or icing

(Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Bird collision impacts would not be expected to be different from
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-48 December 2006

Table 8-4. Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species Potentially

Near the Portsmouth Alternative Site

Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

Mammals

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E E

Birds

Accipiter stiatus sharp-shinned hawk E

Reptiles

Crotalus horridus timber rattlesnake E

Opheodrys aistivus rough green snake S

Plants

Rhexia virginica Virginia meadow-beauty P

Xyris difformis Carolina yellow-eyed grass E

E = endangered, S = Special concern, P = potentially threatened.

Source: DOE 2003.

most other power plants (NRC 1996). Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the

impacts of operation of one or more reactor units at the Portsmouth alternative site on terrestrial

ecosystems would be SMALL.

Transmission lines that would be constructed to connect new power reactors with the existing

Portsmouth transmission system would primarily cross either industrial lands or earlysuccessional plant communities that are not considered to be unique in the region or otherwise

sensitive. One exception is the potential for Indiana bats to inhabit the riparian zone along Little

Beaver Creek. Additional evaluations and habitat preservation precautions may be necessary if

the transmission lines cross this habitat. Otherwise, very little land would be altered for the

construction of the new lines, and the overall impacts of constructing new lines would be

minimal and would be similar to those of the construction of the reactor units.

Dominion has not indicated the specific maintenance procedures that would be followed for the

new transmission lines, but they would likely include regular mowing and herbicide applications

as needed. The primary area of potential concern is whether the lines must cross Little Beaver

Creek, where precautions to protect Indiana bats and their habitat may be required. 

Additionally, there are at least two rare plant species (Table 8-4) that could occur within

transmission lines rights-of-way and could therefore be affected by transmission line

maintenance. Additional evaluations for the Indiana bat and rare plant species would be

needed. Otherwise, because the transmission lines that would be needed are short, entirely

within the bounds of the Portsmouth site and cross areas that have been previously disturbed,

the impacts of operation and maintenance of the transmission line system on the terrestrial

ecology would be expected to be minimal. No special mitigation measures would be warranted,
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-49 NUREG-1811, Volume I

except protection of the riparian zone along Little Beaver Creek and conservation of rare plant

species, if present.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impact on terrestrial ecological

resources of the construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units and associated

cooling systems and transmission facilities at the Portsmouth alternative site would be SMALL,

pending additional surveys for threatened and endangered species within the construction area

or transmission line rights-of-way. If such species were found, some mitigation measures may

be warranted.

8.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The aquatic resources near the Portsmouth site would not be expected to be impacted by the

construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units. The water used for cooling at

Portsmouth would be withdrawn from groundwater wells. The cooling water would be expected

to be discharged to the Scioto River. Discharge limits would be controlled by Federal and State

regulations for protection of the river. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the

overall impact on aquatic ecological resources (including threatened and endangered species)

of construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units and associated cooling towers

and transmission facilities at the Portsmouth site would be SMALL.

8.6.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

The potential impacts on socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental

justice from construction and operation of two units at the Portsmouth site were evaluated using

a reconnaissance survey of the site. That is, readily obtainable data from the Internet or

published sources were used in the evaluation, and no new data were collected. The

subsections that follow reflect the organizational structure of the socioeconomic discussions

found in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts resulting from both construction and operation

of two units are addressed.

8.6.5.1 Physical Impacts

Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts due to matters such

as noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emission. The use of

public roadways, railways, and barges would be necessary to transport construction materials

and equipment to the site. SR 32 and U.S. Route 23 appear to be well maintained and have

been used for transporting heavy loads in the past (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The staff

expects that all construction activities would occur within the boundaries of the Portsmouth site. 

Offsite areas that would support construction activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, disposal

sites) are expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-50 December 2006

constructing two nuclear units would be small incremental impacts associated with their normal

operation.

Potential impacts from station operation could result from matters including noise, odors,

exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. Noise would be produced from the

operation of cooling towers, pumps, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard

equipment, and from traffic. Dominion states in its ER that any noise coming from the North

Anna ESP site would be controlled in accordance with applicable local county regulations. By

inference, this is also expected to apply to the Portsmouth site. Good road conditions and

appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting

to the Portsmouth site.

The nuclear units would be expected to have emissions from auxiliary power systems and

standby diesel generators. It is expected that the combined annual emissions of any pollutant

would be less than 91 MT/yr (100 tons/yr) (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Air permits acquired

for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. Paved access

roads and appropriate speed limits would minimize the amount of dust emissions generated by

the commuting workforce.

The nuclear facility with its two units and associated buildings and its cooling towers and

associated plume would change the landscape and would be visible from the sparsely

| populated area north of the site. These impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of construction and

| operation would be SMALL to MODERATE. Construction activities would be temporary and

occur mainly within the boundaries of the Portsmouth alternative site. Offsite impacts would

represent small incremental changes to offsite services supporting construction activities. 

During station operations, noise levels would be managed to meet local ordinance

requirements. Air quality permits would be required for equipment such as diesel generators

and auxiliary boilers, which should limit air emissions and ensure that applicable standards

are met.

8.6.5.2 Demography

The Portsmouth site is located in Pike County, Ohio, approximately 35 km (22 mi) north of the

Ohio River and 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the town of Piketon. Pike County’s largest community,

Waverly, has a population of 4433 residents. The nearest residential center to the site is

Piketon with a population of 1907. Additional population centers within 80 km (50 mi) of the

plant are Portsmouth (population 20,909), 35 km (22 mi) south; Chillicothe (population 21,796),

43 km (27 mi) north; and Jackson (population 6184), 29 km (18 mi) east. Approximately

90 percent of Portsmouth site workers reside in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties. 

The population for the four counties in 2000 was 212,876 (USCB 2000b).
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The estimate is based on a methodology explained in Dominion and Bechtel (2002) and updated

using 2000 census data.

December 2006 8-51 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Most of the construction and operations workforce are expected to come from within the region,

and those who might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the larger

population base. Those who do relocate to the region would most likely take up residency

across the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that any environmental impacts

caused by population increases within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Portsmouth site

attributable to construction or operation of two units would be SMALL.

8.6.5.3 Community Characteristics

Economy

Economic activities near the Portsmouth site consist primarily of farming, timber harvesting and

processing, and small businesses. The only significant industry in the vicinity is an industrial

park south of Waverly. Industries include a cabinet manufacturer and an automotive parts

manufacturer (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The unemployment rate in Ohio was 6.1 percent as of July 2004. At that time, the

unemployment rates in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties were 9.2, 8.3, 7.8 and

8.5 percent, respectively (ODJFS 2004). This data indicates that this area of Ohio has not fully

recovered from the recession of 2001. The Portsmouth site itself has provided significant

socioeconomic benefits for the surrounding communities over the last 50 years, providing jobs

that paid above average wages and salaries. The overall economic impacts of constructing and

operating two units at the Portsmouth alternative site would be beneficial to the local economy.

Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers more than 5 years to

build two nuclear units at the Portsmouth site. The Portsmouth site would draw its workers from

the tri-state area of southern Ohio, northern Kentucky, and western West Virginia. The

construction workforce in this region is estimated to be 491,265.(a)

Except for electricians, skilled craft workers in the Portsmouth area are reported as fully

employed. The concentration of industrial facilities within this region (e.g., oil refineries and

steel mills) provides yearly employment for the building trades. This could present significant

competition for manpower if this site were selected for construction of new nuclear units. 

Moreover, this area has a reputation as a complicated labor environment, and the shutdown of

the Portsmouth enrichment facility operations has contributed to this climate (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-52 December 2006

The Portsmouth site currently provides employment for more than 1800 people. The site

employs a highly skilled workforce with decades of nuclear-related experience. During the

last several years, Portsmouth has undergone a major downsizing. Dominion would need

approximately 720 new employees to operate two new nuclear units. The addition of

commercial nuclear generation would be expected to add jobs of similar or higher quality to the

existing workforce, many of which could be filled by current or former Portsmouth site

employees (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that there appears to be a large supply of

construction workers but a limited availability of skilled craft workers. Dominion may have to

recruit from outside the region to fill its requirements for skilled craft workers. Employees for

station operation would be expected to be available from within the region because of the

downsizing of the Portsmouth site workforce.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of station construction

and operation on the economy of the region would be SMALL everywhere in the region except

Pike County, where the beneficial impact level on the region would be MODERATE. The

magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic bases of the

region; whereas, within the smaller economic base of Pike County and given the fact the new

units would be located in the county, the economic impacts could be more noticeable and have

a greater beneficial impact.

Taxes

The State of Ohio has a 5-percent sales tax. In addition to the State sales tax, each county in

Ohio has a county sales tax. Jackson, Ross, and Scioto Counties each have a sales tax rate of

1.5 percent, and Pike County has a sales tax rate of 1 percent (NRC 2004). Sales taxes would

be paid from the sales of construction materials and supplies purchased for the project. The

State of Ohio has a personal income tax rate with a top marginal rate of 5.2 percent for incomes

in excess of $40,000 (NRC 2004).

The average property tax rates for Ohio cities are divided into three separate classifications:

Class I Real (residential and agricultural); Class II Real (commercial, industrial, mineral, and

public utility); and Class III Tangible Personal (general and public utility) (NRC 2004). For

Waverly in Pike County, the rate was $0.07412 per $1000 for all three classifications in 2001;

for Portsmouth in Scioto County, the rate was $0.06013 per $1000 for all three classifications in

2001; for Wellston in Jackson County, the rate was $0.05500 per $1000 for all three

classifications; and for Chillicothe in Ross County, the Class I rate was $0.05407, the Class II

rate was $0.05394, and the Class III rate was $0.05402 per $1000. Finally, because the units

would be built by a private company (Dominion) and not DOE, a property tax might be levied on

the value of the property that hosts the units as they are constructed and on the appraised value

of the units once construction is completed and the units are brought online. These taxes would

most likely go to Pike County.
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The site would not be on land owned by Dominion. Most likely, should the Portsmouth site be chosen |

for the new plant, the site for the new units would be leased to Dominion by DOE.

(b) The derivation of this impact is based on the fact that the fiscal year 2003 amount of property taxes

collected in Pike County was $9,878,000 (Burton in Jaksch and Scott 2005). For comparison, NAPS

Units 1 and 2 pay approximately $10 million in annual property tax to Louisa County (the actual

amount that nuclear utility would pay to Pike County would depend on assessed value and millage

rate per thousand of assessed value). On the assumption that there is a rough comparison between

what Dominion pays to Louisa County and what they might pay to Pike County, it can be concluded

that the potential percentage of a nuclear facility’s property taxes to the total of all property taxes paid

in Pike County would be significant

December 2006 8-53 NUREG-1811, Volume I

DOE does not pay property taxes to the local communities around the Portsmouth site. 

However, DOE has provided $12.9 million in grants to the Southern Ohio Diversification

Initiative. Other economic benefits include the collection of sales tax on uranium enrichment

services. Adding commercial nuclear capacity at the Portsmouth site would be expected to

increase the tax base for these localities for the life of the two units (Dominion and Bechtel

2002).(a)

Workers living outside Ohio and commuting to Portsmouth likely will have to pay income taxes

to their state of residence (West Virginia and Kentucky). They may also have to pay sales taxes

to the State and local governments in the region where sales take place and property taxes to

the counties in which they might own a residence.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes the overall beneficial impacts of construction and

operation of the new facility on taxes collected in the region through the income, sales and use,

and property taxes (except for Pike County) would be SMALL. The taxes paid, while

substantial, are nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes collected

by states and local governments in the region. For property taxes for Pike County, the staff

considers the overall beneficial impacts of the property taxes collected would be MODERATE |

(construction) and LARGE(b) (operations) relative to the total amount of taxes the county collects |

through property taxes.

Transportation

Two major highways serve the Portsmouth site: U.S. 23 and SR 32. At their nearest points,

these highways run within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the site. Access to the site is by the main access

road, a four-lane interchange with U.S. 23, and the north access road, which initially is a

two-lane road that transitions to four lanes with SR 32. SR 32 and U.S. 23 both appear to be

well maintained and have been used for the transport of heavy loads (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-54 December 2006

As previously mentioned, constructing the two units would employ a construction workforce of

5000. Operating two nuclear units would employ an operations workforce of 720. During the

Portsmouth site operational period, between the 1970s and 2001, the total workforce numbered

about 5000 at its peak. Currently 1800 people work at the site. Based on this previous peak,

nearby access roads should be capable of supporting both construction and operations

commuter traffic at this level with some roadway upgrades and traffic signal improvements. 

In addition, there are adequate transportation routes in the area to handle transportation of bulk

materials to and from the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Two major rail lines service the site: CSX and Norfolk and Southern. Both railways appear to

be in excellent condition. Approximately 35 km (22 mi) south of the Portsmouth site, two main

rail lines run east-west along the Ohio River. The river is used for barge transportation, so

materials could be off-loaded from barges onto rail cars, making transportation to the

Portsmouth site by either rail or road achievable (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Numerous airports are within 161 km (100 mi) of the site, including the airports at Columbus,

Cincinnati, and Dayton, Ohio, and Charleston, West Virginia. All these airports conduct regular

freight and passenger air services. In addition, there are numerous smaller airports in the

immediate vicinity. Thus, air passenger service and freight service for shipment of small items

via air are readily available (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The Portsmouth site is in a rural, low-population area. The regional transportation network is

adequate for commuter and transient traffic in the area. The transportation system around

the Portsmouth site was capable of handling 5000 workers during previous periods of peak

operations. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the transportation impacts of a

construction or operating workforce on the transportation infrastructure would be SMALL.

Aesthetics and Recreation

There are no significant recreational or residential areas within 3 km (2 mi) of the Portsmouth

alternative site. Mechanical-draft cooling towers or natural-draft towers could function as part of

the new nuclear units’ cooling system, which could produce visible plumes offsite. Nearby trees

may serve as a visual buffer for the transmission facilities. The preferred location at the

Portsmouth site is situated in an area with open terrain. Because the preferred site is close to

the northeast corner of the existing site boundary, it is possible that any nuclear units would

have an identifiable nuclear power plant view offsite (Dominion and Bechtel 2002), especially if

natural draft towers were used for cooling.

Recreational facilities in the Portsmouth area include Brush Creek State Forest. Use of Lake

White State Park is occasionally heavy and is concentrated on the 43 ha (107 ac) of land

closest to the lake. The number of visitors in 1992 was 55,876 with a daily average of 153

(Dominion and Bechtel 2002).
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-55 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The AP1000 reactor has a tall containment building, approximately 71 m (234 ft) above grade

level. Natural-draft cooling towers would be about 170 m (550 ft) above grade and

mechanical-draft towers would be about 18 m (60 ft) above grade. The design of the AP1000

containment building includes a hatch that determines the height that it must be above grade. 

This building would be expensive to redesign to allow the building to be placed lower in the

ground. Thus, depending on the type of cooling tower chosen, the height of the AP1000

containment building could set the upper bound of what buildings would be visible from offsite.

There are no significant residential areas or recreational facilities within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. 

Plumes from mechanical-draft cooling towers could be visible offsite. Trees ordinarily serve as

a visual buffer for the power transmission infrastructure. Based on the foregoing, the staff

concludes that the impacts of construction and station operation on aesthetics at a wooded site

would be SMALL. But the impacts could also be MODERATE, if the Portsmouth site is on a

mostly undisturbed part of the site and on open terrain, enabling the reactors and the cooling

towers and their plumes to be viewed from offsite.

Housing

In the four-county area of Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties, there were 89,026 housing

units in 2000. Of these, 22,824 were rental units, 2150 of which were vacant, for an 8.6 percent

vacancy rate (USCB 2000c). The Portsmouth site is about 113 km (70 mi) south of Columbus,

Ohio, (population in 2000 of 711,470), and 121 km (75 mi) east of Cincinnati, Ohio, (population

in 2000 of 331,285), which are the two closest metropolitan areas (USCB 2000b). Huntington,

West Virginia (population 51,475), is approximately 140 km (87 mi) away to the southeast. 

These three cities have a total housing stock of 519,075, of which 256,326 are renter-occupied

and 24,868 units are available for rent for a vacancy rate of 8.8 percent (USCB 2000c). 

Because it is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day,

there appears to be enough vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate to the

region.

In the four-county area of Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties there were 58,246

owner-occupied housing units in 2000. In the four-county area, 1085 units were for sale, or

1.8 percent of the total of owner-occupied houses. In the three-city area of Columbus,

Cincinnati, and Huntington, there were 218,258 owner-occupied housing units and 4778 units

for sale, or 2.1 percent of total of owner-occupied houses (USCB 2000c). In both the local and

larger metropolitan areas (i.e., Columbus, Cincinnati, and Huntington), the percentage of

houses for sale in relation to owner-occupied housing is very low, indicating a fairly tight

housing market.

The operations workforce is expected to come from current or former employees at the

Portsmouth site. If, however, a substantial number of workers have to be recruited into the

area, upward pressure on housing values could emerge. This assumption is based on the low
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-56 December 2006

number of homes for sale in the area and the fact that the workforce, which would be on the

higher end of the salary scale when compared to other job classifications in the area, may tend

to buy more upscale homes. In this case, the operational impacts could be moderate.

It is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day to the job

site, and many of the construction workers are assumed to already live within the region. There

appears to be sufficient vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate to the region. 

If, as expected, most of the operations workforce have residences already in the region, then

the impacts on housing because of station operation would be small. Based on the foregoing,

and assuming the operations workforce comes from within the region, the staff concludes that

the impacts to housing from construction and operation of the two units would be SMALL, and

mitigation is not warranted.

Public Services

Water and Wastewater Treatment

The capacity of communities to absorb an increase in population depends on the availability of

sufficient community resources, such as water and wastewater treatment. Two large

metropolitan areas (Columbus and Cincinnati) are within 145 km (90 mi) of the site. 

Huntington, West Virginia, is approximately 140 km (87 mi) away. The cities of Portsmouth,

Jackson, and Chillicothe, Ohio, are within about 50 km (30 mi) from the facility (south, east and

north, respectively). There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of Portsmouth. All

these towns and cities are within a 2-hour commuting distance via local transportation routes of

the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) and could provide public services such as water and

wastewater treatment to the construction and operations workforce who might relocate to

the area.

Many of the construction and operations workforce would come from within the region, and

those that choose to relocate to the region would most likely take up residence throughout the

region, thus placing minimal demands on the existing infrastructure. Based on the foregoing,

the staff concludes that the impacts of the construction and operations workforces on water and

wastewater treatment in the region would be SMALL.

Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

The hospital nearest to the Portsmouth site is the Pike Community Hospital, located

approximately 12.1 km (7.5 mi) north of the facility on SR 104 south of Waverly. No other

acute-care facilities are located in Pike County. There is an urgent-care facility, Adena Health

Center, also on SR 104 near the hospital. In addition, two licensed nursing homes are located
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-57 NUREG-1811, Volume I

near Piketon, and one nursing home is located in Wakefield; all are located within 8 km (5 mi) of

the Portsmouth site (NRC 2004). Other medical facilities exist in Jackson, Chillicothe, and

Waverly.

Several State, county, and local police departments provide law enforcement in the region

(NRC 2004). Any additional demands on law enforcement services could potentially be met by

the increased tax revenues available to support the services. There would most likely be a time

delay between the demand for the services and the collection of the tax revenues, which could

cause some short-term financial issues for the impacted jurisdictions.

Many of the potential construction and operations workforce probably already live within an

80-km (50-mi) radius of the region. There are a number of towns within a 2-hour commuting

distance of the site. Any new workers relocating to the area would most likely have places of

residency located throughout the region, which would not place an undue burden on any one

jurisdictional entity’s infrastructure. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts

of the construction and operations workforce on police, fire and medical facilities in the

Portsmouth area would be SMALL.

Social Services

In Ohio, social services at the state level are overseen by the Ohio Department of Jobs and

Family Services. It develops and oversees programs and services designed to help Ohio

residents become independent through education, employment, job skills, and training. A major

responsibility of the department is to work with county departments of job and family services,

child support enforcement agencies, and public children’s services agencies to develop social

service programs to strengthen families, protect children, and provide children with an

opportunity for a better life. The Department also administers the unemployment and medicaid

programs for Ohio. During construction, there could be increased demand for these social

services.

Generally, construction and operation of new nuclear units at the Portsmouth site would be

viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the

Department. The workforce associated with the new units would most likely be better paid than

workers in other employment categories in the region. It is expected that, through the multiplier

effect, the number of jobs that could be filled by the disadvantaged population would increase.

Construction and operation would have a beneficial economic impact to the economically

disadvantaged population in the region, which should lessen the demand for social services. 

There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the beginning of the

construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited. Based on the foregoing, the

staff concludes that the impacts of construction and station operation of two units at the

Portsmouth site on social and related services would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-58 December 2006

Education

Twenty-four public school districts provide public education for approximately 36,000 students in

the region. The two school systems nearest the Portsmouth site are in Pike and Scioto

Counties. In 2002, the combined enrollment of these schools was approximately 2387

(NRC 2004). Within the same area, three facilities provide daycare or schooling for

preschool-aged children and after-school care for school-aged children. Two of these facilities

accommodate 390 children (NRC 2004).

Many in the potential construction and operating workforce probably already live within the

region, and any new workers relocating to the area would most likely take up residency

throughout the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction and station operation on educational facilities and services as a result of

construction and operation of two units would be SMALL.

8.6.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

The area of southern Ohio where the Portsmouth site is located contains evidence from each of

the major prehistoric periods for eastern North America, including the Paleo-Indian, Archaic,

Woodland, and Fort Ancient periods. In early historic times, the area was occupied by the

Shawnee Tribe. The Euro-American historic period occupation in the vicinity began about 1800. 

DOE completed archaeological and historic architectural surveys in 1996 at the Portsmouth site. 

Consultation is ongoing with the Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer concerning the results

of these surveys (DOE 2003). Consultations with the Shawnee Indian Tribe have not identified

any traditional cultural properties or other resources of Native American cultural value at the

site.

The DOE survey found three archeological sites near the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel. The three

sites are northeast of the parcel (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The closest site to the

Portsmouth parcel is the Holt Cemetery, which is located about 183 m (600 ft) from the eastern

boundary of the parcel. No national landmarks are near the Portsmouth site, and no properties

presently on the National Register of Historic Places are within the Portsmouth site. The

nearest National Register locations are Buzzardroost Rock and Lynx Prairie in Adams County,

about 48 km (30 mi) southeast of the Portsmouth site.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural

resources would be SMALL for construction at the Portsmouth site. Potential impacts from

operation of two units at the Portsmouth alternative site would also be SMALL, because any

such potential impacts would be identified and appropriate mitigation measures could be

effected during the construction phase.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-59 NUREG-1811, Volume I

8.6.5.5 Environmental Justice

DOE recently performed an environmental assessment (DOE 2001) for the Portsmouth site as

part of its winterization activities for placing the facility in cold standby. As part of that

assessment, an evaluation of potential environmental justice impacts was conducted. DOE

evaluated the distribution of minority populations in a four-county area around the Portsmouth

site. DOE defined a minority population as any area in which minority representation was

greater than the national average of 24.2 percent. In all four counties, minority populations are

smaller than the national average. Hence, using this definition, environmental justice was not a

concern (DOE 2001), nor is it a concern using the NRC criteria defined in 69 FR 52040 (which is

different than that used by DOE – see Section 2.10). DOE then carried the analysis a step

further and examined the minority populations in the census tracts closest to the site. None of

the tracts closest to the site had minority representation greater than the national average of

24.2 percent (DOE 2001).

Individuals with incomes below the poverty level were identified in the four-county region. A

low-income population included any census tract (1990 data) in which the percentage of people

with income below the poverty level was greater than the national average of 13.1 percent

(Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Nearly all (41 of 48) of the census tracts in the four-county area

qualified as low-income populations, but none of the low-income populations would suffer

disproportionate impacts as a result of the construction and operation of new nuclear units at

the Portsmouth site.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and

operation of two units at the Portsmouth alternative site on minority and low-income populations

would be SMALL. No disproportionately high and adverse impacts were identified.

8.7 Evaluation of the Savannah River Site

Dominion selected a 100-hectare (250-acre) parcel of land in the northern portion of DOE’s

Savannah River Site as a possible location for two commercial nuclear units (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). For this evaluation, the following assumptions were made by the staff about

locating nuclear units at the alternative site at the Savannah River site.

& The units would use closed-cycle cooling.

& Natural- or mechanical-draft cooling towers would be employed.

& Par Pond would be the primary and Savannah River would be the secondary source of |

cooling water.

& The existing intake structure is sufficient.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-60 December 2006

& Blowdown water would be discharged to the Savannah River or to Par Pond.

& The land area would be approximately 100 ha (250 ac).

& New transmission lines would be needed.

DOE’s Savannah River Site occupies an area of approximately 800 km2

 (310 mi2) adjacent to

the Savannah River, in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. The site is approximately

40 km (25 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 31 km (19.5 mi) south of Aiken, South

Carolina. The site is bounded along its southwest border by the Savannah River for

approximately 56 river km (35 river mi). The Savannah River Site vicinity is shown in

Figure 8-5.

The average population density in the counties surrounding the site is approximately 85 people

per square mile, with the largest concentration in the Augusta metropolitan area. Approximately

70 percent of the site employees live in South Carolina, primarily Aiken County, and 30 percent

live in Georgia (Westinghouse 2001).

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, predecessor agency to DOE, established the Savannah

River Site in the early 1950s. Historically, the mission of the site has been the production of

special radioactive isotopes to support national programs. DOE produced these isotopes in five

production reactors. After the material was produced at Savannah River Site, it was shipped to

other DOE sites for further processing.

Approximately 73 percent of the surface area of the Savannah River Site is composed of open

fields and upland forest. The forested areas consist primarily of upland pine and mixed

hardwoods. The remaining area consists of wetlands, streams, and reservoirs (22 percent) and

developed industrial and administrative areas (5 percent) (DOE 1999).

The Savannah River is the principal surface water system associated with the Savannah River

Site. Five of its major tributaries (Upper Three Runs, Fourmile Branch, Pen Branch, Steel

Creek, and Lower Three Runs) flow through and drain the site. The Savannah River is a

domestic and industrial water source for the site and several downstream communities (the

cities of Port Wentworth and Savannah in Georgia and Beaufort and Jasper Counties in South

Carolina). In addition, the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, located across the Savannah River

from the Savannah River Site, uses water from the river for its cooling system (DOE 1999).

The southeastern United States has a humid subtropical climate characterized by relatively

short, mild winters and long, warm, humid summers. Summer-like weather typically lasts from

May through September. The humid conditions often result in scattered afternoon

thunderstorms. Average seasonal rainfall is usually lowest during the fall (DOE 1999).
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-61 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 8-5. Savannah River Site Vicinity Map

The Savannah River Site is within the Southeastern Plains ecological province (Omernik 1987)

near the transition between northern oak-hickory-pine forest and southern mixed forest. Thus,

species typical of both associations are found on the Savannah River Site (DOE 1995). 

Farming, fire, soil, and topography have strongly influenced Savannah River Site vegetation

patterns.

The Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people, many of

whom have nuclear facility training and who are highly skilled. Salaries are above average for
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-62 December 2006

the area. During the last decade, the Savannah River Site has undergone a major downsizing

primarily because of the end of the Cold War. Because of downsizing, the Savannah River Site

has contracted many nonclassified operations to private companies for support services

(Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The Savannah River Site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the

surrounding communities over the last five decades. The facility injects about $1.5 billion

annually into the economies of South Carolina and Georgia, the two states bordering the site. 

The facility provides thousands of jobs with above-average salaries, conducts environmental

and nuclear technology research, and offers business development programs for local

communities (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

8.7.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

The Savannah River Site has extensive undeveloped land that is potentially suitable for

commercial nuclear power generation. DOE conducted a review of potential locations on the

site for possible location of an accelerator for the production of tritium (DOE 1999). DOE

identified six possible locations that satisfied its siting criteria. The preferred site from the DOE

review is approximately 10.4 km (6.5 mi) from the Savannah River Site boundary, 5 km (3 mi)

northeast of the Tritium Loading Facility, and north of Roads F and E (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). The site, which is divided by the boundary line between Aiken and Barnwell

Counties, is bordered on the southwest by a 115-kV transmission line, a buried super-control and

relay cable, and Monroe Owens Road. Three other secondary roads cross the site. The

elevation of the site is 91 to 100 m (300 to 330 ft) MSL. Dominion has adopted the DOE site for

the accelerator as an alternative site for new nuclear generation. For this analysis, the site

boundaries are shown in the upper center portion of Figure 8-6, and the site is referred to as the

Savannah River alternative site.

Dominion did not identify any current or possible future land-use restrictions that would prohibit

the construction of new units on the Savannah River alternative site (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). DOE, however, would need to approve any such construction.

New nuclear generating units located at the Savannah River alternative site would need to have

an exclusion area that meets NRC requirements (10 CFR Part 100). The exclusion area is the

area surrounding the reactor within which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all

activities, including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area.

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) requires that

applicants seeking a Federal permit to conduct an activity that affects a coastal zone area

provide to the permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the

enforceable policies of the state’s coastal zone program. However, the Savannah River Site is

not within the coastal zone of South Carolina for purposes of the Act (SCDHEC 2004).
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-63 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure 8-6. Potential New Nuclear Station Site within the DOE Savannah River Site
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-64 December 2006

Approximately 90 percent of the workforce for the Savannah River Site lives in Aiken, Allendale,

Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

Georgia. There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of the site. These communities

could supply an adequate construction and operating workforce and are within a 2-hour

commuting distance via local transportation routes. Offsite land-use impacts associated with

construction of two commercial nuclear units are likely to be relatively limited, given the

temporary nature of the construction. Some new rental housing or new manufactured home

and recreational vehicle parks would be expected to be constructed to accommodate

construction workers.

The staff assumed that workers at new units that would be located at the Savannah River

alternative site would live primarily in the aforementioned counties. Some new housing in these

counties would likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The

property tax revenue from the new units could affect future land use in these counties as a

result of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue. Based on the

foregoing, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of construction and operation are

expected to be SMALL. 

The transmission system on the Savannah River Site consists of multiple 115-kV transmission

lines forming a ring network around the site. Three switching stations for the 115-kV

transmission lines exist around the site to feed the different area loads. Construction of one or

more new 500-kV transmission lines or several 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to

transmit power from new nuclear units located on the site to the regional grid (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002). Several options for transmitting the electrical output of new nuclear units were

evaluated by Dominion. The likely option would be to construct transmission lines either to the

west through the Savannah River Site, then cross the Savannah River to connect with the

existing system near the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant in Burke County, Georgia, or to a

connection point approximately 97 km (60 mi) west of the Savannah River Site. Because the

detailed routing of these transmission line rights-of-way are not known at this time, a detailed

evaluation of the impacts to land use cannot be made. However, if a tie-in to the Vogtle Nuclear

Power Plant is used, there would be minimal impacts to land use because most of the rights-ofway would be located on the Savannah River Site. The staff concludes that the land use impact

of construction of new transmission capability at the Savannah River alternative site would likely

be in the range of SMALL to MODERATE.

8.7.2 Water Use and Quality

The water consumed by the new units at the Savannah River alternative site would be pumped

from Par Pond. In dry years, local inflows to Par Pond may be inadequate to offset

consumption water demands for the new units. During such times, water to refill Par Pond

would be pumped from the Savannah River. Therefore, new units at the Savannah River

alternative site would impact the Savannah River. The staff reviewed streamflow records

reported by the U.S. Geological Survey for stream gauge 02197000 (Savannah River at
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-65 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Augusta, Georgia). This gauge reflects runoff from a drainage of 19,450 km2 (7508 mi2) and

has provided data for the period from 1884 to 2001. Using these data, the staff independently

estimated the lowest 7-day discharge for low water condition that is estimated every 10 years

(7Q10) and the lowest 30 days of flow in an average year (30Q2) values. For this gauge the

7Q10 discharge was estimated to be 60.8 m3

/s (2150 cfs) and 30Q2 was estimated to be

130 m3

/s (4600 cfs). The 7Q10 provides an estimate of the short-term, low-flow conditions in a

dry year. The 30Q2 provides an estimate of the moderate-term, low-flow conditions in an

average year.

The maximum makeup water flow rate for a single unit is estimated in the PPE as 2.78 m3

/s

(98.0 cfs); however, the portion of the flow not evaporated would ultimately be returned to the

Par Pond as blowdown flow. Based on the PPE, the maximum evaporation for a single unit

using mechanical-draft cooling towers would be 1.23 m3

/s (43.5 cfs). For either one or two

units, this would represent a small fraction of both the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 values. Discharge of

thermal and chemical effluents would be regulated by the State of South Carolina’s NPDES

permitting process to limit impacts to the Savannah River. Therefore, based on the foregoing,

the staff concludes the impact of construction and operation of two units on water use and

quality at the Savannah River alternative site would be SMALL. The staff concludes that water |

quality impacts during construction and operation would be SMALL. |

8.7.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

The Savannah River alternative site is within the Southeastern Plains ecological province

(Omernik 1987) near the transition between northern oak-hickory-pine forest and

southern mixed forest. Thus, species typical of both associations are found on the site

(DOE 1995). Farming, fire, soil, and topography have strongly influenced vegetation patterns

at the Savannah River Site.

A variety of plant communities occur in the upland areas. Typically, scrub oak communities are

found on the drier, sandier areas. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), turkey oak (Quercus laevis),

bluejack oak (Q. incana), and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) dominate these communities,

which typically have understories of wiregrass (Aristida stricta) and huckleberry (Vaccinium

spp.). Oak-hickory communities are usually located on more fertile, dry uplands; characteristic

species are white oak (Q. alba), post oak (Q. stellata), red oak (Q. falcata), mockernut hickory

(Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (C. glabra), and loblolly pine (P. taeda), with an understory of

sparkleberry (V. arboreum), holly (Ilex spp.), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy

(Toxicodendron radicans) (DOE 1995).

Before the Federal government established the Savannah River Site, the area was mainly

farmland that had been highly eroded. Approximately 90 percent of the site has been planted

with loblolly, slash pine (P. elliottii), and hardwood trees. The Savannah River alternative site

consists of mostly forested land, made up predominantly of loblolly and slash pine that have
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-66 December 2006

been planted since the late 1950s. The site is part of a designated forest timber unit under the

Savannah River Site land-use system. The Savannah River Institute (formerly known as the

Savannah River Forest Station) coordinates the removal and sale of marketable timber from the

site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The departure of residents in 1951 and the subsequent reforestation have provided the wildlife

of Savannah River Site with excellent habitat. The site has extensive, widely distributed

wetlands, most of which are associated with floodplains, creeks, or impoundments. In addition,

approximately 200 Carolina bays occur on the site (DOE 1995). Carolina bays are unique

wetland features of the southeastern United States.

Federally and State-listed rare, threatened, and endangered species, including the bald eagle,

wood stork (Mycteria americana), and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), reside

within the Savannah River Site. Federally and State threatened or endangered species

potentially occurring in Aiken or Barnwell Counties are listed in Table 8-5. In addition to the

species listed in Table 8-5, a large number of species, although not listed as threatened or

endangered, are still of concern or interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

(FWS 2004a, b) and/or the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR 2004).

Table 8-5. Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

Potentially Occurring in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina

Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T E

Mycteria americana wood stork E E

Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E E

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat SC E

Amphibians

Rana capito gopher frog SC E

Reptiles

Clemmys guttata spotted turtle -- T

Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise SC E

Plants

Trillium reliquum relict trillium E E

Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E E

Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E E

Linderna melissifolia pond berry E E

Oxypolis canbyi Canby’s dropwort E E

Schwalbea americana American chaffseed E E

E = endangered, T = threatened, SC = species of concern.

Sources: FWS 2004a, b; SCDNR 2004.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-67 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Operation of new units would likely result in noise generation, and if wet cooling towers were

employed, there could be impacts caused by drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise

would likely be typical of operating reactor units and cooling towers, which has been determined

to be a SMALL impact in most instances (NRC 1996). There are no sensitive habitat areas

adjacent to the Savannah River alternative site that would be adversely affected by noise from

plant operations. The nearest bald eagles and wood storks are approximately 5 km (3 mi)

distant. Red-cockaded woodpeckers have not been observed at the Savannah River alternative

site, but could be deterred from using the area if there were increased noise and human activity.

The terrestrial vegetation in the vicinity of the Savannah River alternative site is not believed to

be unusually sensitive to drift, fogging, or icing (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Bird collisions

would not be expected to be different from most other power plants (NRC 1996), and if

mechanical-draft towers are selected, bird strikes are likely to be very rare. Overall, it would be

expected that the impacts of operation of one or more nuclear units at the Savannah River

alternative site on terrestrial systems would be minimal.

The actual routes of transmission lines that would connect new units at the Savannah River

alternative site with the regional grid have not been determined (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). 

Maintenance of the transmission line rights-of-way could impact wetlands, threatened or

endangered species habitat areas, or other sensitive ecological resources. Therefore, the

potential impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line rights-ofway on terrestrial ecosystems cannot be determined without more detailed information

concerning the location of the transmission line rights-of-way and the maintenance procedures

that would be employed. However, large impacts could be avoided by careful route selection;

therefore, the staff concludes the impact of construction on terrestrial resources (including

threatened and endangered species) would be SMALL to MODERATE depending on the

routing of the transmission line rights-of-way. Based on the foregoing, the overall impact on

terrestrial resources including threatened or endangered species of operating two units and

associated cooling systems at the Savannah River alternative site would be SMALL. 

Depending on the location of transmission line rights-of-way, the construction and operational

impacts on threatened and endangered species could be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.7.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

The aquatic environment at the Savannah River Site is associated with the Savannah River. 

The two main bodies of water onsite, Par Pond and L-Lake, were constructed to support site

operations. Par Pond, which was constructed to provide cooling water for, and to receive

heated cooling water from, P-Reactor and R-Reactor, has a surface area of about 1093 ha

(2700 ac). The 405-ha (1000-ac) L-Lake was constructed to receive heated cooling water from

L-Reactor. The Savannah River Site is bounded on its southwest border by the Savannah

River for about 56 river km (35 river mi). Five major streams from the Savannah River Site feed

into the river.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-68 December 2006

All the water for cooling is expected to be withdrawn from the Par Pond or the Savannah River. 

The cooling water blowdown would likely be discharged to Par Pond or the Savannah River. 

Because the expected cooling system would be a closed-cycle system, the impacts to aquatic

resources would be expected to be minimal. The potential for impingement and entrainment of

aquatic resources would be expected to be mitigated by the current operation of the intake

structure. The potential impacts of heated water would be expected to be mitigated by the

placement of the discharge structures.

There are two endangered species in the Savannah River alternative site. They are the

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria). Both are

protected under current management practices used by DOE at the Savannah River Site. The

staff evaluated the potential impacts of operating new nuclear units, including operating the

plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on aquatic threatened and endangered

species.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impact on aquatic ecological

resources, including threatened and endangered species, of construction and operation of two

units and associated cooling towers and transmission facilities at the Savannah River

alternative site would be SMALL.

8.7.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating two units at the

Savannah River Site, the staff undertook a reconnaissance survey of the site. That is, readily

obtainable data from the Internet or published sources were used in the evaluation, and no new

data were collected. The subsections that follow reflect the organizational structure of the

socioeconomic discussions found in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts resulting from both

construction and operation of the two units are addressed.

8.7.5.1 Physical Impacts

Construction activities can result in temporary and localized physical conditions such as noise,

odor, vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions that affect the

environment. Further, the use of public roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary

to transport construction materials and equipment to the site. There would, as a result, be

increased use of these infrastructures, both in terms of increased volume and type of vehicular

traffic.

Road access to the Savannah River Site is via SR 125. U.S. 278 cuts through a portion of the

Savannah River Site. Easy access to the Savannah River alternative site could be

accommodated by installing access roads from U.S. 278. Most roads leading to the site are

two-lane roads, but appear to be kept in excellent condition (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-69 NUREG-1811, Volume I

CSX Transportation, Inc., provides rail service to the Savannah River Site. Some upgrades

would likely be needed to accommodate the large and heavy loads associated with construction

of new nuclear units (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

On the Savannah River, there is a barge slip situated on DOE property. This barge slip has

been used in the past for heavy loads and large components such as steam generators. 

Shipment of heavy loads by barge to the Savannah River Site depends on the water level in the

Savannah River. The Savannah River alternative site is on the opposite side of the property

from the barge slip and some additional heavy-haul routes would need to be constructed to

reach it (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

All construction activities would likely occur within the boundaries of the Savannah River Site. 

Offsite areas that would support construction activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, disposal

sites) are expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from

constructing new nuclear units are expected to be small incremental impacts associated with

their normal operation. The alternative site is approximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) from the

Savannah River Site boundary (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Station operation could cause noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. 

Noise would be produced by operation of cooling towers, pumps, transformers, turbines,

generators, and switchyard equipment, and from traffic. The Savannah River Site is a Federal

Reservation. Dominion would need to comply with State and local ordinances which apply to

the Department of Energy (NCA 1972). Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits

would minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting to the site. Nearby trees

would serve as a visual buffer, minimizing visual effects.

The new units would be expected to have emissions from auxiliary power systems, standby

diesel generators, and standby gas turbine generators (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). It is

expected that the combined annual emissions of any pollutant would be less than 91 MT/yr

(100 tons/yr) (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Air quality permits acquired for these generators

would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. Paved access roads and appropriate

speed limits would minimize the amount of dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

Impacts on visual aesthetics would be minimal because the identified site is near the middle of |

the Savannah River Site, 10.4 km (6.5 mi) from the site boundary. |

Direct site-specific impacts from construction activities would be temporary and would occur

mainly within the boundaries of the Savannah River Site. Offsite impacts would represent small

incremental changes to offsite services supporting the construction activities. During station

operations, noise levels would be managed to comply with State and local ordinances as

required by Section 4(b) of the Noise Control Act (42 USC 4903). Air quality permits would be

required for the diesel generators, auxiliary boilers, and other equipment, which should limit air

emissions and meet applicable standards. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-70 December 2006

physical impacts of construction and operation of new units at the Savannah River alternative

site would be SMALL.

8.7.5.2 Demography

The center of the Savannah River Site is approximately 40 km (25 mi) southeast of the city

limits of Augusta, Georgia. The population for Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, was

195,182 in 2000 (USCB 2000d). The site is 161 km (100 mi) from the Atlantic Coast, and about

175 km (110 mi) south-southeast of the North Carolina border. The largest nearby population

centers are Aiken, South Carolina, with a population of 25,337 in 2000 (USCB 2000d), and

Augusta, Georgia. The only towns within 24 km (15 mi) of the center of the Savannah River

Site are New Ellenton, with a population of 2250; Jackson with a population of 1625; Barnwell

with a population of 5035; Snelling, with a population of 246; and Williston with a population of

3307 (USCB 2000d). All of these towns are in South Carolina.

Most of the construction and operations workforce are expected to come from within the region

(see more detailed discussion in Section 8.7.5.3), and those who might relocate to the region

would represent a small percentage of the larger population base. Those who do relocate to

the region would most likely take up residency across the region. Based on the foregoing, the

staff concludes that any environmental effects caused by population increases within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the Savannah River Site resulting from construction and operation of new units

would be SMALL.

8.7.5.3 Community Characteristics

Economy

The unemployment rate in the Augusta-Aiken Metropolitan Statistical Area was 5.7 percent in

June 2004 (Georgia Department of Labor 2004). This compares to a 4.6 percent

unemployment rate for Georgia (Georgia Department of Labor 2004) and a 6.6 percent

| unemployment rate for South Carolina in June 2004 (South Carolina Employment Security

| Commission 2004). Regional unemployment statistics for selected South Carolina counties in

the vicinity of the Savannah River Site include Barnwell County at 12.3 percent unemployment

in June 2004 and Aiken County at 7.1 percent (South Carolina Department of Social Services

2004).

The Savannah River Site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the

surrounding communities over the last 50 years, and currently provides employment for more

than 13,000 people who are highly skilled workers, most of whom are college educated. 

Salaries are above average salaries of the area. The site injects about $1.5 billion annually into

the economies of South Carolina and Georgia (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-71 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers over 5 years to build

two commercial nuclear units (Dominion 2006). As discussed in the previous section on the

economy, the Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people. 

However, during the last decade, some loss of jobs occurred because of the end of the Cold

War (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Construction of a nuclear generating facility would draw workers from South Carolina and

Georgia. The estimated number of construction workers in the two-state region is

approximately 459,725 (BEA 2000). With the extensive local transportation network in the area,

nearby cities could supply an adequate workforce and are well within a 2-hour commuting

distance of the Savannah River Site. Therefore, a minimal influx of project-related population

during plant construction and operation could be expected (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Dominion would need approximately 720 new employees to operate a two-unit nuclear facility. 

The Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people but also

has undergone downsizing. The addition of a new power generating facility would be expected

to add jobs for skilled craft workers (i.e., with skills comparable to or higher than skills of the

existing Savannah River Site workforce). Many of the jobs for skilled craft workers could be

filled by current or former Savannah River Site employees (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

There appears to be a large supply of construction labor and skilled craft workers available. 

Dominion may have to add incentives to draw craft workers from out-of-state with specific skills

to the area because of the lower prevailing wages when compared to other areas outside

Georgia and South Carolina, but it believes it can successfully manage this issue. The

unemployment rates in Aiken and Barnwell Counties are above the State of South Carolina

average unemployment rate. Likewise, the unemployment rate in Augusta is above the average

rate for the State of Georgia. Employees for station operation are expected to be available from

within the region because of the downsizing at Savannah River Site. Based on the foregoing,

the staff concludes that Dominion would be able to obtain a ready supply of construction and

operations labor for the new units.

During the last decade, a major downsizing has occurred at the site because of the end of the

Cold War. Construction and operation of new units would increase employment at the site. These

jobs would provide economic benefits to the local communities (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The

magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic bases of

the region, whereas with the smaller economic base of Barnwell County and the higher

unemployment rate (compared to Aiken County and the State of South Carolina), the economic

impacts could be more noticeable and have a greater beneficial impact. Based on the

foregoing, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction and operation of two

units on the economy of the region would be SMALL everywhere in the region except Barnwell

County, where the beneficial impacts to the county could be MODERATE.
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The potential site for locating new units would not be on land owned by Dominion. Most likely, should

the Savannah River alternative site be chosen for the new power generating facility, the land for the

new units would be leased from DOE by Dominion.

(b) The derivation of this impact is based on the fact the fiscal year 2003 amount of property taxes

collected in Aiken and Barnwell Counties were $68,046,000 (Cornwell in Jaksch and Scott 2005) and

$9,774,000 (Gibson in Jaksch and Scott 2005), respectively. For comparison, NAPS Units 1 and 2

pay approximately $10 million in annual property tax to Louisa County (the actual amount that a

nuclear utility would pay to Barnwell County would depend on assessed value and millage rate per

thousand of assessed value). On the assumption that there is a rough comparison between what

Dominion pays to Louisa County and what they might pay to Barnwell County, it can be concluded

that the potential percentage of a nuclear facility’s property taxes to the total of all property taxes paid

in Barnwell County would be significant.

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-72 December 2006

Taxes

In lieu of property taxes, DOE pays a fee to the localities bordering the site. For 2002, Barnwell

County received a fee of approximately $2 million, Aiken County approximately $800,000, and

Allendale County approximately $100,000 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Construction and operation workers would pay personal income taxes to Georgia and South

Carolina, sales taxes to the State and local governments in the region where sales take place,

and property taxes to the counties in which they might own a residence. In addition, sales taxes

would be paid from the sales of construction materials and supplies purchased for the project. 

Finally, because the units would be built by a private company (Dominion) and not DOE, a

property tax might be levied on the value of the property that becomes part of the additional

units as they are constructed. These taxes would most likely go to Aiken and Barnwell

Counties.(a) Georgia and South Carolina both have corporate income taxes, with the tax rates

being 6 and 5 percent, respectively (Federation of Tax Administrators 2004).

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall beneficial impacts of taxes collected

in the region through the income, sales and use, and property taxes would be SMALL to

LARGE. The staff also concludes that the overall impacts of taxes collected through the

income, sales and use, and property taxes collected in the region would be SMALL for

jurisdictions other than Barnwell County. The taxes paid, while large in absolute value, are

nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by State and

local governments in the region. For property taxes in Barnwell County, the staff concludes that

the overall beneficial impacts of the property taxes collected would be MODERATE

(construction) and LARGE (operation), relative to the total amount of property taxes the county

collects.(b)

Transportation
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) Dominion and Bechtel (2002) states that 3000 to 3500 craft and an additional 800 to 1000 non-manual

labor personnel (or 4500 workers) would be needed at the Savannah River Site. In its ER

(Dominon 2006), Dominion states that 5000 workers would be needed at the North Anna ESP site.

December 2006 8-73 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Two interstate highways serve the vicinity of the Savannah River Site. Several other highways

(U.S. Highways 221, 278, 301, 321, and 601) provide additional transport routes for the area. 

Approximately 84 percent of the Savannah River Site workforce of 13,000 resides in Aiken and

Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia

(Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The regional transportation networks in the Savannah River Site vicinity serve Aiken, Allendale,

Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

Georgia. Approximately 88 percent of the Savannah River Site commuter traffic originates from

these counties. On the site itself, there are more than 322 km (200 mi) of primary roads and

more than 1600 km (1000 mi) of unpaved secondary roads.

In general, heavy traffic occurs in the early morning and late afternoon when workers commute

to and from the Savannah River Site. For the roads in the general region, the worst-case LOS

is associated with routes near the Savannah River bridges, including I-20 and U.S. 1 and urban

routes in North Augusta and Aiken, including South Carolina SRs 230, 25, 19, and 118. 

Significant congestion occurs during peak traffic periods onsite on U.S. Highways 1-A and 278

and on SRs 19 and 125 at Savannah River Site access points. Long delays are also

experienced offsite along I-20 and U.S. Highways 25 and 1 where they cross the Savannah

River. The Savannah River Site has implemented changes to remedy the congestion at some

access points (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Other transportation in the area also includes a rail line for CSX Transportation, Inc. The

Savannah River Site has its own railroad system. Rail traffic is separated into two categories

depending on which track system it would use: CSX operations and the Savannah River Site

railway (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The nearest major airport to the Savannah River Site is in Atlanta, Georgia, and the closest

regional airport is in Augusta, Georgia. The Augusta airport conducts regular freight and

passenger airline services and is large enough to accommodate the relatively small air

shipments normally associated with a large construction project. The Atlanta airport can

accommodate large air shipments. Ground transportation from the Augusta airport takes

approximately 1 hour, and from the Atlanta airport, approximately 3 hours (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002).

During peak new plant construction, 5000 construction workers would be needed.(a) The units’

operations workforce would be approximately 720. The extensive existing roadway network in

the area and the rail lines near the Savannah River alternative site are expected to be capable
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-74 December 2006

of handling an additional 38 percent of the workforce commuting to the site during construction

and the transportation of bulk materials to and from the site. In addition, the workforce would

still be far below the peak levels of employment achieved in 1993. With implementation of

traffic mitigation measures, the construction of two units at the Savannah River alternative site

is expected to result in impacts that are manageable for traffic patterns, workforce commuter

traffic, and rail/truck delivery of materials (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

The Savannah River alternative site is in a limited-access DOE site adjacent to a rural,

low-population area. The regional transportation network is adequate for commuter and

transient traffic in the area. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the transportation

impacts of a construction workforce resulting in an approximately 38 percent increase to the

existing workforce at Savannah River Site would be SMALL. Because the increase in

employment with the operations workforce is less than 5.5 percent of the existing site workforce,

the staff concludes the transportation impacts of the operations workforce would be SMALL.

Aesthetics and Recreation

The preferred location for the two units on the Savannah River Site is more than 10 km (6 mi)

from the closest site boundary. There are no public amenity areas within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. 

Most of the site is dense forest; therefore, nearby trees would provide a visual buffer for the

construction and operation of the units to the public. Because the location is at least 10 km

(6 mi) away from the existing site boundary, offsite observers would not have an identifiable

nuclear power plant view (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

Cooling towers, which could produce visible plumes offsite, are being proposed as part of the

new nuclear units’ cooling system. Dry cooling towers could be an alternative method for plant

cooling. Nearby trees would serve as a visual buffer for the transmission lines (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002).

The surrogate AP1000 reactor has a tall containment building that is approximately 71 m

(234 ft) above grade. The design of this building includes a hatch that determines the height

that it must be above ground. This building would be expensive to redesign to allow the building

to be placed lower in the ground. Thus, the height of the AP1000 containment building sets the

upper bound of what would be visible from offsite. In addition, if natural draft cooling towers are

used, the height of the towers would be approximately 170 m (550 ft).

Prominent geographical features within 80 km (50 mi) of the Savannah River Site are Thurmond

Lake (formerly called Clarks Hill Reservoir) and the Savannah River. The principal surfacewater body associated with the Savannah River Site is the Savannah River, which flows along

the site’s southwest border (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The closest State park is Redcliffe

Plantation State Park, about 16 km (10 mi) northwest of the site location.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-75 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The potential location identified for the plant would be about 10 km (6 mi) from the nearest site

boundary and would be screened by trees. There are no significant residential areas or

recreational facilities within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. Plumes from cooling towers could be visible

offsite. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the construction and station operation

impacts on aesthetics and recreation would be SMALL.

Housing

In the four-county area of Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia and Barnwell and Aiken

Counties in South Carolina, there were 187,811 housing units in 2000. Of these units, 52,405

were rental units, 6424 of which were vacant (10.9 percent vacancy rate) (USCB 2000e). There

appears to be vacant rental housing units available for construction workers who might want to

relocate to the region.

In the same four-county area discussed above, there were 117,243 owner-occupied houses;

3089 of these houses were for sale (2.6 percent vacancy rate). The percentage of houses for

sale in relation to owner-occupied housing is low, indicating the market for resale housing is

tight.

The operations workforce is expected to come primarily from current or former employees at the

Savannah River Site. If, however, a substantial number of workers were recruited into the area,

there could be upward pressure on housing values. This assumption is based on the low

number of homes for sale in the area and the fact that the workforce, which would be on the

higher end of the salary scale when compared to other job classifications in the area, could tend

to buy more expensive homes.

It is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day to the job

site. Many of the construction workers are assumed to already live within the region. 

Therefore, there appears to be enough vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate

to the region. For the operations workforce, it is expected that most would already have

residences in the region, and few would relocate to the area given the potential supply of

workers in the region resulting from Savannah River Site downsizing. Based on the foregoing,

the staff concludes that the impacts to housing from construction and operation of two units at

the Savannah River alternative site would be SMALL.

Public Services

Water and Wastewater Treatment

Four major public sewage treatment facilities with a combined design capacity of 302.2 million

liters (79.8 million gallons) per day serve the six-county region composed of Aiken, Allendale,

Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-76 December 2006

Georgia. In 1989 (the latest year for which data were readily available), these systems were

operating at approximately 56 percent capacity, with an average daily flow of 170 million L/day

(44.9 MGD). Capacity utilization ranged from 45 percent in Aiken County to 80 percent in

Barnwell County (DOE 2000).

There are approximately 120 public water systems in the six-county area. About 40 of these

county and municipal systems are major facilities, while the remainder serve individual

subdivisions, water districts, manufactured home parks, or miscellaneous facilities. In 1989

(again the latest year for which data are readily available), the 40 major facilities had a

combined total flow of 576.3 million L/day (152.2 MGD). With an average daily flow rate of

approximately 268.8 million L/day (71 MGD), these systems were operating at 47 percent

capacity in 1989. Facility utilization rates ranged from 13 percent in Allendale County to

84 percent in the City of Aiken (DOE 2000).

The Savannah River alternative site is approximately 40 km (25 mi) southeast of Augusta,

Georgia, and 31.4 km (19.5 mi) south of Aiken, South Carolina. There are numerous towns and

cities within 80 km (50 mi) of the site, and all these towns and cities are within a 2-hour

commuting distance of the site via local transportation routes (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). In

addition, the utility infrastructures of the towns and cities could provide public services such as

water and wastewater treatment to members of the construction and operations workforce who

might relocate to the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of the

construction and operations workforces on water and wastewater treatment in the region would

be SMALL.

Police, Fire and Medical Facilities

Eight general hospitals operate in the six-county region. Four of the eight general hospitals are

in Richmond County (Augusta), Georgia, while Columbia County, Georgia, has no hospital. 

Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina each have one general

hospital (USHospital.info 2005).

Fifty-six fire departments provide fire protection in the region. Twenty-seven of these fire

departments are classified as municipal fire departments, but many provide protection to rural

areas outside municipal limits (DOE 2000).

County sheriff and municipal police departments provide most of the law enforcement in the

region. In addition, State law enforcement agents and State troopers assigned to each county

provide protection and assist county and municipal officers (DOE 2000).

Many of the potential construction and operations workforce probably already live within an

80-km (50-mi) radius of the region. There are a number of towns within a 2-hour commuting

distance of the site. Any new workers relocating to the area would most likely have places of
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-77 NUREG-1811, Volume I

residency located throughout the region, which would not place an undue burden on the

infrastructure of any one jurisdictional entity. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that

the impacts of the construction and operations workforce on public facilities in the Savannah

River Site area would be SMALL.

Social Services

In Georgia, social services at the state level are overseen by the Department of Human

Resources. It oversees about 80 wide-ranging programs that include controlling the spread of

disease, enabling older people to live at home longer, preventing children from developing

lifelong disabilities, training single parents to find and hold jobs, and helping people with mental

or physical disabilities live and work in their communities (Georgia Department of Human

Resources 2004).

In South Carolina, social services are overseen by the Department of Social Services, which

administers its programs through county offices. Services offered by the Department include

child care assistance to needy families, adult protective services, child protective services,

independent living, and emergency shelters food program, among other services (South

Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). During construction of new nuclear units at

the Savannah River alternative site, there may be increased demand for social services from

the construction workforce and their dependents.

Generally, construction and operation of the new units at Savannah River alternative site would

be viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the

Georgia Department of Human Resources and South Carolina Department of Social Services. 

The workforce associated with construction and operation of two units at the Savannah River

alternative site would most likely receive higher wages than other employment categories in the

region. It is expected that through the multiplier effect, the number of jobs that could be filled by

members of the disadvantaged population would increase.

Construction and operation of two units would have a beneficial economic impact to the

disadvantaged population in the region, which should lessen the demand for social services. 

There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the beginning of the

construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited. Based on the foregoing, the

staff concludes that the impacts of construction and station operation of two units on social and

related services would be SMALL.

Education

Public education facilities in the six-county region (Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell

Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia) include

approximately 116 elementary or intermediate schools and 28 high schools (Great
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-78 December 2006

Schools 2005). In addition to the public schools, there are approximately 50 private schools in

the region (NCES 2005). There are several local colleges, technical schools, and training

facilities available, such as the University of South Carolina Aiken, Augusta State University,

Paine College, Aiken Technical College, and Augusta Technical College.

Many of the potential construction and operating workforce probably already live within the

region, and any new workers relocating to the area would most likely take up residency

throughout the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of

construction and operation of two units on educational facilities in the region would be SMALL.

8.7.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

Historic and cultural resources at the Savannah River Site are managed through a cooperative

agreement between DOE and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology of the University of

South Carolina as the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. Since 1974, more

than 60 percent of the 777-km2

 (300-mi2) site has been inventoried for prehistoric and historic

sites and more than 1200 sites have been recorded, ranging in age from the Middle Archaic

prehistoric period to the 20th century (DOE 2002). Archaeological research has provided

considerable information about the distribution and content of historic and cultural sites on the

Savannah River Site.

Archaeologists have divided the Savannah River Site into three zones related to their potential

for containing sites with multiple archaeological components or dense or diverse artifacts, and

their potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

& Zone 1 is the zone of the highest archaeological site density with a high probability of

encountering large archaeological sites with dense and diverse artifacts and a high

potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

& Zone 2 includes areas of moderate archaeological site density. Activities in this zone

have a moderate probability of encountering large sites with more than three prehistoric

components or that would be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic

Places.

& Zone 3 includes areas of low archaeological site density. Activities in this zone have a

low probability of encountering archaeological sites and virtually no chance of

encountering large sites with more than three prehistoric components; the need for site

preservation is low. Some sites in the zone could be considered eligible for nomination

to the National Register of Historic Places.

The Savannah River alternative site parcel identified by Dominion lies in Zone 3. According to

Savannah River Site staff (Dominion and Bechtel 2002), no known historic and cultural

properties exist in the site.
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) NRC uses more complex threshold limits than DOE for defining whether minority or low-income

populations exist within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Savannah River Site. See Section 2.10 for a

more detailed discussion of the NRC criteria. However, the geographic distribution of minority

low-income populations would be similar using either method for the region surrounding the Savannah

River Site.

December 2006 8-79 NUREG-1811, Volume I

In conjunction with previous studies, DOE solicited the concerns of Native American tribes

about traditional cultural values in the Central Savannah River Valley. Three Native American

groups, the Yuchi Tribal Organization, the National Council of Muskogee Creek, and the Indian

People’s Muskogee Tribal Town Confederacy, expressed general concerns about the

Savannah River Site and the Central Savannah River Area but did not identify specific sites as

possessing religious significance. The Yuchi Tribal Organization and the National Council of

Muskogee Creek are interested in several plant species traditionally used in tribal ceremonies.

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural

resources from construction and operation of two units at the Savannah River alternative site

would be SMALL.

8.7.5.5 Environmental Justice

DOE has performed an environmental assessment for the construction and operation of a linear

accelerator (since dropped from consideration in the general area of the Savannah River

alternative site) that would produce tritium (DOE 1999). As part of that assessment, an

evaluation of potential environmental justice impacts was conducted (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002).

DOE’s environmental justice assessment evaluated whether minorities or low-income

populations could receive disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental

impacts. Minority and low-income populations were identified by census tract. DOE’s analysis

concluded that releases from the site would not disproportionally affect minority communities

(population equal to or greater than 35 percent of the total population) or low-income (equal to

or greater than 25 percent of the total population) within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region,

because the compared per capita doses did not vary significantly.(a) In addition, regarding

downstream communities, DOE evaluated doses to people using the Savannah River for

drinking water, sports, and food. Because the identified communities in the areas downstream

from the Savannah River Site are well distributed, DOE concluded there were no

disproportionate impacts among minority and low-income populations (Dominion and

Bechtel 2002).

Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and

operation of two units at the Savannah River alternative site on minority and low-income

populations would be SMALL. There are no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to

these populations.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-80 December 2006

8.8 Summaries of Alternative Site Impacts

Summaries of the impacts of construction and operation on each of the three alternative sites

selected by Dominion are presented in Tables 8-6 and 8-7. Discussions of the stated impacts

are presented in the individual site sections (Sections 8.5 through 8.7). A comparison of the

alternative site impacts with impacts at the proposed North Anna ESP site is presented in

Chapter 9.

Table 8-6. Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

Category Surry Portsmouth Savannah River

Land-use impacts -- -- --

 Site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Transmission line rights-of-way SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Air quality impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water-related impacts -- -- --

 Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological impacts -- -- --

 Terrestrial ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

 Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Threatened and endangered species SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Socioeconomic impacts -- -- --

| Physical impacts

|

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

| SMALL

 Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Social and economic(a, b) | SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

 Infrastructure and community services(c) | SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

Historic and cultural resources MODERATE to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Impacts of construction on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial impacts. 

These beneficial impacts are discussed in the applicable sections.

| (b) Social and economic impacts include impacts on the economy and taxes.

| (c) Infrastructure and community services impacts include impacts on transportation, aesthetics and recreation,

| housing, public services, and education.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-81 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 8-7. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

Category Surry Portsmouth Savannah River

Land-use impacts -- --

 The site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Transmission line rights-of-way SMALL SMALL SMALL

Air quality impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water-related impacts -- -- --

 Water use SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

 Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Water use in drought year SMALL MODERATE SMALL

Ecological impacts -- -- --

 Terrestrial ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Threatened and endangered species SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Socioeconomic impacts -- -- --

 Physical impacts SMALL to |

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL |

|

 Demographics SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Social and economic(a) SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

 Infrastructure and community services SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

Historic and cultural resources MODERATE to

LARGE(b)

SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL

Impacts of postulated accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL

Fuel cycle impacts(c) SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Impacts of operation on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial impacts. 

The beneficial economic impacts are discussed in the applicable sections.

(b) Aesthetic impacts could be LARGE at historically important sites in the vicinity. This is captured in the historic

and cultural resources evaluation. (Sections 8.5.5.3 and 8.5.5.4).

(c) Fuel cycle impacts are evaluated in Chapter 6 and includes impacts from the fuel cycle, solid waste |

management, transportation, and decommissioning. |
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-82 December 2006

8.9 References

Note: Because the web pages cited in this document may become unavailable, the staff has

entered the appropriate pages into ADAMS. The accession number of the package containing

the Web-sites used as references in Chapter 8 of the North Anna ESP EIS is ML051580551.

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.”

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.”

66 FR 64963. “Notice of Wetlands Involvement for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

Reindustrialization Program.” Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 242, December 17, 2001.

69 FR 3956. “Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact for License Application for USEC Inc., Bethesda, MD.” Federal Register.

Vol. 69, No. 17, January 27, 2004.

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

Regulatory and Licensing Activities.” Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 163, August 24, 2004.

70 FR 30396. “Early Action Compact Areas for South Carolina/Georgia.” Federal Register.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 26, 2005.

70 FR 33771. “Correction to information on page 30404 of 70 FR 30396.” Federal Register.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 9, 2005.

62 NRC 5. 2005. Exelon Generation Co. LLC et al., CLI-05-17, 62 NRC 5. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-83 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Bechtel Jacobs Co. 2003. U.S. Department of Energy Portsmouth Annual Environmental

Report for 2002 Piketon, Ohio. DOE/OR/11-3132&D1. Accessed at

http://www.bechteljacobs.com/ports_reports.shtml on March 5, 2004.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2000. CA25 Total Full-Time and Part-Time Employment

by Industry. Accessed at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ on March 30, 2004.

Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251,

et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

Dominion Energy, Inc. and Bechtel Power Corp (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. Study of

Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States.

U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-02ID14313. Available at

www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/ESP_Study/ESP_Study_Dominion1.pdf.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Federation of Tax Administrators. 2004. Range of State Corporation Income Taxes 2003

(For the tax year 2003 – as of January 1, 2003). Accessed at

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/state_corp_2003.pdf on

August 24, 2004.

Georgia Department of Human Resources. 2004. Georgia – Online access to Georgia

Government. Accessed at

http://dhr.georgia.gov/02/dhr/home/0,2220,5696,00.html;jsessionid=73BA632F785E95B6CBCB

2081541FE127 on August 23, 2004.

Georgia Department of Labor. 2004. Unemployment – Augusta – Aiken Compared to Georgia

(June 2004). Accessed at http://www.dol.state.ga.us/pdf/pr/u0604augusta.pdf on August 22,

2004.

Great Schools. 2004. Surry County Public Schools, Virginia. Accessed at

http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/va/district_profile/155 on August 19, 2004.

Great Schools. 2005. Welcome to GreatSchools.net. Accessed at

http://www.greatschools.net/ on August 24, 2005.

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2001. National Electrical Safety

Code – 2002 Edition. Accredited Standard Committee C2-2002, New York, New York.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-84 December 2006

Jaksch J. and M. Scott. 2005. North Anna ESP Site Audit Trip Report – Socioeconomics. 

12-8-2003 through 12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2003 through

12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2004 through 9-29-2004 and 7-11-2005

through 7-15-2005. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession

No. ML052170374.

Jenkins R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2001. Cultural Resource Assessment, Surry Power Station, Surry

County, Virginia. Surry, Virginia.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2005. Search for schools, colleges, and

libraries. Accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator on August 24, 2005.

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

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCA), 42 USC 4901, et seq.

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). 2004. Table of County Unemployment

Rates. Civilian Labor Force Estimates – For Counties and Cites with Population Over 50,000:

July 2004. Accessed at 

http://jfs.ohio.gov/releases/unemp/OhioCivilianLaborForceEstimates.pdf on August 20, 2004.

Omernik J.M. 1987. “Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Map (Scale 1:7500000).” 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1):118-125.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England

Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 2004. Draft Risk-Based End State

Vision and Variance Report for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio.

DOE/OR/11-3137&D0v1. Accessed at

http://www.bechteljacobs.com/pdf/port/rbesd/RBES2-9-04-2ReportText.pdf on March 5, 2004.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-85 NUREG-1811, Volume I

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. “South

Carolina Coastal Zone.” Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed at

http://www.scdhec.net/ocrm/images/map.jpg on January 20, 2004.

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2004. “South Carolina Rare,

Threatened, and Endangered Species Inventory.” Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed at

http:www.dnr.state.sc.us/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map on July 16, 2004.

South Carolina Employment Security Commission. 2004. Workforce Trends Newsline. 

Accessed at http://www.sces.org/lmi/news/July_2004.pdf on August 22, 2004.

South Carolina Department of Social Services. 2004. Welcome to the South Carolina

Department of Social Services Web Site. Accessed at http://www.state.sc.us/dss/index.html on

August 23, 2004.

Surry County. 1975. “Surry County Land Development Ordinance.” Surry County Planning

Commission and Board of Supervisors, Surry, Virginia.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. Table p1. Total Population (1) – Universe Total

Population. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_

U&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&-g

eo_id=38000US5720&-geo_id=38000US6760&-format=&-_lang=en on March 28, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. American Fact Finder. Highlights from the Census 2000

Demographic Profiles. For Waverly, Piketon, Portsmouth, Chillicothe; Jackson, Ohio and

Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto Counties in Ohio and Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio and

Huntington, West Virginia. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en on August 19, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. American Fact Finder. Quick Tables. Table QT-H1. 

General Housing Characteristics: 2000. For Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto Counties in Ohio

and Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio and Huntington, West Virginia. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_sse=on on August 20, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. American Fact Finder. Highlights from the Census 2000

Demographic Profiles. For Augusta-Richmond County (balance) Georgia; Aiken, New Ellenton,

Jackson, Barnwell, Snelling, and Williston, South Carolina; and Aiken and Barnwell Counties,

South Carolina. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en on

August 22, 2004.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-86 December 2006

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. American Fact Finder. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 

2000c. American Fact Finder. Quick Tables. Table QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics:

2000. For Richmond County and Columbia Counties, Georgia and Aiken and Barnwell

Counties, South Carolina. Accessed at

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_sse=on on August 23, 2004.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1995. Savannah River Site Waste Management Final

Environmental Impact Statement. DOE-EIS 0217, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement Construction

and Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site. DOE/EIS-0271,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. Savannah River Site Waste Management Final

Environmental Impact Statement. DOE-EIS 0217, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/enviro/eis-0217/index.html on August 23, 2004.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001. Environmental Assessment: Winterization Activities

in Preparation for Cold Standby at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio.

DOE/EA-1392, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. As cited in Dominion and

Bechtel. 2002.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. Savannah River Site High-Level Waste Tank Closure

Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0303, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at

Portsmouth, Ohio, Site. DOE/EIS-0360. Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/docs/deis/eis0360/ on March 5, 2004.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Services (NPS). 2005. Letter from S. Brooks,

NPS to J. Cushing, NRC, regarding the impacts of building a nuclear power plant at the Surry

site, October 25, 2005 (ML053080128).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas. 

Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/o8index.html on September 13, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Letter from M. Knapp, FWS to P.T. Kuo, NRC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. North Anna Power Station Alternate, Barnwell

County, South Carolina, FWS log No. 4-6-04-T-110. Letter from T. Hall (FWS) to P.T. Kuo

(NRC). January 15, 2004.
Impacts of the Alternatives

December 2006 8-87 NUREG-1811, Volume I

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS and

VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Accessed at

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf on March 23, 2004.

USHospital.info. 2005. United States Hospitals and Medical Centers. Accessed at

http://www.ushospital.info/index.htm on August 25, 2005.

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

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Environmental Standard Review Plans for

Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

Washington, D.C.

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C. Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555.

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

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 6 Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1

and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, Washington, D.C. Available at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement6/index.html.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Environmental Assessment of the USEC

Inc. American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility at Piketon, Ohio. Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ea/EA1495/ea-1495.pdf on August 20, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Trip Report – September 19-22, 2005,

Tour of the North Anna River, Lake Anna, and the Surry Alternative Site (ML061720366)

(July 6, 2006).

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004. “Virginia’s Coastal Resources

Management Area.” Accessed at http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/thezone.html on

January 8, 2004.

Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS). 2004. Accessed at

http://www.dss.state.va.us/index.html on August 18, 2004.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1970. Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2,

Environmental Report. December 31, 1970.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, Volume I 8-88 December 2006

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. 2001. Letter from J.E. Olney to Tony Banks, VEPCo

related to “Evaluation of potential impacts of operation of Surry Power Station on Federally

Managed Species.” April 4, 2001.

Virginia Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Online Information on Virginia Natural Communities,

Rare, Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. Accessed at

http://192.206.31.52/cfprog/dnh/naturalheritage/display_counties.cfm on August 29, 2005.

Westinghouse Savannah River Company (Westinghouse). 2001. Savannah River Site

Environmental Report for 2000. WSRC-TR-2000-00328, Aiken, South Carolina.
(a) An “environmentally preferred” alternative site is a site for which the environmental impacts are

sufficiently less than the proposed site so that environmental preference for the alternative site

can be established (NRC 2000).

December 2006 9-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

9.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed

Action and Alternative Sites

The need to compare the proposed early site permit (ESP) site at the North Anna Power Station

(NAPS) with alternative sites arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4332(2)(c)(iii)) that environmental impact

statements (EISs) include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) criterion to be employed in assessing whether a proposed ESP

site should be rejected in favor of an alternative site is whether the alternative site is “obviously

superior” to the site proposed by the applicant (NRC 1977). An alternative site is “obviously

superior” to the proposed site if it is “clearly and substantially” superior to the proposed site.

The standard of obvious superiority “...is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be

rejected in favor of a substitute unless, on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can

be confident that such action is called for” (NRC 1978a). The “obviously superior” test is

appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by NRC in evaluating alternative ESP

sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the alternative site analysis, such as 

population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality, aquatic and terrestrial ecological

resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics, are difficult to quantify in common

metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site would necessarily have a wide

range of uncertainty. Second, the applicant’s proposed ESP site has been analyzed in detail,

with the expectation that most adverse environmental impacts associated with the site have

been identified. By design, the alternative sites have not undergone a comparable level of

detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed ESP site may not be rejected in favor of an

alternative site when the alternative is “marginally better” than the proposed site, but only when

it is “obviously superior” (NRC 1978b). NEPA does not require that a nuclear plant be

constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. Rather, “...[a]ll that NEPA

requires is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on the environment of

building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored into the ultimate

decision” (NRC 1978a).

The NRC staff’s review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test for obvious

superiority (NRC 2000). The first part of the test determines whether there are “environmentally

preferred”(a) sites among the candidate ESP sites. The staff considers whether the applicant

has (1) reasonably identified alternative sites, (2) evaluated the likely environmental impacts of

construction and operation at these sites, and (3) used a logical means of comparing sites that
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 9-2 December 2006

has led to the applicant’s selection of the proposed site. Based on its independent review, the 

staff then determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the

applicant’s proposed ESP site.

If the staff determines that one or more alternative sites is environmentally preferable, it would

then compare the estimated costs (e.g., environmental, economic, and time) of constructing

the proposed plant at the proposed site and at the environmentally preferable site or sites

(NRC 2000). To find an obviously superior alternative site, the staff must determine that (1) one

or more important aspects, either singly or in combination, of a reasonably available alternative

site are obviously superior to the corresponding aspects of the applicant’s proposed site and

(2) the alternative site does not have offsetting deficiencies in other important areas. A staff

conclusion that an alternative site is obviously superior to the applicant’s proposed site would

normally lead to a recommendation that the application for the ESP be denied.

9.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternatives

The staff reviewed the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

LLC (Dominion) (Dominion 2006), the Dominion and Bechtel study for the U.S. Department of

Energy on potential sites for nuclear power plant development (Dominion and Bechtel 2002),

and supporting documentation. The staff also conducted site visits at the proposed North Anna

ESP site and the alternative sites. As discussed in Section 8.3, the staff concluded that

Dominion had reasonably identified alternative sites, evaluated the environmental impacts of

construction and operation of new nuclear power facilities at those sites, and used a logical

means of comparing the sites. As discussed in Section 8.4, some environmental impacts

considered for the North Anna ESP site and the alternative sites are generic to all sites and,

therefore, do not influence the comparison of impacts between the North Anna ESP site and the

alternative sites. These generic environmental impacts common to all sites include air quality,

nonradiological and radiological health impacts, fuel cycle impacts for light water reactors, and

environmental impacts from postulated accidents. For severe accidents, the combination of

population characteristics and dispersion potential are not significantly different among the sites

to differentiate one from another given the extremely low risk already. Fuel cycle impacts for

gas-cooled reactors are unresolved for all sites, but are likely to be SMALL. Decommissioning

impacts were determined to be unresolved because the reactor design has not been selected at

the ESP stage. The impacts from decommissioning are likely to be SMALL and affect all sites

in a similar manner. 

The staff conducted its own evaluation of the sites at a reconnaissance level before writing the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna

ESP Site (Draft EIS) (NRC 2004) by touring the sites and reviewing existing environmental and

socioeconomic assessments and data maintained by State and Federal agencies for

information relevant to potential impacts at the alternative sites. For this Final EIS, the staff
Comparison of Impacts

December 2006 9-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

visited the proposed and alternative sites, evaluated the information presented in the ER |

(Dominion 2006), and determined expected environmental impacts at the proposed North Anna

ESP site and at the three alternative sites.

The staff’s characterization of the expected environmental impacts of constructing and

operating two new nuclear units at the proposed ESP site and alternative sites within the

revised plant parameter envelope presented by Dominion in the ER (Dominion 2006) are

summarized in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. For those impacts to environmental resources for which the

staff was unable to reach a significance level for the North Anna ESP site or the alternative sites

as a result of insufficient information, the most likely level of impact for the purposes of

comparison to alternative sites was identified and the staff assumed that impacts would affect

all sites in a similar manner. In the following analysis, the staff indicates a likely impact level for

these unresolved issues based on professional judgment, experience, and consideration of

controls likely to be imposed under required Federal, State, or local permits that would not be

acquired until an application for a construction permit or combined license were underway. 

These considerations and assumptions were similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to

provide a common basis for comparison. These impact levels are, therefore, best estimates of

impacts that the staff used for its “obviously superior” determination. No new data were

collected.

The environmental impact categories shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 have been evaluated using

NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed

using the Council on Environmental Quality guidance (Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations [CFR] Part 1508.27). The rationale for these significance levels is outlined in the

footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

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

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

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

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

The socioeconomic impact level category reflects both adverse and beneficial impacts. Positive

impacts (e.g., tax receipts to local government) would occur but are not the determining factors

in the analysis of an environmentally preferable or obviously superior site. For impact

categories in which no impact is predicted, the adverse impact level is shown as SMALL. 

Within some impact categories, the impact levels varied. Professional judgments were made to

conclude, where possible, a single overall level of impact. In several cases, a range of probable

impacts is given.
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 9-4 December 2006

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

Sites

Impact Area Category

North Anna

ESP Site Surry Site

Portsmouth

Site

Savannah

River Site

Land-use impacts -- -- -- --

 The site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Transmission line rights-of-way SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Air quality impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water-related impacts -- -- -- --

 Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Ecological impacts -- -- -- --

 Terrestrial ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

 Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Threatened and endangered

 species

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Socioeconomic impacts -- -- -- --

| Physical impacts

|

SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

|

Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Social and Economic(a,b)

|

|

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

Infrastructure and community

services(c)

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

Historic and cultural resources SMALL MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Impacts of construction on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial impacts. 

These beneficial impacts are discussed in the applicable sections.

| (b) Social and economic impacts include impacts on the economy and taxes.

| (c) Infrastructure and community services impacts include impacts on transportation, aesthetics and recreation,

housing, public services, and education.
Comparison of Impacts

December 2006 9-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table 9-2. Comparison of the Operational Impacts at the Proposed ESP and Alternative Sites

Impact Area Category

North Anna

ESP Site Surry Site

Portsmouth

Site

Savannah

River Site

Land-use impacts -- -- -- --

 The site and vicinity SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Transmission line rights-of-way SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Air quality impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Water-related impacts -- -- -- --

 Water use SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

 Water quality Unresolved, |

but likely

SMALL(a)

SMALL SMALL SMALL |

 Water use in drought year MODERATE SMALL MODERATE SMALL

Ecological impacts -- -- -- --

 Terrestrial ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Threatened and endangered

 species 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Socioeconomic impacts -- -- -- --

 Physical impacts SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

 Demographics SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

 Social and economic(b) SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

 Infrastructure and community

 services(c)

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

Historic and cultural resources SMALL MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological health impacts(d) SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Radiological health impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Postulated accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Fuel cycle impacts(e) SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Impact level estimated for purposes of comparison

(b) Social and economic impacts include impacts on the economy and taxes. |

(c) Infrastructure and community services impacts include impacts on transportation, aesthetics and recreation, |

housing, public services, and education. |

(d) Health effects of electromagnetic fields is unresolved. |

(e) Fuel cycle impacts are evaluated in Chapter 6 and include impacts from the fuel cycle, solid waste |

management, transportation, and decommissioning. |
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 9-6 December 2006

The staff determined that the impact level from construction on most of the environmental

resources at most of the sites is SMALL. In some cases, there are factors related to a site that

could cause the impact level to increase from SMALL to MODERATE. In one case, the impact

level category for an alternative site could be as high as LARGE. Impacts on the local economy

and tax base range from SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE BENEFICIAL at the various

sites. More detailed information on these cases is presented in Chapter 4 for the North Anna

ESP site, and Chapter 8 for the alternative sites. The staff based its analysis of the

environmental impacts on the implementation of mitigation measures in accordance with

Federal, State, and local permit requirements and on the mitigation measures identified in the

ER. In its analysis of the alternative sites, the staff assumed that similar permit requirements

and mitigative measures would apply.

The staff determined that the impact from operation on most of the environmental resources at

most of the sites is SMALL. In some cases, there are factors related to a site that could

cause the impact level to range from SMALL to LARGE. Impacts on the local tax base range

from SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL at all sites. More detailed information on

these cases is presented in Chapters 5 and 6 for the North Anna ESP site and Chapters 6 and

8 for the alternative sites.

9.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites

9.2.1 Construction

The impacts of construction at the North Anna ESP site are SMALL for most major impact

categories. However, as noted in Section 4.5, there are some impact subcategories under

infrastructure and community services (housing, public services, and education) for which the

impacts could be MODERATE if a larger number of construction workers than the staff assumed

relocate to Louisa or Orange Counties. The tax benefits to Louisa County could be

MODERATE BENEFICIAL, and the impacts on jobs and the economy could also be

| MODERATE BENEFICIAL.

The impacts of construction at the Surry alternative site are SMALL for all impact categories

except physical impacts (aesthetics), infrastructure and community services, economy and

taxes, and historic and cultural resources. As noted in Section 8.5, the impacts for this site are

SMALL to MODERATE for transportation and aesthetics and MODERATE to LARGE for historic

and cultural resources because of its potential effect on the Colonial National Historic Park. 

Impacts on the economy and taxes may be SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE BENEFICIAL.
Comparison of Impacts

December 2006 9-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The impacts of construction at the Portsmouth alternative site are SMALL for all impact

categories except physical impacts (aesthetics), infrastructure and community services, and

economy and taxes. As noted in Section 8.6, the impacts for this site are SMALL to |

MODERATE for aesthetics. In addition, the impacts on the economy and taxes are SMALL |

BENEFICIAL to MODERATE BENEFICIAL.

The impacts of construction at the Savannah River alternative site are SMALL for all impact

categories except transmission line land use, terrestrial resources (including endangered |

species), and economy and taxes. As noted in Section 8.7, the impacts on transmission line |

land use and terrestrial resources are SMALL to MODERATE. The staff arrived at this range of |

potential impacts because the routing for the new transmission line rights-of-way that would be

needed is not known with certainty and, consequently, neither are the impacts of construction. 

In addition, the impacts on the economy and tax base are SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE

BENEFICIAL.

While there are minor differences in most of the construction impacts at the four sites, none of

these differences is sufficient to determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally

preferable to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

9.2.2 Operations

The impacts of operations at the North Anna ESP site are SMALL for all major impact

categories except water use and socioeconomic categories. As discussed in Section 5.3, the

impacts of Unit 3 operations on water use are SMALL most years. However, during a significant

drought, the impacts could be MODERATE. The impacts on water quality are not resolved, but |

are likely to be SMALL for purposes of comparison with the alternative sites. In addition, as |

discussed in Section 5.5, the impacts for aesthetics are SMALL to MODERATE, and impacts to

recreation may be MODERATE during drought years. The impacts on the economy and taxes

are SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

The impacts of operations at the Surry alternative site are SMALL for all impact categories

except physical impacts (aesthetics), infrastructure and community services, and historical and

cultural resources. As noted in Section 8.5, the impacts for this site are SMALL to MODERATE

for aesthetics in the vicinity and MODERATE to LARGE because of the particular impacts that

could be realized on the Colonial National Historic Park’s resources. The impacts on the

economy and taxes are SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

The impacts of operations at the Portsmouth alternative site are SMALL for all impact categories

except water use and socioeconomic categories. As noted in Section 8.6, the impacts of plant

operations on water use are SMALL to MODERATE most years. However, during a significant

drought, the impacts would be MODERATE. In addition, physical impacts and impacts under
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 9-8 December 2006

infrastructure and community services are SMALL to MODERATE for aesthetics. The impacts

on the economy and taxes are SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

The impacts of operations at the Savannah River alternative site are SMALL for all impact

categories except threatened and endangered species and socioeconomics. As noted in

Section 8.7, the impacts to threatened and endangered species are SMALL to MODERATE

because the routing for the new transmission line rights-of-way that would be needed for plant

operation is not known and so the associated impacts of operation and maintenance must be

assigned a range of potential impacts. The impacts on the economy and taxes are SMALL

BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

In summary, although the water-use impacts at the North Anna ESP site are projected to be

MODERATE during years when there is a severe drought, this event and its associated impacts

are expected to be infrequent and temporary. Aesthetic impacts are expected to be periodic

and MODERATE. The operation of the units at North Anna is also expected to have a

MODERATE impact in the recreational subcategory of community characteristics during a

severe drought, at which time the lake marinas could be affected. The Portsmouth alternative

site has a similar water-use issue, and the Savannah River alternative site has unknown

impacts associated with the transmission line rights-of-way, which could range from SMALL to

MODERATE. The Surry alternative site has a cultural and historical impact that could be

LARGE. The impacts on economy and taxes are generally beneficial and similar across sites,

and the impacts on infrastructure and community services are similar and up to MODERATE.

For those impacts to environmental resources for which the staff was unable to reach a

significance level for the North Anna ESP site or the alternative sites as a result of insufficient

information, the most likely level of impact for the purposes of comparison to alternative sites

was identified and the staff assumed that impacts would affect all sites in a similar manner. In

the following analysis, the staff indicated a likely impact level for these unresolved issues based

on professional judgment, experience, and consideration of controls likely to be imposed under

required Federal, State, or local permits that would not be acquired until an application for a

construction permit or combined license were underway. These considerations and

assumptions were similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide a common basis

for comparison. These impact levels are, therefore, best estimates of impacts that the staff

used for its “obviously superior” determination. No new data were collected. For example,

insufficient information was provided for operational water quality, gas-cooled reactor fuel cycle,

decommissioning, and severe accident mitigation alternatives. While there is insufficient

information to reach a conclusion on the significance levels for the unresolved issues, the staff

does not expect, based on the information available, that there would be significant differences

in impact categories among the proposed and alternative sites. While there are some

differences in the environmental impacts of operation at the four sites, none of these differences

is sufficient for the staff to determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally

preferable to the proposed North Anna ESP site.
Comparison of Impacts

December 2006 9-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

9.3 Obviously Superior Sites

None of the alternative sites was determined to be environmentally preferable to the proposed

North Anna ESP site. Therefore, the staff concluded that none of the alternative sites is

obviously superior to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

9.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC would deny the ESP application. 

If the ESP application for the proposed North Anna ESP site were denied, the impacts of

construction and operation of a new nuclear power facility would not occur. Further, denial of

the ESP application would prevent early resolution of safety and environmental issues for the

site. These issues would have to be addressed during a future licensing action (ESP,

construction permit, or combined license), should an applicant decide to pursue construction

and operation activities for a nuclear facility at the site at a later time.

In the event of NRC’s denial of the ESP application, Dominion could follow several paths to

satisfy its electric power needs. The potential paths include (1) seeking an ESP for a different

proposed site, (2) purchase of power from other electricity providers, (3) conservation and

demand-side management programs, (4) construction of new generation facilities other than

nuclear at the North Anna site, (5) construction of new generation facilities at other locations,

(6) delayed retirement of existing generating facilities, and (7) reactivation of previously retired

generating facilities. These paths could be pursued individually or in combination. Each of the

paths would have associated environmental impacts. Nonetheless, since Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 does not require an ER or EIS for an ESP to include

consideration of energy alternatives or the benefits of construction and operation of a reactor or

reactors at the ESP site, Dominion did not address those matters in its ER, and this EIS does

not consider such matters. Accordingly, should the NRC ultimately determine to issue an ESP

for the North Anna ESP site, these matters would be considered in the EIS for any construction

permit or combined license application that references such an ESP.

The activities that may be permissible under an ESP are limited to the site preparation and

preliminary construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). Pursuant to

10 CFR 52.25, such activities are permissible only if the final environmental impact statement

concludes that the activities would not result in any significant impacts that could not be

redressed, and an ESP that incorporates the site redress plan is granted. The results of the

staff’s assessment of the site redress plan are discussed in Section 4.11 in which the staff

concludes that the potential site preparation activities described in Dominion’s redress plan

would not result in any significant adverse impacts that could not be redressed. Because the

site preparation and preliminary work could be redressed by the site redress plan described in

Section 4.11, the impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative would be similar.
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, Volume I 9-10 December 2006

9.5 References

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits

Standard Design Certification and Combined License for Nuclear Power Plants.”

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

Part 1508, “Council on Environmental Quality, Terminology and Index.”

Dominion Energy, Inc. and Bechtel Power Corporation (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. 

Study of Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States.

U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-02ID14313,

Washington, D.C.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

| Application  Part 3  Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), aff’d, New England Coalition

on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, 95-96 (1st Cir 1978).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978a. New England Coalition on Nuclear

Pollution. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978b. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling

Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 397 (1978), aff’d, CLI-80-23,

11 NRC 731 (1980).

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

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Draft. Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.
December 2006 10-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

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

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

for a location adjacent to North Anna Power Station (NAPS) Units 1 and 2. The North Anna

ESP site is located in Louisa County, Virginia, approximately 10 km (6 mi) northeast of the town

of Mineral. Dominion submitted revisions to the Environmental Report (ER) on October 2, 2003,

July 15, 2004, September 7, 2004, May 12, 2005, July 25, 2005, April 13, 2006, June 21, 2006,

July 31, 2006, and September 13, 2006 (Dominion 2006a). On December 10, 2004, the staff |

published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) with its evaluation of the

Dominion application through ER Revision 3 (NRC 2004). Any reference in this Final

Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) to the ER refers to Revision 9 (Dominion 2006a), |

unless otherwise stated.

In Revision 6 to the North Anna ESP application, Dominion proposed (1) changing its approach

for cooling the proposed Unit 3 reactor from a once-through cooling system (as described in

previous versions of the ER) to a closed-cycle system and (2) increasing the maximum power

level per unit from 4300 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)) to 4500 MW(t) for proposed Units 3 and 4

(referred to hereafter as Units 3 and 4). Under the revised cooling system approach, Unit 3

would use a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The proposed increase in

power level corresponds to the revision of the maximum power of an economic simplified boiling

water reactor (ESBWR), which is one of the reactor designs used to develop the plant

parameter envelope (PPE) and evaluated in the Draft EIS. |

The NRC staff determined that the changes to the proposed action were substantial; therefore,

the staff prepared a Supplement to its Draft EIS (referred to as the SDEIS) pursuant to Title 10

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 51.72. The staff published the SDEIS on |

July 2006 (NRC 2006a). The scope of the SDEIS was limited to the environmental impacts |

associated with the change in the cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in the power level

for both units. The evaluation presented in the SDEIS replaced the evaluation of the impacts

associated with the originally proposed once-through cooling for Unit 3 and modified the

analysis of impacts related to the power level increase. These revised evaluations, along with

public comments received on the analysis presented in the SDEIS, were incorporated into this

Final EIS, together with comments received concerning the Draft EIS, insofar as they were not |

determined to be moot because of changes to the version of Dominion’s proposal evaluated in |

the Draft EIS.

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

Issuance of an ESP is an action separate from the issuance of a construction permit (CP) or a

combined construction permit and operating license (combined license or COL) for such a

facility. An ESP application may refer to a reactor’s or reactors’ design parameters or a PPE,
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, Volume I 10-2 December 2006

which is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound the

design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be built at a selected site;

| alternatively, an ESP application may refer to a detailed reactor design. An ESP is not a license

to build a nuclear power plant; rather, the application for an ESP initiates a process undertaken

to assess whether a proposed site is a suitable location for such a plant should the applicant be

granted an ESP and later decide to pursue a CP or COL.

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

that Federal agencies prepare an EIS for major Federal actions that significantly affect the

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

10 CFR Part 51. Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to ESPs. 

As set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the Commission has determined that an EIS will be prepared

during the review of an application for an ESP. The purpose of Dominion’s proposed action,

issuance of the ESP, is to provide stability in the licensing process by addressing site safety and

environmental issues before the proposed new facilities are built rather than after construction is

completed. Part 52 of Title 10 (10 CFR 52.21) describes an ESP as a “partial construction

permit.” An applicant for a CP or COL for a nuclear power plant or plants to be located at a site

for which an ESP has been issued can reference the ESP, and matters resolved in the ESP

proceeding are considered resolved in the subsequent proceeding absent the identification of

| new and significant information (10 CFR 52.39). However, issuance of either a CP (and OL) or

COL to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a major Federal action that requires its

own environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

The holder of an ESP, or an applicant for a CP or COL that references an ESP that includes a

site redress plan, may, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.25, perform the site preparation and

preliminary construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), provided that the final

ESP EIS concludes that the activities will not result in any significant adverse environmental

impacts that cannot be redressed. Dominion provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP

application.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), Dominion did not address the benefits of the proposed action

(e.g., the need for power).

In accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, the Final EIS is focused on the environmental effects of

construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors, that have characteristics that fall within the

design parameters that would be specified in the ESP if it is granted.

Under 10 CFR 52.17, three primary issues – site safety, environmental impacts, and emergency

planning – must be addressed in an ESP application. Likewise, in its review of an ESP

application under 10 CFR 52.18, the NRC assesses the applicant’s proposal in relation to these

issues and determines whether the application meets the requirements of the Atomic Energy
Conclusions and Recommendations

December 2006 10-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Act of 1954 and NRC regulations. Site safety and emergency planning are addressed in the

staff’s safety evaluation report (NRC 2006b).

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

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

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

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

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

Mitigation measures were considered for each resource area and are presented in the

appropriate sections.

If an ESP is issued and an application for a CP or COL references it, the application would have |

to demonstrate, among other things, that the design selected falls within the site characteristics |

and plant parameters considered in the environmental review, as set forth in the ESP. In |

addition, the applicant would be required to verify that the environmental permit conditions have |

been met. Further, the applicant should address the representations and staff assumptions |

used by the staff as bases for the final impact assessments. Appendix J addresses the permit |

conditions, representations, and staff assumptions associated with this EIS. |

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on:

& the environmental impact of the proposed action [102(2)(C)(i)] |

& any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be

implemented [102(2)(C)(ii)]

& alternatives to the proposed action [102(2)(C)(iii)] |

& the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance

and enhancement of long-term productivity [102(2)(C)(iv)]
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, Volume I 10-4 December 2006

& any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the

proposed action is implemented [102(2)(C)(v)] 

| The environmental impacts of the proposed action are discussed in Section 10.1. Adverse

| environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented are

| discussed in Section 10.2. Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Section 10.3.

| The relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and

| enhancement of long-term productivity is discussed in Section 10.4. Irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the proposed action is

implemented are discussed in Section 10.5.

10.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Impacts associated with construction of the proposed ESP facilities are discussed in Chapter 4

of the Final EIS and are characterized in Table 4-1. Impacts associated with operation of the

proposed facilities are discussed in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS and are characterized in Table 5-

22. Construction and operational impacts are discussed in the Final EIS to make an informed

decision on siting. The impacts of operations would only occur if an OL or a COL is issued by

the NRC. A summary characterization of the environmental impacts of constructing and

operating the proposed ESP facilities at the proposed and alternative sites is in Table 10-1.

Table 10-1. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Constructing and Operating Two Units at

the North Anna ESP Site and the Alternatives

|

Proposed

Action

No-Action

Alternative Alternative Sites

| Impact Category

ESP at North

Anna Denial of ESP Surry Portsmouth

Savannah

River

Land use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Ecology SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

Water use and quality 

|

SMALL to

MODERATE(a)

SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

|

Air quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

| Socioeconomics MODERATE

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL MODERATE

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

MODERATE

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

| SMALL

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

Historic and cultural

resources

SMALL SMALL MODERATE to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL

Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

(a) Impacts on water quality are unresolved, but likely to be SMALL.
Conclusions and Recommendations

December 2006 10-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

The cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action are discussed and characterized in

Chapter 7 of the Final EIS. The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from

construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 in the context of past, present, and future actions at

the North Anna ESP site. For each impact area, the staff determined that the potential

cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation are SMALL, and mitigation is not

warranted. The geographical area over which past, present, and future actions could contribute

to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of action considered. Several impact categories

have the potential for MODERATE impacts, most of which would occur under temporary

circumstances or as the result of a larger than expected concentration of construction workers

settling near the North Anna ESP site. Some impact issues were not resolved. The cumulative

impacts for these issues would have to be addressed in a future EIS, should an applicant for a

CP or COL reference an ESP for the North Anna ESP site.

10.2 Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be

Avoided if the Proposal is Implemented

There would be no unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of

the ESP with the exception of impacts associated with the site preparation and preliminary

construction activities. If the ESP is granted, the ESP holder could, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.25,

perform the following site preparation and preliminary construction activities consistent with the

type enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1):

& preparation of the site for construction of the facility (including such activities as clearing,

grading, and construction of temporary access roads and borrow areas)

& installation of temporary construction support facilities (including such items as

warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading

facilities, and construction support buildings)

& excavation for facility structures

& construction of service facilities (including such facilities as roadways, paving, railroad

spurs, fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, and sanitary sewage treatment

facilities)

& construction of structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the

consequences of postulated accidents, that could cause undue risk to the health and

safety of the public.

These activities are identified in Dominion’s site redress plan. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, Volume I 10-6 December 2006

If the ESP is granted and any or all of the activities above are performed, but the ESP is not

referenced in an application for a CP under 10 CFR Part 50 or a COL under 10 CFR Part 52

while the ESP remains valid, the ESP holder would be required to redress the site according to

the site redress plan included in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the ESP application (Dominion 2006b). 

The staff reviewed the list of allowed site preparation and preliminary construction activities in

the event that the ESP is granted and reviewed the full site redress plan submitted by Dominion. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(c), the application demonstrated that there is reasonable

assurance that redress carried out under the plan will achieve an environmentally stable and

aesthetically acceptable site suitable for whatever non-nuclear use may conform with local

zoning laws. Accordingly, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.25(a), the staff concludes that the

potential site preparation and preliminary construction activities described in Dominion’s site

redress plan would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that could not be

| redressed. As discussed in Section 1.5, the staff proposes to include a condition in the ESP

| prohibiting Dominion from conducting any site preparation and preliminary construction activity

that would result in a discharge into navigable waters without first submitting to the NRC a

| Virginia Water Protection Permit (which Virginia considers to cover that requirement for a Clean

| Water Act, Section 401 Certification) or a determination by the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality (VDEQ) that no certification is required.

The impacts associated with the site preparation and preliminary construction activities are

bounded by the overall construction activities. However, there are unavoidable adverse

environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of two units at the North

Anna ESP site which are described below.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction

Chapter 4 discusses the impacts from construction in detail. The unavoidable adverse impacts

related to construction are identified in Table 10-2 and summarized below. The primary

unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during construction would be related to land use. 

All construction activities for Units 3 and 4, including ground-disturbing activities, would occur

within the existing NAPS site boundary. According to Dominion, the area that would be affected

on a long-term basis as a result of permanent facilities is approximately 52 ha (128 ac); up to an

additional 27.5 ha (67.9 ac) could be disturbed on a short-term basis as a result of temporary

activities and facilities and laydown areas (Dominion 2006a).

The construction impacts on the terrestrial ecology of the site would be expected to be

short-term. Construction of two units would result in the removal of approximately 32 ha (80 ac)

of forested habitat within the ESP site. The ESP site does not contain any old growth timber or

unique or sensitive plants or communities. Therefore, construction activities would not

noticeably reduce the local or regional diversity of plants or plant communities. 
Conclusions and Recommendations

December 2006 10-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

There are no important animal species or habitats on the ESP site. No areas designated by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species exist at or

near the site, nor are threatened or endangered plants or animals known to exist at the site. 

Therefore, construction would be expected to have no impact on any threatened or endangered

species or other important species or habitats. Socioeconomic impacts of construction include

an increase in traffic. Atmospheric and meteorological impacts include fugitive dust from

construction activities that can be mitigated by the dust control plan. Radiological doses to

construction workers from the adjacent units are expected to be well below regulatory limits. 

Regarding environmental justice, there are no unusual resource dependencies by low income or

minority groups and therefore no disproportionate adverse unavoidable impacts.

Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction

Impact Category

Adverse Impacts Based

on Dominion’s Proposal Actions to Mitigate Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

Land use Yes Comply with requirements of

applicable Federal, State, and local

permits

52 ha (128 ac) disturbed on

long-term basis, additional

27.5 ha (67.9 ac) would be

disturbed on a short-term

basis. 

Hydrological and

water use

Yes Obtain a Clean Water Act Section

401 certification prior to site

preparation activities; use best

construction management

practices;

Fill and grading operations at

the North Anna ESP site

would alter two ephemeral

streams.

Ecological

Terrestrial

Aquatic

Yes

Yes

(a) Use of construction best

management practices, adherence

to applicable permit conditions, and

avoidance of sensitive areas.

Where possible, reestablish habitat

after construction.

(b) Obtain a Clean Water Act

Section 404 Permit

(a) Removal of trees and

vegetation and habitat.

(b) Disturbance of intermittent

streams, destruction of

wetlands.

Socioeconomic Yes Implement traffic management plan Increased traffic congestion

Radiological Yes Use of as low as reasonably

achievable (ALARA) principles

Dose to construction workers

Atmospheric and

meteorological

Yes Implement dust control plan Equipment emissions and

fugitive dust from operation of

earth-moving equipment are

sources of air pollution.

Environmental justice No None None
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, Volume I 10-8 December 2006

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation

Chapter 5 of the Final EIS provides a detailed discussion of the impacts from operation. The

unavoidable adverse impacts related to operation are identified in Table 10-3 and summarized

below.

| Operation of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3, described in

| the ER, would result in an occasional and temporary decrease in the level of Lake Anna and a

| reduction in available water released from the dam into the North Anna River.

Socioeconomic impacts are primarily increased demand for services, with the increased tax

revenue to support the increase in services. The visual impact of lower water levels, and their

effect on shoreline exposure during intermittent severe drought, could temporarily impact the

area. Regarding environmental justice, there are no unusual resource dependencies by low

income or minority groups and therefore no disproportionate adverse unavoidable impacts.

Table 10-3. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation

Impact Category

Adverse Impacts

Based on

Dominion’s Proposal Actions to Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Land use No Local land management plans;

comply with requirement of

applicable Federal, State, and

local permits.

Possible new housing and retail space

added in vicinity because of potential

growth.

Hydrological and

water use

Yes Comply with Commonwealth

permit limits.

Occasional and temporary decrease in

level of Lake Anna and reduction in

available water released from dam into

the North Anna River.

Ecological

Terrestrial

Aquatic

No

Yes

None

None

None

Proportion of resources subject to

impingement and entrainment would be

small.

Socioeconomic Yes Consider plume abatement

measures.

Impacts to recreation because the level

of Lake Anna would be lower during

drought conditions. Periodic adverse

visual aesthetic impact due to Unit 3

cooling tower plume.

Radiological Yes Use of ALARA principles Dose to workers, the public, and biota.

Atmospheric and

meteorological

No None None

Environmental

justice

No None None
Conclusions and Recommendations

December 2006 10-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Meteorological impacts are expected to be negligible, although wet cooling towers would put

moisture into the air in the form of a visible condensation plume. Pollutants emitted during

operations are considered insignificant. The unavoidable adverse impacts from operation for

land use are small and further mitigation is not warranted.

10.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Chapter 8 of the Final EIS. Alternatives |

considered are the no-action alternative, alternative cooling systems, and alternative sites. |

|

The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC would deny the ESP request. |

The no-action alternative is discussed in Section 8.1 of the Final EIS. A comparison of the |

proposed action with the no-action alternative is in Section 9.4 of the Final EIS. Impacts |

associated with the no-action alternative are characterized as SMALL in Table 10-1. |

|

Alternative cooling systems are discussed in Section 8.2 of the Final EIS. Section 8.2 |

discusses once-through, wet, and dry cooling as alternatives to the proposed combination of |

wet and dry cooling for Unit 3. The staff concluded in Section 8.2 that the proposed |

combination of wet and dry cooling for Unit 3 is preferable to the three cooling alternatives. No |

cooling alternatives are considered for Unit 4 because dry cooling is the only technically feasible |

alternative identified by the applicant, as discussed in Section 8.2. |

|

Alternative sites are discussed in Sections 8.3 - 8.8 of the Final EIS. Additionally, the impacts of |

construction and operation of the ESP facilities are compared to the impacts at the proposed |

North Anna site in Chapter 9 of the Final EIS. Table 9-1 contains the staff’s characterization of |

construction impacts at the proposed and alternative sites. Table 9-2 contains the staff’s |

characterization of operational impacts at the proposed and alternative sites. The staff |

concluded that while there are differences in construction and operational impacts at the |

proposed and alternative sites, none of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable or |

obviously superior to the proposed site. |

10.4 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

Productivity of the Human Environment

Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on the relationship

between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of

long-term productivity. The only short-term use of the environment that could occur if the

proposed action is granted would be site preparation and limited construction activities. Any

such activities are unlikely to adversely affect the long-term productivity of the environment. 

The evaluation of the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, Volume I 10-10 December 2006

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the construction and operation of

the two new units can only be performed by discussing the benefits of operating the units. The

principal societal benefit associated with construction and operation of the proposed units is the

production of electricity. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17 and 52.18, an ER and an EIS

prepared in conjunction with an ESP application need not include an assessment of the benefits

of the proposed action and no such assessment is included in this Final EIS. Therefore, an

assessment of the evaluation of the relationship between local short-term uses of the

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the

construction and operation of the two units would be performed at the CP/COL stage should the

NRC grant an ESP to Dominion and an applicant references the ESP in an application for a CP

or COL. 

10.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed action is implemented. 

The only irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be expended if the

proposed action is implemented would be resources used by Dominion for site preparation

activities. If not used during the duration of the ESP, any such resource commitments for site

preparation activities would be used at the CP/COL stage or could potentially be used for other

activities even if the ESP is issued but not referenced in a CP or a COL application.

Irretrievable commitments of resources during construction of the proposed new units generally

would be similar to that of any major construction project. The actual commitment of

construction resources (e.g., concrete, steel, and other building materials) would depend on the

reactor design selected at the CP/COL stage. Hazardous materials such as asbestos would not

be used, if possible (Dominion 2006a). If materials such as asbestos were used, then the use

would be in accordance with applicable safety regulations and practices. The actual estimate of

construction materials would be performed at the CP/COL stage when the reactor design is

selected.

The staff expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with those

expected for the two new units, while irretrievable, would be a small impact with respect to the

availability of such resources.

The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of two new nuclear

units would be uranium for the fuel and ultimately the offsite storage space for the spent fuel

assemblies. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium

in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient; therefore the

irreversible and irretrievable commitment would be of only small consequence.
Conclusions and Recommendations

December 2006 10-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

10.6 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

The staff’s recommendation, after consideration of the environmental impacts described in this

Final EIS, is that an ESP for North Anna Units 3 and 4 should be issued. This recommendation

is based on (1) the ER submitted by Dominion; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal and

local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s consideration of public |

comments related to the environmental review that were received during the review process; |

and (5) the assessments summarized in this Final EIS, including the potential mitigation |

measures identified in the ER and in this Final EIS. In addition, in making its recommendation,

the staff has concluded that the alternative sites considered are not obviously superior to the

proposed site. Finally, the staff concludes that the site preparation and preliminary construction

activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would not result in any significant adverse

environmental impact that cannot be redressed.

A comparative summary showing the environmental impacts of constructing and operating two

new units at the North Anna ESP site or at any of the alternative sites is shown in Table 10-1. 

The estimated environmental significance of the no-action alternative, or denial of the ESP

application, is also shown. Table 10-1 shows that the significance of the environmental impacts

of the proposed action is SMALL for all impact categories at all sites with the exception of

certain land use, ecology, water use and quality, socioeconomic, and historic and cultural

resource impacts. The alternative sites may have adverse environmental effects in at least

some categories that reach MODERATE to LARGE significance. 

The range of impacts estimated by the NRC staff for resolved issues is predicated on certain

assumptions that are identified in each section. Should the Commission issue an ESP for the

North Anna ESP site, and it is referenced in an application for a CP or COL, the staff will verify

that the assumptions identified in this Final EIS remain applicable. In addition, certain issues

are not resolved because of a lack of information. An applicant for a CP or COL referencing an

ESP for the North Anna ESP site would need to provide the necessary information to resolve

these issues, if the proposed action ultimately would affect the resources associated with these

issues.

10.7 References

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

of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, Volume I 10-12 December 2006

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

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

Part 1508, “Council on Environmental Quality, Terminology and Index.”

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

Clean Water Act (CWA) (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC

1251, et seq.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

| an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Supplement 1,

| Washington, D.C.

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Supplement to the Final Safety

| Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. September 2006. 

| Accession No. ML062210441.
Appendix A

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

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

Early Site Permit at the North Anna ESP Site
December 2006 A-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix A

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Early Site Permit at the North Anna ESP Site

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this environmental impact statement was

assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC). The statement was prepared by members of the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

with assistance from other NRC organizations and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Jack Cushing Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

Andrew Kugler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief/Project Manager

John Tappert Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief

Chris Nolan Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief |

Brent Clayton Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief |

Stacey Imboden Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

Alicia Williamson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

Samuel Quinones-Hernandez Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

Laura Quinn Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

Barry Zalcman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Monitor |

Tom Kenyon Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management

James Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist

Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist

Harriet Nash Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist |

Nancy Kuntzleman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist |

Brad Harvey Nuclear Reactor Regulation Meteorology

Rich Emch Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

Charles Hinson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

Steve Klementowicz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

Audrey Hayes Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

Jay Lee Nuclear Reactor Regulation Design Basis and Severe Accidents

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accidents

Amy Snyder Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

James Park Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

Cynthia Barr Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

Nina Barnett Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

Yvonne Edmonds Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

Jennifer Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cultural Resources
Appendix A

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUREG-1811, Volume I A-2 December 2006

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a)

Mary Ann Parkhurst Task Leader

Beverly Miller Deputy Task Leader

Kimberly Leigh Deputy Task Leader

William Sandusky Air Quality

John Jaksch Socioeconomics

Mike Scott Socioeconomics

Duane Neitzel Aquatic Ecology

Jeffrey Ward Aquatic Ecology

Mike Sackschewsky Terrestrial Ecology

Greg Stoetzel Radiation Protection

Paul Nickens Cultural Resources

Paul Hendrickson Land Use, Related Federal Programs, Alternatives

Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology

Chris Cook Water Use, Hydrology

Stuart Saslow Water Use, Hydrology

Eva Hickey Decomissioning

Van Ramsdell Design Basis and Severe Accidents

Dennis Strenge Severe Accidents

Maha Mahasenan Transportation

Philip Daling Transportation

Michael Smith Technical Review

| Nona Diediker Comment Deliniation

Cary Counts Technical Editing

Barbara Wilson Publications Assistant

Debbie Schulz Document Production

Jean Cheyney Document Production

Mike Parker Document Production

Susan Tackett Document Production

Trina Russell Document Production

Rose Urbina Document Production

Seleste Williams Document Production

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute.
Appendix B

Organizations Contacted
December 2006 B-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix B

Organizations Contacted

During the course of the staff’s independent review of potential environmental impacts from

siting two new nuclear units at the North Anna site, the following Federal, State, regional, Tribal

and local agencies were contacted:

Lake Anna State Park, Spotsylvania, Virginia

Louisa County Historical Society, Louisa, Virginia

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, Virginia

Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia

Chickahominy Indian Tribe, Providence Forge, Virginia

Chickahominy Indians – Eastern Division, Providence Forge, Virginia

Mattaponi Indian Tribe, West Point, Virginia

Monacan Indian Nation, Madison Heights, Virginia

Nansemond Indian Tribe, Suffolk, Virginia

Pamunkey Indian Tribe, King William, Virginia

Rappahannock Tribe, Indian Neck, Virginia

Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe, Mechanicsville, Virginia

Virginia Council on Indians, Richmond, Virginia

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

South Carolina Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina

Ohio Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reynoldsburg, Ohio

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia

Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, Virginia
Appendix B

NUREG-1811, Volume I B-2 December 2006

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia

Wildlife Diversity Division, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond,

Virginia

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Richmond, Virginia

Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, Virginia

Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Richmond, Virginia 

Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland

Budget Director, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

Finance Director, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

Treasurer, Orange County, Orange, Virginia

Reservoir Coordinator, Nuclear Site Services, Dominion Generation, North Anna Site

Commissioner of Revenue, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

Assessor, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

Director of the Department of Community Development, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

Director of the Planning Division, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

Director Department of Planning, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

Customer Services Supervisor, Department of Public Utilities Henrico County, Virginia

Director of Economic Development, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

President of Fredericksburg Regional Alliance, Fredericksburg, Virginia

Realtor, Century 21, Fredericksburg, Virginia

Owner/Broker Century 21, Fredericksburg, Virginia
Appendix B

December 2006 B-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Rappahannock Area Development Commission, Fredericksburg, Virginia

Louisa County Farm Service Agency, Louisa, Virginia

Administrative Assistant for School Admissions, Spotsylvania Public Schools, Spotsylvania,

Virginia

School Superintendent, Louisa County Public Schools, Louisa, Virginia

School Superintendent, Orange County Public Schools, Orange, Virginia 

County Administrator, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

Director Office of Economic Development, Orange County, Orange, Virginia 

Director Planning and Zoning, Orange County, Orange, Virginia

Director of Economic Development, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

Louisa Town Manager, Louisa, Virginia

Real Estate Agent, Century 21, Mineral, Virginia

Director of Social Services, Orange County, Virginia

Director of Social Services, Louisa County, Virginia

County Administrator, Orange County, Virginia

Town Manager, Orange, Virginia

Director of Public Works, Orange, Virginia

Managing Broker, Century 21, Orange, Virginia

Branch Manager, Virginia Community Bank, Louisa, Virginia

Town Manager, Mineral, Virginia

Interim County Manager, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

Deputy Superintendent, Colonial National Historic Park, National Park Service
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s

Application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

North Anna ESP Site
December 2006 C-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s

Application for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

North Anna ESP Site

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) and other

correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental review, under 10 CFR Part 51, for

Dominion’s application for an early site permit at the North Anna Nuclear Plant site. All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, have been placed in the

Commission’s Public Document Room, at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, MD, and are available electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room

found on the Internet at the following web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From

this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents in the

Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for

each document are included below.

September 25, 2003 Letter from Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, to NRC submitting the

application for an early site permit at North Anna

(Accession No. ML032731511)

September 29, 2003 Letter from Mr. Tony Banks, Dominion, to Ms. Joanne Tetrault, Louisa

County Library, forwarding application for an early site permit at North

Anna (Accession No. ML032880335)

September 29, 2003 Letter from Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion, to Ms. Ellie Irons, Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), forwarding the early site

permit application and requesting a Coastal Zone Management Act

consistency determination (Accession No. ML040780219)

October 2, 2003 Letter from Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, to NRC submitting

Revision 1 of the application for an early site permit at North Anna

(Accession No. ML032731511)

October 9, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, regarding the

receipt and availability of the application for an early site permit at

North Anna (Accession No. ML032600005)
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, Volume I C-2 December 2006

October 9, 2003 NRC press release announcing the availability of the early site permit

application for North Anna (Accession No. ML032820297)

October 16, 2003 Federal Register Notice of receipt of the application for an early site

permit at North Anna (68 FR 59642)

October 23, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, regarding

acceptance of the application for an early site permit at North Anna

(Accession No. ML032740025)

October 29, 2003 Federal Register Notice of acceptance for docketing of the application

and notice of opportunity for a hearing regarding the application for an

early site permit at North Anna (68 FR 61705)

November 6, 2003 Letter from Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion, to Ms. Ellie Irons, VDEQ,

forwarding a Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination

for the early site permit application and requesting concurrence

(Accession No. ML033280533)

November 24, 2003 Federal Register Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact

statement and conduct scoping process for an early site permit at

North Anna (68 FR 65961)

November 24, 2003 NRC meeting notice announcing public meeting in Mineral, Virginia on

December 8, 2003, to discuss the environmental scoping process for the

application for an early site permit at North Anna

(Accession No. ML033280550)

November 28, 2003 Letters from NRC to public officials announcing receipt and review of the

application for an early site permit at North Anna

(Accession No. ML033020111)

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Ms. Deanna Beacham, Virginia Council on Indians,

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML033390103)

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Chief Leo Henry, Tuscarora Nation, regarding the

early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML033390155)
Appendix C

December 2006 C-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Chief Arnold Hewitt, Tuscarora Nation, regarding the

early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML033390191)

December 3, 2003 Letter from NRC to Neil Patterson, Jr., Tuscarora Environmental Nation,

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML033390172)

December 8, 2003 Placement of public meeting materials into public document room

(Accession No. ML033450406)

December 12, 2003 E-mail from Ms. Carrie E. Girstantas to NRC, providing scoping

comments regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna

Power Station site (Accession No. ML040140310)

December 12, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. David Ritter, Mr. Brendan Hoffman, and 

Mr. Jon Kessler regarding requests made during the environmental

scoping meeting to extend the time to file a petition for leave to intervene

in proceeding on early site permit for the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML033580505)

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. John Wolflin, Chesapeake Bay Field Office of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting a list of species and information

on protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that

may be in the vicinity of the North Anna Power Station and Surry Power

Station sites (Accession No. ML033570088)

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Ms. Mary Colligan, Northeast Regional Office of

NOAA Fisheries, requesting a list of species and information on

protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may

be in the vicinity of the North Anna Power Station and Surry Power

Station sites (Accession No. ML033560365)

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Dr. Mary Knapp, Reynoldsburg Ecological Services

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting a list of species

and information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and

critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the U.S. Department of

Energy’s Portsmouth Site (Accession No. ML033560384)
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, Volume I C-4 December 2006

December 21, 2003 Letter from NRC to Mr. Roger L. Banks, Charleston Ecological Services

Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting a list of species

and information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and

critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the U.S. Department of

Energy’s Savannah River Site (Accession No. ML033560437)

December 21, 2003 Email from Aviv Goldsmith to NRC, providing scoping comments

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML040060329)

January 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Ms. Georgia Cranmore, Southeast Regional Office of

NOAA Fisheries, requesting a list of species and information on

protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may

be in the vicinity of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site

(Accession No. ML040080759)

January 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Don Klima, Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, inviting comments on the effects of an early site permit for

the North Anna Power Station site on historic properties in accordance

with the National Historic Preservation Act (Accession No. ML040080790)

January 6, 2004 Letter from Ms. Mary Colligan, Northeast Regional Office of NOAA

Fisheries, to NRC, providing a response to a letter requesting a list of

species in the vicinity of the North Anna Power Station and Surry Power

Station sites (Accession No. ML040230669)

January 7, 2004 Letter from the Hanover County, Virginia, Department of Public Utilities to

NRC, providing scoping comments regarding the early site permit review

for the North Anna Power Station site (Accession No. ML040130744)

January 8, 2004 Letter from an unknown individual to NRC, providing scoping comments

regarding the early site permit review for the North Anna Power Station

site (Accession No. ML040230552)

January 9, 2004 Email from Diane Curran to NRC, providing scoping comments on behalf

of Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Nuclear Information and

Resource Service, and Public Citizen regarding the early site permit

review for the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML040230548)
Appendix C

December 2006 C-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

January 12, 2004 Letter from Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion, to Ms. Ellie Irons, VDEQ,

withdrawing Federal Consistency Certification under the Coastal Zone

Management Act for North Anna’s Early Site Permit Application

(Accession No. ML040230690)

January 13, 2003 NRC summary of public scoping meetings to support review of the early

site permit application for the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML040140627)

January 15, 2004 Letter from Mr. Timothy N. Hall, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Charleston, South Carolina, to NRC, providing a response to a letter

requesting a list of species in the vicinity of the Savannah River alternate

site (Accession No. ML040270227)

February 3, 2004 Letter from Dr. Mary Knapp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Reynoldsburg, Ohio, to NRC, providing a response to a letter requesting

a list of species in the vicinity of the Portsmouth alternate site

(Accession No. ML040480521)

February 10, 2004 Letter from Ms. Ellie Irons, VDEQ, to Ms. Pamela Faggert, Dominion,

acknowledging January 12, 2004 withdrawal of Federal Consistency

Certification under the Coastal Zone Management Act and forwarding

copies of comments developed by reviewing agencies regarding the early

site permit application for the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML40490249)

February 26, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, revising schedule

for review of early site permit for North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML040570185)

March 12, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, transmitting request

for additional information regarding environmental portion of early site

permit application for North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML040720580)

March 19, 2004 Letter from Mr. Eugene Grecheck, Dominion, to NRC providing

Lake Anna modeling calculations for North Anna Early Site Permit

application (Accession No. ML040910433)

March 27, 2004 Summary of Environmental Site Audit to Support Review of the

North Anna Early Site Permit Application (Accession No. ML040860222)
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, Volume I C-6 December 2006

March 31, 2004 Letter from Mr. Eugene Grecheck, Dominion, to NRC stating revised

approach for Unit 4 normal plant cooling (Accession No. ML040980485)

April 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Brent Gutierrez, Savannah River Operations

Office, expressing thanks for support provided during site visit at

Savannah River Site, an alternative to the North Anna Power Station site 

(Accession No. ML040970408)

April 5, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Russ Vranicar, Portsmouth Project, expressing

thanks for support provided during site visit at Portsmouth site, an

alternative to the North Anna Power Station site

(Accession No. ML040970276)

April 14, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, regarding new

Environmental Project Manager for the review of the Early Site Permit

application at the North Anna site (Accession No. ML041050879)

April 19, 2004 Summary of Telephone Call between NRC and Dominion concerning

clarification of the request for additional information pertaining to the

North Anna Early Site Permit Application (Accession No. ML041130241)

May 6, 2004 NRC Trip Report of Visits to the Savannah River Site and Portsmouth

Site, Alternatives to the North Anna Early Site Permit Site

(Accession No. ML041270548)

May 12, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. Steven D. Routh, Bechtel Power Corporation,

regarding request for withholding information from public disclosure for

the North Anna Early Site Permit (Accession No. ML041390448)

May 17, 2004 Dominion’s Response to NRC’s March 12, 2004 Request for Additional

Information Regarding Environmental Portion of Early Site Permit

Application (Accession No. ML041450037)

June 22, 2004 Letter from NRC to Mr. David Christian, Dominion, regarding revised early

site permit environmental review schedule (Accession No. ML04170014)

June 23, 2004 Summary of Telephone Call between NRC and Dominion concerning

clarification of Dominion’s May 17, 2004, response to NRC’s requests for

additional information pertaining to the North Anna Early Site Permit

Application (Accession No. ML041830193)
Appendix C

December 2006 C-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

June 24, 2004 Issuance of Environmental Scoping Summary Report

(Accession No. ML041770579)

June 28, 2004 Letter from Dominion to NRC, responding to comments in VDEQ’s

February 10, 2004, letter related to the Coastal Zone Management Act

certification (Accession No. ML041890324)

July 12, 2004 Letter from Dominion to NRC, Additional Responses to NRC’s

March 2, 2004 Request for Additional Information Regarding

Environmental Portion of Early Site Permit Application

(Accession No. ML041970396)

July 15, 2004 Letter from Dominion to NRC, forwarding Revision 2 to the North Anna

early site permit application (Accession No. ML042010009)

August 17, 2004 Summary of telephone calls between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and Dominion pertaining to the environmental review of the

North Anna early site permit application (Accession No. ML042310737)

August 27, 2004 E-mail from NRC (Andrew Kugler) to Bill Borduin in response to concerns

expressed regarding the early site permit for the North Anna Power

Station (Accession No. ML042440891)

September 16, 2004 E-mail from Mr. Joseph Hegner, Dominion, to NRC in response to

August 2004 Telecon question No. 4 pertaining to NRC’s Environmental

Review (Accession No. ML042640344)

September 22, 2004 Email from Mr. Tony Banks, Dominion, to NRC transmitting Lake Anna

State Park attendance data (Accession No. ML042670291)

September 30, 2004 North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 3,

Part 3-Environmental Report Chapters 1 - 3:2:260

(Accession No. ML042590096)

September 30, 2004 North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 3,

Part 3-Environmental Report Chapters 3:3:1 - 4:1:9

(Accession No. ML042590097)

October 29, 2004 Letter from the US Fish and Wildlife service containing a list of threatened

or endangered species for the North Anna ESP site and the alternate

Surry ESP site (Accession No. ML 043090290)
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, Volume I C-8 December 2006

October 29, 2004 Letter from the NRC to Mr. David Christian, Dominion, requesting

additional information regarding the uranium fuel cycle

(Accession No. ML043030707)

November 12, 2004 Letter from the NRC to Mr. David A. Christian, Dominion, forwarding 

revised environmental review schedule (Accession No. ML043080347)

November 18, 2004 Response from Dominion to the NRC’s October 29, 2004, request for

additional information on the uranium fuel cycle

(Accession No. ML043240229)

November 30, 2004 NUREG 1811, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site

Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site” (Accession No. ML043380308)

December 2, 2004 Letter to EPA transmitting NUREG 1811, “Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site”

(Accession No. ML043370446)

December 2, 2004 Letter to Dominion transmitting Federal Register Notice of Availability of

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP)

at the North Anna ESP Site (Accession No. ML043370460)

December 27, 2004 Meeting Notice for meeting on the draft environmental impact statement

(Accession No. ML043650007)

January 26, 2005 Meeting Notice of rescheduled meeting on the draft environmental impact

statement (Accession No. ML05027019)

January 31, 2005 Biological Assessment for the Early Site Permit (ESP) of the North Anna

ESP Site and a Request for Informal Consultation

(Accession No. ML050320461)

January 31, 2005 Trip report for the January 6, 2005, drop in visit with the County

Commissioners of Spotsylvania, Orange and Louisa Counties

(Accession No. ML050340579)

February 23, 2005 EPA letter requesting an extension of the comment period (Accession No.

ML050610265)

March 17, 2005 NRC response to EPA request for extension of comment

(Accession No. ML050500497)
Appendix C

December 2006 C-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

March 18, 2005 Supplemental Request for Additional Information (RAI)

(Accession No. ML050840226)

March 20, 2005 Meeting summary for public meeting held to on February 17, 2005, in

Mineral Virginia to receive comments on the draft environmental impact

statement (Accession No. ML050880304)

March 22, 2005 Trip report for the January 19, 2005, drop in visit with the Commonwealth

of Virginia (Accession No. ML050810272)

March 31, 2005 Summary of a Telephone Call Between U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and Dominion Concerning the Request for Additional

Information (RAI) Pertaining to the North Anna Early Site Permit

Application (Accession No. ML050920010)

April 12, 2005 Dominion’s response to the March 18, 2005, RAI number 4, requesting

documentation of Dominion’s commitment to the Commonwealth of

Virginia regarding the striped bass ( Accession No. ML0501090376)

April 13, 2005 Email from Jack Cushing (NRC) to Ellie Irons Commonwealth of Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality requesting clarification of

commitment between the Commonwealth and Dominion regarding the

striped bass (Accession No. ML051040399)

April 13, 2005 Dominion’s response to the March 18, 2005, RAI number 1, 2 and 3

(Accession No. ML051100321)

April 21, 2005 Email from the Commonwealth of Virginia (Ellie Irons) clarifying mitigation

for the striped bass (Accession No. ML051120483)

May 12, 2005 Revision 4 to North Anna Early Site Permit Application

(Accession No. ML051450310)

May 20, 2005 Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field

Office, concurring with the NRC’s biological assessment

(Accession No. ML051600263)

June 14, 2005 Summary of Telephone Conference with the Virginia Department of

Historic Resources Regarding the North Anna Early Site Permit Review

(Accession No. ML05166060)
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, Volume I C-10 December 2006

June 16, 2005 Memo to: Andrew Kugler, Section Chief, NRR/DRIP/RLEP/ES Subject:

Report Containing Comments Received Pertaining to the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for the North Anna Early Site Permit

Application (Accession No. ML051720560)

June 30, 2005 Letter to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers transmitting NUREG 1811, “Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

North Anna ESP Site” (Accession No. ML051880003)

July 7, 2005 Letter from Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Requesting

Comment and Response Document Pertaining to North Anna Early Site

Permit Draft Environmental Impact Statement

| (Accession No. ML052010112)

July 15, 2005 Letter from U. S. Army Corps of Engineering Regarding NUREG 1811, 

“Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Anna Early Site

| Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site” (Accession No. ML052020342)

| July 15, 2005 Trip Report Tour of Doswell Limited Partnership Combined Cycle Facility

| (Accession No. ML052170374)

July 20, 2005 Letter from the NRC to Mr. David Christian, Dominion, requesting

additional information regarding compliance with Section 307 of the

Coastal Zone Management Act and Section 401 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (Accession No. ML052010524)

| July 25, 2005 Transmittal of Final Safety Evaluation Report Review Items and

| Revision 5 to the North Anna ESP Application

| (Accession No. ML052150226)

| August 16,2005 Letter transmitting revised schedule (Accession No. ML051520461)

| September 8, 2005 Supplemental request for additional information (RAI) regarding the

| environmental portion of the Early Site Permit (ESP) Application for the

| North Anna Site (Accession No. ML052520272)

| September 22, 2005 Dominion's response to the supplemental request for additional

| information (Accession No. ML052660062)

| September 27, 2005 Letter from the NRC to Dr. Ethel Eaton, Virginia Department of Historic

| Resources regarding the North Anna Early Site Permit Review

| (Accession No. ML052730103)
Appendix C

December 2006 C-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

September 30, 2005 Safety Evaluation Report for an early site permit (ESP) at North Anna

ESP Site (Accession number ML052710305)

October 6, 2005 Dominion’s response to the supplemental request for additional |

information dated July 20, 2005 (Accession No. ML052790657) |

October 24, 2005 Letter from Dominion to the NRC regarding North Anna Early Site Permit

Application Planned Revision to Unit 3 Cooling Water Approach |

(Accession No. ML052980117) |

October 25, 2005 Letter from Mr. Brooks, Deputy Superintendent, National Park Service, to |

the NRC, providing comments on the National Park Service’s concern |

regarding the alternative Surry ESP site potential impact on the viewshed. |

(Accession No. ML053080128) |

November 2, 2005 Letter from NRC to Dominion responding to Dominion’s notification of |

modification of the cooling system for the North Anna ESP Site |

(Accession No. ML053000566) |

November 3, 2005 Letter from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources regarding

consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

(Accession No. ML0531301730)

November 22, 2005 Letter from Dominion to NRC regarding North Anna ESP Application

submittal schedule for the ESP application supplement

(Accession No. ML053260619)

December 5, 2005 Letter from the NRC to Dominion regarding revision to the North Anna

ESP schedule (Accession No. ML0532100541) 

January 13, 2006 Dominion North Anna Early Site Permit Application Supplement to

Address a Modified Approach to Unit 3 Cooling and To Ensure the Plant

Parameter Envelope Remains Bounding (Accession No. ML060250396)

February 10, 2006 Letter from the NRC to Dominion regarding the North Anna ESP 

 Application Review Schedule (Accession No. ML060390208).

March 2, 2006 Letter from the NRC to Dominion regarding information needs in revision

to the ESP application in regards to the change in cooling system and the

increase in power level (Accession No. ML060610065)
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, Volume I C-12 December 2006

March 13, 2006 Letter from the NRC to Dominion regarding possible Bald Eagle nest

(Accession No. ML060650396)

April 3, 2005 North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC Question

10.q - Water Budget Analysis Spreadsheets. 

(Accession No. ML061040606)

April 11, 2006 Meeting Summary of the March 10, 2006, meeting with Dominion to

discuss the supplement to the North Anna ESP Application (Accession

No. ML060860305)

April 13, 2006 North Anna Early Site Permit Application Response to NRC Questions

and Revision 6 to the Plant Application (Accession No. ML061180180)

May 4, 2006 North Anna Review Schedule letter (Accession No. ML061230005)

May 5, 2006 Press Release regarding Review Schedule and Informing Public of the

Intent to Prepare a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (Accession No. ML 061250437)

May 2, 2006 Letter transmitting Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare a

Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (ML061240025

and ML061240029)

May 10, 2006 Letter to Dominion transmitting the Requests for Additional Information

(Accession No. ML061290142).

May 12, 2006 Summary of May 3-4, 2006, Site Audit to Support the Review of the North

Anna ESP Application (Accession No. ML061320447)

May 24, 2006 North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Response to NRC May 10,

2006 Request for Additional Information May 12, 2006 Site Audit

Summary Report Comments, and NRC Site Audit Follow-up Questions

(Accession No. ML061510131).

June 16, 2006 Letter from Jeffery Steers Regional Director, Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality to Jack Cushing, Senior Project Manager, NRC

Re: Dominion North Anna Early Site permit Application, Section 410 of

the Clean Water Act (Accession No. ML061720278)
Appendix C

December 2006 C-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

June 21, 2006 Letter from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC to the NRC transmitting

the North Anna Early Site Permit Application Response to NRC

Questions and Revision 7 to the North Anna ESP Application (Accession

No. ML061870030).

June 28, 2006 Letter from NRC to US Fish and Wildlife regarding the biological

assessment for the ESP (Accession No. ML061510149)

July 3, 2006 Letter from NRC to EPA official filing of Supplement 1 to the DEIS |

(Accession No. ML06166011) |

July 6, 2006 Letter to Dominion from NRC - notice of availability of the Supplement to |

the DEIS (Accession No. ML061660030) |

July 6, 2006 Memo to Chris Nolan, PE, North Anna/Surry trip report, September 18-22, |

2005 tour of North Anna River, Lake Anna, and the Surry alterative site |

(Accession No. ML061720366) |

July 6, 2006 Trip report for December 13, 2005, tour of the North Anna ESP site. |

(Accession No. ML061810009) |

July 31, 2006 Letter from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC to the NRC transmitting |

the North Anna Early Site Permit Application Response to NRC |

Questions and Revision 8 to the North Anna ESP Application (Accession |

No. ML062140009). |

August 2, 2006 Letter from Virginia DEQ requesting extension of time for submission of |

their comments to the Supplement to the DEIS (Accession |

ML062260339) |

August 7, 2006 Email from VA Dept of Game and Inland Fisheries to NRC staff attaching |

a copy of the July 7 letter from Mr. Fernald that they have sent to DEQ as |

part of CZMA review (Accession No. ML062760076) |

August 8, 2006 Letter from NRC to Mr. Harry Ruth (Friends of Lake Anna) regarding Mr. |

Ruth’s request for an extension of the public comment period for the |

supplement to DEIS for North Anna ESP Application (Accession No. |

ML062130213) |
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, Volume I C-14 December 2006

| August 8, 2006 Letter from Jack Cushing (NRC) to Ellie Irons Commonwealth of Virginia

| Department of Environmental Quality regarding Ms. Irons’ request for an

| extension of the public comment period for the supplement to the DEIS

| for North Anna ESP (Accession No. ML062160207)

| August 15, 2006 Letter from the NRC to Dominion regarding Supplement 1 to the Final

| Safety Evaluation Report for the North Anna ESP Application (Accession

| No. ML062210405)

| September 6, 2006 Email from Dominion to NRC staff with Wetlands Delineation Information

| that Dominion provided to USACE (Accession No. ML062760080)

| September 7, 2006 Email from Dominion to NRC staff forwarding a copy of the Wetlands

| Delineation Confirmation letter from USACE (Accession No.

| ML062760087)

| September 12, 2006 Letter from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC to the NRC transmitting

| the North Anna Early Site Permit Application Response to NRC

| Questions and Revision 9 to the North Anna ESP Application (Accession

| No. ML062580096).

| September 13, 2006 Summary of Public Meeting Held to Receive Comments on the

| Supplement to the DEIS for the North Anna ESP Application (Accession

| No. ML062440229) 

| September 21, 2006 Email from Dominion to NRC staff attaching Dominion’s Archaeological

| Survey Report (Accession No. ML062770252)

| September 26, 2006 Summary of the teleconference on September 6, 2006 and site visit on

| September 8, 2006 dealing with review of the bounding values for tritium

| concentrations (Accession No. ML062620039)

| November 3, 2006 Request by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Memorandum of

| Agreement Regarding Eagle Management at Lake Anna

| (Accession No. ML062720052)

| November 3, 2006 Letter from NRC to Dr. Eaton (Virginia Department of Historic Resources)

| notifying the VDHR that consultation responsibilities under Section 106 of

| the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied

| (Accession No. ML062900330)
Appendix C

December 2006 C-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

November 10, 2006 Letter from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC to the NRC requesting to |

amend the North Anna ESP Application to include a commitment to |

conduct an instream flow incremental methodology study (Accession No. |

ML063180258) |

November 14, 2006 Letter from NRC to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC agreeing to |

include a commitment to conduct an instream flow incremental |

methodology study as an enforceable permit condition |

(Accession No. ML0663190284) |

November 22, 2006 Letter from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC to the NRC stating that |

Dominion had received conditional concurrence under the Coastal Zone

Management Act from the Commonwealth of Virginia |

(Accession No. ML063260423) |
Appendix D

Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses
December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-1

Appendix D

Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

On November 24, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of

Intent in the Federal Register (68 FR 65961) to notify the public of the staff’s intent to prepare

an environmental impact statement (EIS) to support the ESP application for the North Anna

early site permit (ESP) site. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, and

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 52. As outlined by NEPA,

NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. NRC

invited the applicant; Federal, Tribal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations;

and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the

scheduled public meeting and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than

January 9, 2004.

The scoping process included a public scoping meeting, which was held at the Louisa County

Middle School in Louisa, Virginia, on December 8, 2004. Approximately 80 members of the

public attended the meeting. This session began with NRC staff members providing a brief

overview of the ESP process and the NEPA process. Following the NRC’s prepared statements, the meeting was open for public comments. Twenty-nine attendees provided either oral

comments or written statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. 

The transcript of the meeting can be found as an attachment to the Scoping Meeting Summary,

which was issued on January 13, 2004. The meeting summary is available electronically for

public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records

(PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS) under accession number

ML040140614. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room) (Note that the

URL is case-sensitive). Additional comments received later are also available.

The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be

addressed in the EIS and highlight public concerns and issues. The Notice of Intent identified

the following objectives of the scoping process:

& Define the proposed action which is to be the subject of the EIS.

& Determine the scope of the EIS and identify significant issues to be analyzed in depth.
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-2

& Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not

significant.

& Identify any environmental assessments and other EISs that are being prepared or will

be prepared that are related to, but not part of the scope of the EIS being considered.

& Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the

proposed action.

& Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental

analyses and the Commission’s tentative planning and decisionmaking schedule.

& Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for

preparation and schedules for completing the EIS to the NRC and any cooperating

agencies.

& Describe how the EIS will be prepared, and include any contractor assistance to be

used.

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the

transcripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. Two letters and

three email messages containing comments were received during the scoping period. All

comments and suggestions received orally during the scoping meeting or in writing were

considered. Each set of comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier

(commenter ID letter), allowing each set of comments from a commenter to be traced back to

the transcript, letter, or email in which the comments were submitted.

Table D-1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the commenter ID letter associated

with each person's set(s) of comments. The commenter ID letter is preceded by NASC (short

for North Anna scoping). For oral comments, the individuals are listed in the order in which they

spoke at the public meeting. Accession numbers indicate the location of the written comments

in ADAMS.

Comments were consolidated and categorized according to the topic within the proposed EIS or

according to the general topic if outside the scope of the EIS. Comments with similar specific

objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues that had been raised in the

source comments. Once comments were grouped according to subject area, the staff and

contractor determined the appropriate action for the comment. The staff made a determination

on each comment that it was one of the following:

& A comment that was actually a question and introduces no new information.
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-3

& A comment that was either related to support or opposition of early site permitting in

general (or specifically, the North Anna ESP) or that makes a general statement about

the early site permit process. In addition, it provides no new information and does not

pertain to 10 CFR Part 52.

& A comment about an environmental issue that

 - provided new information that will require evaluation during the review, or

 - provided no new information

& A comment that is outside the scope of the ESP, which includes, but is not limited to

 - comment regarding the need for, or cost of, power

 - comment regarding alternative energy sources

 - comment on the safety of the existing units.

The comments that are considered in the evaluation of environmental impacts in this EIS are

summarized in the following pages. To review all the comments received during scoping, refer

to the scoping summary (ML041770579). For reference, the unique identifier for each comment

(commenter ID letter listed in Table D-1 plus the comment number) is provided. The responses

provided here have been updated to provide the location in the EIS where the subject is

addressed.

Table D-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source (ADAMS

Accession #)

NASC-A Paul Gunter Nuclear Information and

Resource Service

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-B Ernie Reed Citizen and teacher from

Charlottesville, Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-C Alexis Zeigler Citizen of Charlottesville, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-D Donald Day Citizen of Charlottesville, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-E Dave Ritter Public Citizen Critical Mass

Energy and Environment

Program

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-4

Table D-1. (contd)

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source (ADAMS

Accession #)

NASC-F Dewey Keeton Citizen of Louisa County,

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-G Lou Zeller Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-H Brian Buckley Citizen of Louisa, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-I Gene Grecheck Vice President, Nuclear Support

Services

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-J Bill Borduin Lake Anna Civic Association 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-K Jerry Rosenthal Concerned Citizens of Louisa

County, Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-L Terry Jones Member First Baptist Church

and Louisa County, Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-M Dan Holmes Piedmont Environmental Council 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-N Abhaya Thiele Resident of Buckingham County,

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-O Bill Murphey Resident of Louisa County,

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-P Marione Cobb 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-Q Brianne Boylan 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-R Olivia Ryan Resident of Louisa County,

Virginia, and Lake Anna

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-S James Griffis Retired Presbyterian Pastor

living at Lake Anna

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-T Sam Forrest Citizen of Greensprings, Virginia 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)
Appendix D

Table D-1. (contd)

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (if stated)

Comment Source (ADAMS

Accession #)

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-5

NASC-U Steve Montgomery Citizen of Louisa, Virginia.

Employee North Anna Power

Station

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-V Page Kemp Citizen of Louisa County,

Virginia. Employee North Anna

Power Station

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-W Bill Streit Resident of Louisa County,

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-X Alex McGee Resident of Albermarle County,

Virginia. Previously of Louisa

County

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-Y Amzic Sullivan Resident of Green County,

Virginia

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-Z Jon Kessler Resident of Charlottesville,

Virginia. Past Resident of

Louisa.

12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-AA Ian Burke 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-BB Bob Bishop Nuclear Energy Institute 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-CC Brendan Hoffman Public Citizen, Washington D.C. 12/8/03 Scoping Meeting

Transcript (ML040140634)

NASC-DD Carrie Girstantas Citizen of Louisa County,

Virginia

12/12/03 - email

(ML040140310)

NASC-EE Aviv Goldsmith Citizen of Spotsylvania, Virginia 12/21/03 - email

(ML040060329)

NASC-FF Frank W. Harksen,

Jr

Director Department of Public

Utilities, Hanover County,

Virginia

1/7/04 - letter

(ML040130744)

NASC-GG Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and

Eisenberg, LLP

1/9/04 - email/letter

(ML040230548)

NASC-HH Unsigned 1/8/04 - letter

(ML040230552)

(a) The transcripts can be found under accession number ML040140634.
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-6

Preparation of the EIS will take into account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping

process. The EIS will be made available for public comment. The comment period for the EIS

will offer the next opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, Tribal, State, and local

government agencies; local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to the

NRC’s environmental review process. The comments received on the EIS will be considered in

the preparation of the final EIS. The final EIS, along with the staff’s Safety Evaluation Report

(SER), will provide much of the basis for the NRC’s decision on the North Anna ESP.

D.1 Comments and Responses

This summarizes the in-scope comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping

process, and discusses their disposition. Parenthetical numbers after each comment refer to the

commenter’s ID letter and the comment number. Comments can be tracked to the commenter

and the source document through the ID letter and comment number listed in Table D-1. 

Comments are grouped by the following categories:

D.1.1 Comments concerning air quality

D.1.2 Comments concerning aquatic ecology

D.1.3 Comments concerning groundwater use and quality

D.1.4 Comments concerning surface water use and quality

D.1.5 Comments concerning socioeconomics

D.1.6 Comments concerning human health

D.1.7 Comments concerning uranium fuel cycle and waste management

D.1.8 Comments concerning postulated accidents

D.1.9 Comments concerning site redress

D.1.10 Comments concerning alternatives

D.1.11 Comments concerning the safety review for the ESP, including safeguards and security

and emergency preparedness
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-7

D.1.1 Air Quality

Comment: You should know that nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases. That is of

grave concern to many who study and worry about environmental future. (NASC-BB 4)

Response: This information will be considered in the staff’s evaluation of air quality impacts in

the EIS. The results of the analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

D.1.2 Aquatic Ecology

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is therefore required to address all

of the following environmental impacts, including but not limited to: 3. All impacts on Lake Anna

arising from the increased impingement and entrainment of fish, fish spawn, other aquatic life

and nutrients arising from the increased reactor cooling water intake for any proposed additional

nuclear power units. (NASC-GG 2)

Comment: One of the areas that the Lake Anna Civic Association should be looking at is the

impact of not only fish but spawn of fish and how that impacts the future populations of fish in the

Lake Anna area. (NASC-A 6)

Comment: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

which is] natural environments such as fish and plant life. (NASC-J 5)

Comment: What impact would this [additional water use] have on wildlife and fish species in

and surrounding the lake, and on the North Anna River downstream? (NASC-M 3)

Response: The NRC staff will evaluate aquatic and terrestrial impacts during its evaluation of

the ESP application, and the results of the analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [and

Chapter 5] in the EIS.

Comment: There were two studies that just came out in early summer of this year. One was

prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Protection looking at the Hudson

River and it was a detailed study that looked at both the thermal pollution and the entrainment

and impingement of fish on and through the Indian Point units 2 and 3 nuclear power station as

well as a couple of much smaller fossil fuel facilities. ...Another study we'd like to provide you

with is from the State of California, the Central Coastal Water Region, that's the equivalent to the

DEP for the coastal water regions of California where they looked at the impingement and

entrainment of fish in Diablo Cove, which is the receiving water for Diablo Canyon's 1 and 2

nuclear power stations. (NASC-A 11)
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-8

Response: The NRC staff will consider the results of these two studies in preparing its

evaluation of the aquatic impacts of the ESP. The results of the analysis will be presented in

Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

Comment: We currently have problems with contaminants in the fish in Lake Anna that we're

unsure where the contaminants are coming from. The way I understand it, the checks and

balances of the NRC or the plant itself in the checking of these fish have long since ceased. And

Lake Anna Civic Association now are monitoring the lake. Is this going to be something that's

going to happen again?...I've read the plant was regulating and checking on the fish population. 

And they stopped at some point in time and its just [a] concern of mine because what's bad for

the fish is bad for me. ...Since the lake was created for the nuclear plant, it seems to me that they

should be checking on this fish population and monitoring the water at all times. ...For all

contaminants. (NASC-F 1)

Response: The human health impacts related to radioactive effluent releases from any new

nuclear plants will be evaluated in the EIS. NRC regulations require strict monitoring of

radioactive effluent releases. In addition, new plants are commonly required to perform special

monitoring of aquatic and terrestrial species for some period of time after a new plant

commences operation. With respect to effluents that are not radioactive, the Virginia Department

of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) would regulate the release of such effluents to Lake Anna. 

The VDEQ would specify whatever monitoring requirements it deems necessary. These

requirements would normally be included in the NPDES/VPDES permit.

D.1.3 Groundwater Use and Quality

Comment: I actually heard tonight that even ground water would be considered [as a possible

cooling water source]. Since this additional source would be necessary for the operation of the

facility, why is it suggested in the permit that this issue be addressed during the COL application

and not in the EIS? Consider the difficulties in bringing the additional water to the [plant] and the

fact that this is an essential piece for operation, we urge NRC to consider addressing this issue

now during the EIS process rather than later with the construction permitting processes. 

(NASC-M 6)

Response: The NRC will evaluate cooling system impacts in the EIS. This portion of the review

would include the impacts associated with the source of cooling tower makeup-water for Unit 4. 

The results of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

D.1.4 Surface Water Quality and Use

Comment: The County [Hanover] wishes to ensure that any environmental impact review

evaluates the changes to Lake Anna releases and related impacts on County facilities, its
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-9

citizens and other instream and offstream beneficial uses of the North Anna and Pamunkey

Rivers that will result from the construction and operation of an additional reactor. Such a review

should also determine the appropriate and necessary minimum Lake Anna release to protect

these uses. (NASC-FF 1)

Comment: Downstream users have designed their water intake and wastewater discharge

systems around this 40 cfs low flow condition, and cannot get by with less water. And, increasingly more stringent regulations affect the ability to operate at the 40 cfs [cubic feet per second]. 

(NASC-FF 2)

Comment: Although this is a different permit and permitting process, many of the prior

[historical] comments [related to water availability] are applicable from an environmental

perspective and should be included in the scope of an environmental impact statement. 

(NASC-FF 3)

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address the

following environmental impacts, including but not limited to: 1. All impacts on the water levels

in Lake Anna arising from increased intake of reactor cooling water for the operation of any

proposed new nuclear power units 2. All impacts on the aquatic environment of Lake Anna

arising from the increase in thermal discharge of reactor cooling water as result of the operation

of additional nuclear power units. [and].... 4. All impacts arising from the increase in the routine

discharge of chemicals, heavy metals, cleaning solvents, biocides and radioactive isotopes into

Lake Anna arising from the operation of additional nuclear power units. (NASC-GG 3)

Comment: The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

which is Water issues. They consist of thermal changes, volume, flow and lake level. 

(NASC-J 1)

Comment: It's our understanding that the additional reactors would increase the water use of

the facility dramatically. It's been estimated that the evaporative loss could be as high as

41 million gallons per day. ...Will this affect the flow rates downstream from the lake and the

dam, and downstream users of the river? (NASC-M 1)

Comment: The temperature changes are addressed in great detail in the application itself. And

the temperature concerns are real, but I believe there are reasonable solutions to them. 

(NASC-O 4)

Comment: I wanted to address was the lake level concerns for units 3 and 4. ...So one

observation is that [some]one should examine the agreement between Dominion Power and the

State of Virginia on the matter of water released over the dam. (NASC-O 5)

Comment: What I understand is that Virginia Power or Dominion Power has submitted a sort of
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-10

an envelope that describes the potential impact of this new project....we just experienced, of

course, a serious drought in Central Virginia followed by a year of abundant rainfall. But I

wanted to know how you approached issues of drought; whether or not when you do that, you

just sort of look at the historical record and then make extrapolations of what you can expect in

terms of meeting the demands for water that this new project might have. ...So in other words

history, the recent history as well as more distant history plays a major role in projecting forward? 

(NASC-D 1)

Comment: One other environmental issue I wanted to mention was as far as drought and water

issues, ...I would encourage when the water issues are examined, that more severe droughts are

considered, certainly than the one a couple of years ago, recently. Even worse than any on

record, I would suggest being considered. (NASC-Z 4)

Comment: Flows into the lake may not be sufficient to meet the demands of the expansion. 

Within the early site permit it is noted that the makeup water may have to be taken from another

source if all units were to continue operation during low flow periods. What is the estimated

amount of additional water needed to meet the demand of the facility during these low flow

periods? And what are the possible sources under consideration? (NASC-M 4)

Comment: Another point, on page 3-5-8 of the early site permit application under the heading

"Water Use Impacts" there appears the sentence "The impacts of adding new unit four would

depend on specific heat dissipation systems selected and would be evaluated in the COL

application." Again, we urge NRC to request the data necessary from the applicant to determine

the impacts. If we are determining the feasibility of new reactors, it seems reasonable to know

these impacts with the completion of an EIS. (NASC-M 7)

Comment: During this drought it [the lake level] went down five feet. And if there's a third unit in

operation, it would go down to about 7 feet below. ...What can one do about that? One

recommendation has been to make up this evaporative loss from other water sources. ...The

second recommendation is that Dominion start looking now into other sources of water. That is,

most of the time no additional water makeup would be needed. But there would be times where

it would be very good for public relations to be able to make up the evaporative loss, mainly

during times of drought. (NASC-O 6)

Comment: And so toward the fourth unit, we would like to recommend very strongly that

Dominion look into getting additional water from another source, it could be from another river, it

could be from the cities, they're processing more, that sort of thing. But to have an external

source of water to make up for the loss for the fourth unit. (NASC-O 7)

Response: Surface water impacts of the types described in the comments will be evaluated by

the NRC staff in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-11

D.1.5 Socioeconomics

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is ..... required to address all

potential socio-economic impacts from the elevated national security requirements and countermeasures to protect a larger target of terrorism with the expansion of the nuclear power station

site including the indefinite and possibly permanent closure of Lake Anna to public access for

sporting, recreation and other means of community economic livelihood.

(NASC-GG 4)

Comment: We've also committed tonight to provide you with an ongoing and increasing list of

lake closures and restrictions to public right of way to lakes around nuclear power stations

because of security reasons. (NASC-A 12)

Response: The NRC staff will evaluate socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action in

Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS, including any reasonably foreseeable impacts resulting

from security measures.

Comment: And as we look at this from those of us who live here and who plan on living here,

and want our children to live here, we have to look at our property values. Putting a new nuclear

plant out there has no chance of doing anything but reducing property values around the lake. 

(NASC-K 3)

Comment: It's our understanding that the additional reactors would increase the water use of

the facility dramatically. It's been estimated that the evaporative loss could be as high as

41 million gallons per day. ...What impact would this have on the residents of the lake and their

continued recreational use? (NASC-M 2)

Comment: So the one question that had to be asked was what's the public reaction to the

change in the lake level as a function of height below 250? And the answer is people start to get

concerned when it goes down three feet. (NASC-O 2)

Comment: Now for the fourth unit, we're talking about evaporative loss of around

23,900 gallons per minute, or about 54 cubic feet per second. It's all opinion, but there is no way

that this can be taken from the input to Lake Anna without having the lake level drop, you know,

beyond what is considered by useful use for the people around the lake. (NASC-O 3)

Comment: I'm also glad for the school building and the thousands of taxes that Virginia Power

pays to Louisa County so we citizens didn't have to build it alone. I'm glad for the influence it has

made in the past 25 years in Louisa County. I'd like to see it continue. (NASC-S 2)

Comment: In the business I ran here, many customers were Dominion Power employees, so I

am definitely aware of the economic value of the plant being here. (NASC-X 1)
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-12

Response: The NRC staff will evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action in

Chapter 4 [and Chapter 5] of the EIS, including impacts related to taxes, property values, and

recreational use of the lake.

D.1.6 Human Health

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address all

impacts on the public health and environment arising out of the increase in routine and

accidental radioactive emissions to the air and to the water as the result of the operation of

additional nuclear power units. The analysis should consider work by Dr. John Gofman, showing

that low-level radiation, at levels considered to be safe for medical use, is a significant

contributor to deaths from heart disease and cancer. See Radiation from Medical Procedures in

the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease (Committee for Nuclear Responsibility: 

1999). (NASC-GG 5)

Comment: Build this nuclear reactor? I don't think so. Killing tens of thousands of people and

not to mention years of genetic mutation in all walks of life. (NASC-AA 5)

Comment: Strontium-90 remains radioactive for 600 years and concentrates in the food chain. 

Like other isotopes it’s odorless, tasteless and invisible. It acts like calcium in the body's

organisms where it enters the bones and animals and lactating breasts of mammals. It's a

carcinogen causing leukemia, bone and breast cancer. Cesium-137, another byproduct, also

remains radioactive for 600 years. It also concentrates in the food chain, but it stores in the

muscles where it induces malignant muscle cancers called sarcomas. Plutonium is so

carcinogenic that one pound of the stuff evenly distributed can cause cancer in every person on

earth. Plutonium has a radioactive life of half a million years. It enters the body through the

lung, migrates to the bone and liver, crosses the placenta into the embryo, mothers with child. 

Causes bone cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, testicular cancer, birth deformities and genetic

mutations in humans and other animals that are passed from generation to generation. 

(NASC-B 14)

Comment: I heard something about permitted releases. The plants are actually allowed, as

long as its diluted to the proper amount, to put radioactive releases into air, water and the

surrounding environment. And this occurs at the same time that the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission formally agrees with the linear-no-threshold – response model which says that any

increase in radioactive dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk. And

at the same time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission tells us that its primary mission is to

protect the public health and safety in matters regarding radiation exposure. (NASC-E 11)

Comment: This is from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2907, radioactive

materials released from nuclear power plants. This was an annual report from 1988. I've
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-13

selected 1988, about 15 years ago, because of the cancer latency period. After 20 years you

have – and I believe you are beginning – maybe beginning to reap the whirlwind. In this report,

this NUREG report, there was a risk in here for the North Anna plant 40 miles northwest of

Richmond, unit 1 and unit 2. There are airborne effluents and radionuclides released which

number 26 including some of the cesium and other elements that were mentioned by previous

speakers. Liquid effluents, nuclear – or radionuclides released number 32 in this report. And

just scanning the highlights here. The volume of total liquid tritium released in that year was

1,940 liters. (NASC-G 2)

Comment: I'm standing here because of concerns as far as public health. ...In my line of work in

my job, I see a lot of our fellow community citizens coming and they have been diagnosed with

cancer. The cancer rate for Louisa County has increased in the last 20 years. And my concern

is what's happening? What's happening? I'm not saying that this is because of Dominion

Power, but there are issues that we need to consider before we go any further. (NASC-L 1)

Comment: For 30 years I lived downstream from the Connecticut Nuclear Power plant that Old

Dominion runs. And 27 years after I was in college I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I had

both my breasts cut off to save my life so that I could raise my two young daughters. 

(NASC-Y 3)

Comment: We do know, as has been said very eloquently by the scientists who have spoken

already, that radiation is exceedingly dangerous and toxic. (NASC-Y 4)

Comment: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission essentially is not even going to take a serious

look at...placing the onus on the waste generator, the polluter or the creator of the energy to

prove that energy is safe for us. ...The onus should not be on the affected individual to prove the

health detriment. (NASC-E 12)

Comment: According to our estimation, nuclear power is a public health catastrophe hidden in

plain sight. (NASC-G 8)

Comment: It's not about -- so much about the water and the temperature of the water and

what's happening, but what happens to the people who play in that water? What happens to the

grandfathers who take their children fishing? And they eat fish from that lake. These are things

that we need to address. (NASC-L 2)

Comment: I think that we need to look at the issue of public health more so than the issue of is

it just a safety factor for the environment. (NASC-L 3)

Comment: And I ask that those of you on the nuclear regulation committee whose salaries my

tax dollars pay, that higher consideration be given to the risk, to the life and health and my
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-14

daughter, the water, the air and the animals than to the financial risk of 21st century of robber

barons who are so disconnected from reality that they cannot see the risk not just to me, but to

their own families. (NASC-Y 1)

Comment: We know that the only safe decision, the only decision that carries no risk is the

decision not to use nuclear decision. We know that. We don't need more research. (NASC-Y 2)

Response: The NRC will evaluate human health impacts of the proposed action in the EIS. The

results of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.

Comment: I previously lived in Utah with my parents where they have seen the tragedy of

"downwinders." This is the term used for the cities subjected to radioactive waste in testing in

the 1940s. And these people were assured by the government that they were safe. And these

people are now suffering from deformities and their children are suffering from deformities. 

(NASC-X 2)

Response: Nuclear testing in the 1940s is outside the scope of this review and will not be

addressed in the EIS.

D.1.7 Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address ..all

impacts arising from the additional accumulation of high-level nuclear waste generated and

indefinitely stored on-site at the North Anna nuclear power station as the result of the operation

of additional nuclear power reactors. This discussion is required, given that the Waste

Confidence Rule applies only to waste generated by “existing facility licenses.” 

55 Fed. Reg. 38,474 (September 18, 1990). (NASC-GG 6)

Comment: This agency [the NRC] has confidence, enough confidence [in the Waste

Confidence Act] that they're not going to allow the issue of more nuclear waste being stored on

the shores of Lake Anna to be raised in the early site permit process and the environmental

review. (NASC-A 9)

Comment: And all of these [uranium fuel] processes from mining, processing the uranium to

taking it to Yucca Mountain, if indeed that is going to be the alleged solution, all of these things

are going to take massive quantities of fossil fuels and will in their own way contribute to

greenhouse gases, global warming, whatever, carbon dioxide emissions we want to talk about

there. ...do we want global warming or do we want nuclear waste and the water to be drained

from our local lake? ...I think that's a false choice to present to the public, and it's also

questionable just on the scientific basis if you really look at the entire fuel cycle. (NASC-E 8)
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-15

Comment: And I also think there's a larger problem with the waste issue. If someone has made

some decision at some point that waste is not being considered as part of the environmental

impact, it seems like a major problem. There's been waste in the plant for the whole existence,

and there's no reason to think – I mean, there's always going to be waste there, even if it’s

transported out of the county. Even if it is transported, it'll still be generated there, so the waste

issue has to be addressed. (NASC-Z 3)

Comment: Will the scope, environmental scoping of this project include the continued storage of

that waste on site? ...So, I guess my question is will the continued storage of high level

radioactive waste be included in the environmental impact statement for this new facility? 

(NASC-D 2)

Comment: There's a reluctance for other states to allow transport of nuclear materials through

their jurisdiction. Given this, will the EIS address the plan for disposal of the additional nuclear

waste generated by the new units? (NASC-M 8)

Comment: My parents' home State, Utah, is a popular destination for the nuclear waste that no

one knows what to do with. Impoverished Navajos are resorting to selling their land for nuclear

waste storage. (NASC-X 3)

Comment: I'd really add in this situation it's like getting a permit without a plan for a septic

system. And that's something that's not reasonable to build a home, and it's certainly not

reasonable to build a nuclear power station. (NASC-A 10)

Comment: Man has never created a more long lived or dangerous substance than the radioactive substances that are byproducts of the nuclear reaction process. ...Both fuel waste and

decommissioned equipment all pose long term health threats of many lifetimes to humans and

other species and animals. (NASC-B 8)

Comments: There's no solution to the nuclear waste problem. People have asked this question

tonight about how much nuclear waste is extracted out of the reactors. ...Virginia Power has

gone 450 days between refuelings. But at every refueling, approximately 1500 metric tons of

highly radioactive waste is removed from the reactor. There's no solution to this radioactive

waste problem that at present is being stored on the site waiting for a solution that, frankly, will

never appear because of the confluence of technical and political problems. (NASC-D 5)

Comments: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

which is] spent fuel, dry cask storage. (NASC-J 6)

Comments: Does anybody really have confidence that they're going to move the nuclear

waste? They [NRC] are starting this discussion saying that's where they are. They have the

confidence that this waste is going to be moved, and it hasn't. (NASC-K 1)
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-16

Comment: I am concerned about the toxicity of the waste that's generated. ...I would like this

waste not to be stored here, and I would like this waste not to be stored anywhere. I think this is

a danger for ourselves, for our children and our great, great, great, great, great, great, great

grandchildren. (NASC-P 1)

Comment: And I just think that public health and the environmental events cannot be separated,

...And that the site is obviously not environmentally safe if we cannot take care of the plant's

waste. It's not -- nuclear energy is obviously not suitable because we have no way of

reintegrating this waste back into our environment in any foreseeable future. Clean up your own

mess before you make a new one. (NASC-Q 1)

Comment: My opposition to nuclear weapons is not only the nightmare at the opposing their

use, but their very existence because of the pollution and the poisoning of the planet. And

whether it's wastes from nuclear weapons or waste from a commercial reactor, it's poison. It

seems to me it doesn't make any sense when we don't have, as was said so well by so many

others here, we don't have any solution to this problem why create more of the problem? 

(NASC-W 2)

Comment: You know, if we don't know what we're doing with all the waste that's piling up

already, you know, why create more. It's like the toilet that doesn't work, you know. (NASC-W 4)

Comment: The NRC claims that it can produce this electricity with minimal effects on the environment, but all it can do is postpone the effects by further regulations and burying its waste

underground for future generations to deal with. These things that we're burying underground

are leaking into our underground aquifers and poisoning the environment. All it's going to do is

leave it for, like I said, other people to deal...with later instead of us. It's already been pointed out

[that] most of the effects of isotopes are produced in nuclear waste. On of them is plutonium,

which one pound of it is enough to give everybody in the world cancer. And in the year 2000 it

was estimated that nuclear power generated 1,139 tons of plutonium. (NASC-AA 3)

Comment: We do know that the half life of spent nuclear material is far longer than our ability to

contain it. (NASC-Y 6)

Comment: You commented on a waste confidence decision that was made by the NRC. And

guaranteed that in the first quarter of this century a repository will be made available. ...And it

seems like Yucca Mountain is a proposed site, ...My question is how much waste is Lake Anna

putting out, how much more waste would Lake Anna with two additional reactors? (NASC-H 1)

Comment: How much additional waste will be generated? We still don't really have an idea. 

And I'd really like to get a hold of that figure. (NASC-M 9)
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-17

Response: The NRC staff will evaluate the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle

including the impacts of fuel manufacturing, transportation, and onsite storage and eventual

disposal of spent fuel. The staff's evaluation will account for the Commission's "Waste

Confidence" decision embodied in 10 CFR 51.23 to the extent that decision applies to such

impacts. The results of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 6] of the EIS.

D.1.8 Postulated Accidents

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is ....required to address all of the

... impacts on public health and safety and the environment arising from a severe accident,

including the impacts of the accident itself, and the impacts of any emergency response

measures such as relocation of the population. (NASC-GG 7)

Comment: In building the nuclear power plants we must remember that the costs go way

beyond that of economic decisions that govern the decisions that things such as the power

company entities make. But it causes high environmental devastation one way or another ) if

there is a nuclear meltdown. (NASC-AA 4)

Comment: Hopefully we're all aware of past nuclear accidents. In the winter of 1957 a tank

holding radioactive waste exploded and 10,000 people were evacuated in a rural Russian

countryside. And the names of 30 towns and villages disappeared from Soviet maps. And I

shouldn't have to remind you of history lessons from Liverpool, England, Browns Ferry, Alabama,

Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania or Chernobyl. (NASC-B 16)

Comment: We do know that Murphy's Law says that what can go wrong, will go wrong. Think

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and so forth. (NASC-Y 5)

Response: The environmental impacts of postulated accidents will be evaluated, and the results

of this analysis will be presented in Chapter 5 of the EIS.

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is.... required to address all of the

....impacts arising from the simultaneous operation of the existing and aging North Anna Unit 1

and Unit 2 power reactors in close proximity to any new proposed advanced reactor design,

including the possibility of multiple, simultaneous accidents, whether related (e.g. by fire or

natural disaster) or unrelated. (NASC-GG 8)

Comment: What liability did they have in the event of some significant environmental catastrophe connected with this? (NASC-B 4)

Response: The issue of severe accidents will be addressed in Chapter 5 of the EIS. In addition

cumulative impacts will be addressed in Chapter 4 [now Chapter 5] of the EIS.
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-18

D.1.9 Site Redress

Comment: And I'd like to, first of all, just point out that we are at the beginning of a process on a

very crucial process. ... this process does provide for the expansion of a site which in fact is

probably both the agency and the industry emphasize that this does not authorize construction,

but in fact it is a partial construction permit. (NASC-A 5)

Response: As the staff stated during the scoping meeting, the North Anna ESP application

includes a site redress plan. The environmental impacts of the site redress plan will be

evaluated in the EIS. If the redress plan is approved and incorporated into an approved ESP,

then Dominion would have NRC authorization to perform the activities listed in the site redress

plan. These include activities such as clearing the land, excavating for buildings, etc. The

redress plan explains how Dominion would repair any environmental damage associated with

these pre-construction activities if it later decided not to apply for a construction permit or a

combined license. The applicant’s site redress plan includes a commitment to provide the NRC

with a guarantee of $10 million as financial assurance for Dominion’s obligation to comply with

the redress plan.

D.1.10 Alternatives

Comment: As an engineer, I know that the state of art with regards to Nuclear Power has

changed, as well as many other forms of electricity generation being possible. I would like the

options developed [in the EIS] and a clear choice offered to the citizens of Louisa County. 

(NASC-DD 2)

Comment: The environmental impacts of such alternatives that need to be explored and

objectively evaluated include: 1. Whether effects on the environment would be reduced if

Dominion alternatively implemented more applications of energy efficiency technologies and

energy conservation rather than the development of additional nuclear power capacity at the

North Anna site. For instance, for the entire southeastern United States, the Renewable Energy

Policy Project has demonstrated that innovative and well-managed efficiency programs would

reduce annual increases in electric growth by 61%, reducing new demand by 236 MWh over a

twenty-year period. See Powering the South: a Clean and Affordable Energy Plan for the

Southern United States (Renewable Energy Project: January 2002). www.repp.org. 2. Whether

effects on the environment would be reduced if Dominion alternatively implemented use of

passive solar, photovoltaic, wind turbines and hybrid renewable energy systems rather than the

development of additional nuclear power capacity at the North Anna site. 3. Whether effects on

the environment would be reduced if Dominion alternatively implemented greater use of natural

gas energy rather than the development of additional nuclear power capacity at the North Anna

site. 4. Whether effects on the environment would be reduced if Dominion alternatively

implemented broader applications of the above-mentioned resources as distributed power
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-19

systems rather than increased reliance on an increasingly vulnerable electrical grid system

connecting any additional new power capacity at the North Anna site. (NASC-GG 9)

Comment: So there is a very cheap answer to the energy problem, which is to use much, much

less of it. There were about -- I don't know -- 20 percent of us in the world who live like we

Americans do, yet we use 80 percent of its resources. So I'm sure we could use much, much

less. (NASC-AA 1)

Comment: Conservation is undoubtedly the most effective method of ensuring energy security. 

Conservation efforts defuse energy producers of energy by reducing the need for generating

capacity while stimulating the technologies, the research, the manufacturing and the job creation

of more efficient technology's progress. Less for you means more for us. It's a fact that with

existing technologies we could continue our current standard of living with less than half the

energy generating capacity now in this country. (NASC-B 12)

Comment: The environmental benefits of nuclear are not well known, and are certainly not

emphasized. ...nuclear energy in Virginia caused there to be roughly 7 million -- it's a big number

-- metric tons less of carbon ...not to be emitted into the environment in 2002 because of the

operation of their nuclear facilities. (NASC-BB 3)

Comment: All over the world people are generating power either by creating megawatts,

meaning you use less or wind, which is the fastest growing of the alternative energies. If you

take the train from the Washington, D.C. to Chicago and you'll see the big wind mills popping up

in Pennsylvania. That's real. That's something that people are doing. It works. That's a large

scale power that could meet future demand. (NASC-C 4)

Comment: Conservation is the best and cheapest way to go with preserving that power. 

(NASC-CC 3)

Comment: We don't need nuclear power, we need conservation. We need to respect current

generations and future ones. Using the earth's resources for our material needs cannot do any

of this. (NASC-AA 6)

Comment: To be frank, nuclear power actually is just a ridiculously stupid and expensive

method for doing what is nothing more than boiling water. There are alternatives to boiling

water, ones that don't involve nuclear waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years.

...Dominion Power owes Virginians a better place. And I might note that in the words and

comments of a Dominion Power official here tonight, he never mentioned the one technology, the

one opportunity to provide our future needs, and that is conservation. (NASC-D 8)

Comment: This was generated by Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in April of

1996."...reliance on nuclear power has grown and the already large quantities of weapons-
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-20

useable plutonium in the world are rising rapidly.” He quotes Johanson here. ...The path of

sustainable society requires more efficient use and a shift to a variety of renewable energy

resources.” (NASC-G 3)

Comment: And people call this NIMBY, not in my backyard syndrome, and yet I think it a very

natural instinct that people do not want someone else's waste in their state or in their locality.

...should we not be focused more on using a type of energy that doesn't have such a poisonous

effect on people, on life? (NASC-H 2)

Comment: Just about anything that burns fuel, whether it's burning oil or coal, natural gas;

anything that's burning anything is putting various contaminants into the atmosphere, including

various types of oxides and carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is, of course, what's related to

various theories to explain global warming. So again, one of the reasons that we think that

nuclear energy is an option to consider whether we'll do it in the future is that of all the various

alternative energy forms that we're aware of, it is the only one that can produce energy on a

scale large enough to make a difference in terms of what we actually put in the air by energy

production. So it is the only large scale non-emitting generation technology that's available. 

(NASC-I 6)

Comment: Now if you look over the last 10 or 15 years, the only generation that has been

added in the United States has been natural gas. So if you think about what we're doing here,

is we are banking our entire future on the supply of natural gas. And what that does, it certainly

makes us very vulnerable to any disruption in fuel supply. We're already talking about now

importing natural gas from overseas, which would put us into the same situation that we've had

with oil for the last 20 or 30 years. And natural gas up to now has been a domestic supply, but

we're outstripping that supply and we're now saying in order to meet the natural gas demand,

we're going to have to start importing natural gas from many of the same areas of the world that

currently are problems in terms of imported oil. (NASC-I 9)

Comment: I for one as a taxpayer would like to see my money go to the support of energy

that's renewable and safe. (NASC-N 3)

Comment: But I would like the subsidies to go to safer forms of energy that would not be a

threat to me and my children and my children's children. (NASC-P 3)

Comment: So I would really like to be a part of a meeting in the future that talks seriously

about dismantling the power stations at Lake Anna and that seriously considers alternative

ways of energy and conservation. (NASC-W 3)
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-21

Comment: And we do know that monied interests are more interested in technology which can

enrich them further than in finding safe sources of energy which are less lucrative and would

protect someone like me or my daughter or your sister. (NASC-Y 3) 

Comment: As a consumer of Dominion Power, I would like my consumer dollars to go to wind

and hydro power, not nuclear power. I believe these are safer for employees and all citizens. 

And as a taxpayer, I would like to ask of the NRC to use your government influence to

reallocate government subsidies away from nuclear power and towards hydro and wind power. 

(NASC-X 4)

Response: The NRC staff will prepare an EIS in accordance with the requirements of

10 CFR 52.18 and 10 CFR Part 51. The EIS need not address the benefits of reactor construction and operation, including the need for power, as discussed in 10 CFR 52.18 and the NRC’s

“Environmental Standard Review Plan,” NUREG-1555, Appendix A. As discussed in a June 2,

2003, letter from NRC to Dominion, and in proposed changes to Part 52 published in the

Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 40025), consideration of alternative energy

sources need not be included in the applicant’s environmental report. In the case of the North

Anna ESP application, Dominion chose not to include consideration of alternative energy

sources, and therefore, these will not be included in the EIS. If Dominion applies for a

construction permit or a combined license in the future, the issue of alternative energy sources

will then be evaluated, as required to satisfy NEPA.

In addition with respect to the comments on conservation, 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A, states

that "consideration will be given to the potential impacts of conservation in determining demand

for power and the consequent need for additional generating capacity”. Section 52.18,

however, provides that the EIS need not include an assessment of the benefits (for example,

the need power) of the proposed action. Because need for power and alternative energy

sources need not be considered in the EIS, conservation need not be considered in that

context. Accordingly, conservation need not be considered in the EIS.

Comment: My question is why the North Anna site was chosen in the first place?...[and why

did they choose] North Anna specifically as opposed to all the other potential sites around the

country that could have been chosen, why North Anna was picked. (NASC-CC 1)

Response: The applicant is required by the regulations (10 CFR 52.17) to evaluate alternative

sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior alternative to the site proposed. In

preparing its application for the ESP, Dominion considered multiple sites. The details of their

evaluation are presented in Chapter 9 of the Environmental Report and in “Study of Potential

Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States,” prepared by Dominion

and Bechtel Power Corporation through an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy. 

This report is available through the NRC’s document management system (ADAMS; Accession

Number ML040630512). Based on the results of this study, Dominion concluded that North
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-22

Anna was the best option for construction of new nuclear plants. The alternate sites will be

evaluated, and the results of this analysis will be presented in the EIS.

Comment: Well, according to my understanding of the law that under the National

Environmental Policy Act the no action alternative must also be considered. The no action

alternative if power needs are rising, forces us to consider other forms of power generation. Not

only fossil fuel but the other forms which are renewable. (NASC-G 5)

Response: The NRC staff will consider the no-action alternative in its EIS. For this review, the

no-action alternative means denying the ESP application. As discussed above, alternative

energy sources will not be evaluated at this time.

D.1.11 Comments Concerning the Safety Review for the ESP, Including

Safeguards and Security and Emergency Preparedness

Safety Review

Comment: [The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is therefore required to address

all of the following environmental impacts, including but not limited to: 11.] All impacts arising

from seismic hazards posed to the North Anna site expansion highlighted as a consequence of

the December 09, 2003 regional earthquake, given that the U.S. Geological Survey considers

that Virginia is vulnerable to earthquakes. (NASC-GG 10)

Response: The seismic hazards posed to such a reactor or reactors is not within the scope of

the environmental review. As part of the NRC’s site safety review, the staff will consider

whether, taking into consideration the site criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, such a reactor or reactors

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

Safeguards and Security

Comment: The EIS for the North Anna nuclear power station is required to address all impacts

arising from increased security risks and tasks associated with the proposed site expansion of

the North Anna nuclear power station given the federal government’s acknowledgment that

threats to nuclear power stations by acts of terrorism can be delivered in part or in combination

from the air, the water and by land. (NASC-GG 11)

Comment: Tonight as we're talking about expanding the site of North Anna, we're talking about

expanding the possible pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction if used against us. 

(NASC-A 7)

Comment: 9/11 changed everything, and at the same time it changed nothing. The officials at
Appendix D

December 2006 NUREG-1811, Volume I D-23

Dominion Power have not yet realized that on their power station exists one of the most

attractive – [targets] for a terrorist organization. ...I can imagine that a direct hit on the spent fuel

nuclear storage would have a catastrophic environmental impact. (NASC-D 6)

Comment: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

which is] security issues, issues that deal with terrorists that would lead to radiation release. 

(NASC-J 3)

Comment: Security is another big issue that we need to deal with. (NASC-K 2)

Comment: I hate to say this, but with the amount of terrorism in the world, we do not need

more invitations to terrorists, and that's what nuclear power plants are. They cannot be safe

enough, despite the claims by the nuclear industry. (NASC-N 4)

Response: Comments related to aspects of the security plan, including a safeguards contingency plan, a physical security plan, and a guard training and qualifications plan are safety

issues that are not within the scope of the staff's environmental review. In addition, the

Commission, has determined that terrorism is not predictable and is not an inevitable

consequence of a proposed licensing action, and that an EIS is not an appropriate format to

address the challenges of terrorism. Additional information about the NRC staff’s actions

regarding physical security since September 11, 2001, can be found on the NRC’s public web

site (www.nrc.gov).

Emergency Preparedness

Comment: My concern is for notification and evacuation of the public in the North Anna area,

as this area is rapidly developing. My chief concern is for the safety, protection and welfare of

the public. (NASC-HH 1)

Comment: My concern is in regard to the rapid development in the immediate area, the

installation of new early warning sirens, emergency backup notification and route alerting. 

Dominion closely works with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management who provides

plans regarding these areas. An audit of this area, by your organization, would better identify

these areas concerning early warning notification. (NASC-HH 3)

Comment: Backup Route Alerting is essential for the protection of the general public in the

North Anna area since it is rapidly developing in areas where no early warning sirens are

currently located and residents must rely on route alerting. ...please verify that these newly

developed areas requiring backup route alerting or the installation of an early warning siren are

identified by Dominion. Additionally, if no measures are currently in place, they should be

implemented to ensure future identification of any new additional areas of development and how

they will be addressed for the protection and safety of the general public before any additional
Appendix D

NUREG-1811, Volume I December 2006 D-24

site permit is obtained. (NASC-HH 4)

Comment: I don't live in a house, I live in an apartment. But my apartment doesn't release

radiation on a regular basis. It doesn't require an evacuation plan, only if there is a fire, of

course. But for other people, there's no iodine pills if you live nearby my apartment. (NASCE 6)

Comment: [The Lake Anna Civic Association has identified seven issues of concern, one of

which is] an evaluation [evacuation] plan relative to roads. (NASC-J 4)

Response: The comments relate to the adequacy of emergency plans, which is a safety issue

that is outside the scope of the staff's environmental review. As part of its site safety review, the

NRC staff will determine, after consultation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

(DHS) and the Federal Energy Management Administration (FEMA), whether there are any

significant impediments to the development of emergency plans and whether the major features

of emergency plans submitted by Dominion are acceptable. The currently operating units have

emergency plans in place that have been reviewed by NRC, DHS, and FEMA.
Appendix E

Comments and Responses on 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 and the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Note: Due to the size of the documents, Appendix E is bound in Volume II.
Appendix F

Key Correspondence

Note: Due to the size of the documents, Appendix E is bound in Volume II.
Appendix G

Environmental Impacts of Transportation
December 2006 G-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix G

Environmental Impacts of Transportation

This appendix discusses the potential environmental impacts of transporting reactor fuel and

radioactive waste to and from potential early site permit (ESP) sites including North Anna Power

Station and its associated alternative sites. Section G.1 discusses the effects of transporting

unirradiated fuel to ESP sites, and Section G.2 discusses the effects of transporting spent fuel

from ESP sites to a spent fuel disposal facility or monitored retrievable storage facility. |

Section G.3 discusses the environmental effects of radioactive waste shipments. |

G.1 Unirradiated Fuel Shipping

This section addresses the number and characteristics of shipments of unirradiated fuel to

ESP sites relative to the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52. Comparisons are also made against

Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52(c) and WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which provided the data that

supports Table S–4. Section G.1.1 presents the basic unirradiated fuel shipping requirements

for each advanced reactor design. These data were extracted from INEEL (2003) and |

Dominion (2006a). Section G.1.2 presents the comparisons to 10 CFR 51.52 conditions.

G.1.1 Advanced Reactor Unirradiated Fuel Shipping Data

In WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), a reference boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized water

reactor (PWR) were used to formulate the basic numbers of unirradiated fuel shipments

required for initial core loading and refueling. Both reference reactor types were 1100 MW(e)

plants that were assumed to operate with an 80 percent capacity factor for a net electrical |

generating output of 880 MW(e). The reference BWR assumed an initial core loading of |

150 metric tons of uranium (MTU), and the reference PWR assumed a 100 MTU initial loading. 

Both reactor types resulted in 18 truck shipments of unirradiated fuel per reactor for initial core

loading. Annual reload quantities were assumed to be 30 MTU/yr for both reactor types, which

resulted in an additional six truck shipments per year per reactor. In total, about 252 truck

shipments of unirradiated fuel would be required over a 40-year reactor life, including the initial

core and 39 years of reloads, for both reactor types.

The initial fuel loading and annual reload quantities for the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

(ABWR), a 1500-MW(e) reactor, and the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR)

are approximately the same: 156.96 MTU per reactor initial core loading and 32.76 MTU/yr per

reactor reload quantities (INEEL 2003). The staff evaluated the impacts of the increased |

thermal power for the surrogate ESBWR as characterized in the ER (Dominion 2006a) and |

determined that the number of unirradiated fuel shipments was essentially unchanged from the |

estimates presented in INEEL (2003). This equates to about 872 unirradiated fuel assemblies |
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-2 December 2006

in the initial core and 213 assemblies per year for refueling. Truck shipment capacities were

stated in INEEL (2003) to be 28 to 30 unirradiated fuel assemblies per truck shipment. 

Assuming 30 fuel assemblies per truck shipment, approximately 30 shipments of unirradiated

fuel would be required to load the initial core and 6.1 truck shipments per year would be needed

for refueling. If 28 fuel assemblies per truck shipment are used, the initial core load would

require about 32 shipments of unirradiated fuel and annual refueling would require about

6.5 truck shipments per year.

The surrogate AP1000 is an 1150-MW(e) advanced PWR. The initial core load was estimated

to be 84.5 MTU per reactor, and the annual reload requirement was estimated to be

24.4 MTU/yr per reactor. The data in INEEL (2003) also indicated that the average uranium

mass in an unirradiated surrogate AP1000 fuel assembly would be 0.583 MTU and that 12 fuel

assemblies per truck shipment would be transported. Therefore, about 14 truck shipments

would be needed to supply the initial core and about 3.8 truck shipments per year would be

| needed to support refueling. For a site with two reactors, these estimates would be doubled.

The ACR-700 is an advanced design Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor assumed to

generate 731 MW(e). It was stated in INEEL (2003) that the initial core load for the ACR-700 is

61.3 MTU per reactor, and the annual refueling requirement is 33.1 MTU/yr per reactor. Each

fuel assembly contains 18 kg of uranium (INEEL 2003). This corresponds to 3406 fuel

assemblies in the initial core loading and 1839 fuel assemblies per year for refueling. The

range of truck shipment capacities given by INEEL (2003) was 180 to 240 fuel assemblies per

truck shipment. This equates to 15 to 19 truck shipments needed to supply the initial core load

| and from 7.7 to 10.2 annual refueling shipments. For a site with two reactors, these estimates

| would be doubled.

The International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) design is a 335-MW(e) advanced PWR. 

It requires an initial core load of 48.67 MTU or 89 fuel assemblies per unit (546.9 kg of uranium

per fuel assembly) (INEEL 2003). For refueling, the IRIS reactor was assumed to require an

additional 6.26 MTU/yr of unirradiated fuel per reactor or about 40 unirradiated fuel assemblies

every 3.5 years. INEEL (2003) indicates that a “typical” site may contain three reactors. 

Assuming each truck shipment carries eight fuel assemblies, the initial core load would require

34 truck shipments per three-reactor site, and annual refueling would require an additional

4.3 truck shipments per year per three-reactor site.

The Gas Turbine–Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) is a gas-cooled reactor that uses a

substantially different fuel design than current and advanced Light Water Reactors (LWRs). 

The reactor’s thermal power level is rated at 600 MW(t) per reactor, and the electric generation

capacity is rated at 285 MW(e) per reactor. A standard GT-MHR site is assumed to be

composed of four reactors. INEEL (2003) states that the initial core load for a single reactor

would be about 1020 fuel assemblies. Annual average reload requirements would be 510 fuel

assemblies per reactor. INEEL (2003) also indicates that each truck shipment could carry 80
Appendix G

December 2006 G-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

fuel assemblies, so for all four reactors, about 51 truck shipments would be required to transport

the initial core load and about 20 truck shipments per year would be required for the annual

reload requirements.

The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is a gas-cooled reactor that is rated at 400 MW(t)

(165 MW(e)) per reactor. A typical PBMR site is assumed to consist of eight reactors. The

PBMR uses a substantially different fuel design than a typical LWR. INEEL (2003) states that

each reactor requires 260,000 fuel spheres per reactor for its initial core load; 120,000 fuel

spheres per reactor are required for annual average reloads. A total of 48,000 fuel spheres is

assumed to be transported in a typical truck shipment. As a result, it would take about

44 shipments of fuel spheres to transport the initial core load for all eight reactors and about

20 shipments per year to transport the annual reload quantity for all eight reactors.

To make comparisons to Table S–4, the environmental impacts were normalized to a reference |

reactor-year. The reference reactor is an 1100 MW(e) reactor that has an 80 percent capacity |

factor, for a net electrical generating capacity of 880 MW(e). The environmental impacts can be |

adjusted to calculate impacts per site by multiplying the normalized impacts by the ratio of the |

net electrical output for the advanced reactor sites to the net electrical output of the reference |

reactor. |

G.1.2 Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Unirradiated Fuel Shipments

As required by 10 CFR 51.52, applicants for a construction permit are required to submit a

statement that the reactor and the transportation of fuel and waste to and from the reactor meet

all the conditions specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a) or 10 CFR 51.52(b). The conditions specified in

10 CFR 51.52(a) that apply to unirradiated fuel include the following:

(1) The reactor core has a thermal loading less than 3800 MW. [51.52(a)(1)]

(2) The reactor fuel is in the form of sintered UO2 pellets not exceeding 4 percent uranium-235

by weight, and the pellets are encapsulated in zircaloy rods. [51.52(a)(2)]

(3) Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck. [51.52(a)(5)]

(4) The environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste are as set forth in Summary

Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52(c). [51.52(a)(6)]

If these conditions are not met, 10 CFR 51.52(b) requires the applicant to provide a full |

description and detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting fuel and waste to |

and from the reactor, including values for the environmental impact under normal conditions of |

transport and the environmental risk from accidents in transport. |
Appendix G

(a) Source is Dominion (2006a).

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-4 December 2006

Unirradiated fuel shipment information for the advanced reactors is discussed below for each of

these criteria.

G.1.2.1 Reactor Core Thermal Loading

The thermal output ratings of the seven advanced reactor types, as given in INEEL (2003), are

as follows:

& ABWR – 4300 MW(t) (single reactor)

& Surrogate ESBWR – 4500 MW(t) (single reactor)(a)

& Surrogate AP1000 – 3400 MW(t) (single reactor)

& ACR-700 – 1982 MW(t) per reactor x two reactors per site = 3964 MW(t) per site

& IRIS – 1000 MW(t) per reactor x three reactors per site = 3000 MW(t) per site

& GT-MHR – 600 MW(t) per reactor x four reactors per site = 2400 MW(t) per site

& PBMR – 400 MW(t) per reactor x eight reactors per site = 3200 MW(t) per site.

As shown above, single-unit ABWR and surrogate ESBWR plants exceed the 3800-MW(t)

condition in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(1). In addition, the twin-reactor ACR-700 site exceeds the core

thermal power condition.

G.1.2.2 Reactor Fuel Form

All of the advanced LWRs (i.e., the ABWR, ESBWR, surrogate AP1000, IRIS, and ACR-700)

use sintered UO2 fuel pellets encapsulated in zircaloy rods. The average enrichment for the

ACR-700 fuel is about 2 percent, which is well within the 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2) condition. The

average enrichments for the other advanced LWR fuels exceed the 4 percent uranium-235 by

weight condition in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2).

The gas-cooled reactors (i.e., the GT-MHR and PBMR) have substantially different fuel forms

than those described in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2). The fuel forms for these reactors are coated

uranium oxycarbide fuel kernels (GT-MHR) or coated uranium dioxide fuel kernels (PBMR). 

The fuel kernels are coated with layers of pyrolitic carbon and silicone carbide. Thus, these fuel

forms are not the same as those specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a)(2). Furthermore, the equilibrium

enrichments for these fuels are 12.9 percent (PBMR) and 19.8 percent (GT-MHR). 

G.1.2.3 Shipping Mode

Trucks are used to ship unirradiated fuel to the various sites for all the reactor types

(INEEL 2003).
Appendix G

December 2006 G-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

G.1.2.4 WASH-1238 and Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52(c)

The condition specified in Table S–4 that applies to shipment of unirradiated fuel limits the

number of shipments of fuel and waste to and from a commercial nuclear power plant to less

than one per day. Table G-1 summarizes the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel

required for each reactor type. The numbers of shipments are normalized to the net electrical

generation output for the reference reactor in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), or 880 MW(e)

(1100-MW[e] plant operating at 80-percent annual capacity factor).

As shown in Table G-1, the ACR-700, PBMR, and GT-MHR advanced reactor types exceed the

number of truck shipments estimated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). The

largest number of shipments, in excess of 700 shipments over 40 years, is for the GT-MHR. 

However, the combined number of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste |

shipments per day equate to far less than one truck shipment per day for all reactor types. 

Consequently, the numbers of shipments for all the advanced reactor types are within the

conditions specified in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. Table S–4 includes a condition that the

truck shipments not exceed 33,000 kg (73,000 lb) as governed by Federal or State gross |

vehicle weight restrictions. All of the advanced reactors were indicated in INEEL (2003) to be |

capable of meeting this restriction for unirradiated fuel shipments.

Finally, Table S–4 includes conditions related to radiological doses to transport workers and

members of the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of the radiation dose

rate emitted from the unirradiated fuel shipments, the number of exposed individuals and their

locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit (including travel time and stop time), and

the number of shipments to which the individuals are exposed. The radiological dose impacts

of the transportation of unirradiated fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5 computer code

(Neuhauser et al. 2003). The RADTRAN 5 calculations were performed to develop estimates of

the worker and public doses associated with annual unirradiated fuel shipments to the ESP

sites.

One of the key assumptions in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) for the reference LWR unirradiated fuel

shipments is that the radiation dose rate at 1 m (3 ft) from the transport vehicle is about

0.001 mSv/hr (0.1 mrem/hr). This assumption was also used in the analysis of advanced

reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. This assumption is reasonable for all the advanced reactor

fuel types because the fuel materials will be low-dose-rate uranium radionuclides and will be

packaged similarly. The numbers of shipments per year were obtained by dividing the

normalized shipments in Table G-1 by 40 years of operation. Other key input parameters used

in the radiation dose analysis for unirradiated fuel are shown in Table G-2.
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-6 December 2006

Table G-1. Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor

Type

Reactor Type

Number of Shipments per

Reactor Unit

Unit Electric

Generation,

MW(e)(c)

Capacity

Factor(c)

Normalized

Shipments

per 1100

MW(e)(d,e)

Initial

Core(a)

Annual

Reload Total(b)

Reference LWR

(WASH-1238)

18 6 252 1100 0.8 252

ABWR(e) 30 6.1 267 1500 0.95 165

Surrogate ESBWR(e) 30 6.1 267 1520(f) 0.96(f) 162

Surrogate AP1000 14 3.8 161 1150 0.95 130

ACR-700 30 15.4 628 1462(g) 0.9 420

IRIS 34 4.3 201 1005(h) 0.96 184

GT-MHR 51 20 831 1140(i) 0.88 729

PBMR 44 20 824 1320(j) 0.95 579

NOTE: The reference LWR shipment values have all been normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical generation.

(a) Shipments of the initial core have been rounded up to the next highest whole number.

(b) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of

average annual reload quantities).

(c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from INEEL (2003).

(d) Total shipments over a 40-year plant lifetime normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR

(i.e., 1100 MW(e) plant at 80 percent or net electrical output of 880 MW(e)).

(e) Ranges of capacities are given in INEEL (2003) for these reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. The

unirradiated fuel shipment data for these reactors were derived using the upper limit of the ranges.

(f) Values taken from ER Revision 9 (Dominion 2006a).

(g) The ACR-700 unit includes two reactors at 731 MW(e) per reactor.

(h) The IRIS unit includes three reactors at 335 MW(e) per reactor.

(i) The GT-MHR unit includes four reactors (modules) at 285 MW(e) per reactor.

(j) The PBMR unit includes eight reactors (modules) at 165 MW(e) per reactor.

The RADTRAN 5 results for this “generic” unirradiated fuel shipment are as follows:

& Worker dose: 1.71 x 10-5 person-Sv/shipment (1.71 x 10-3 person-rem/shipment)

& General public dose (onlookers/persons at stops and sharing the highway):

6.65 x 10–5 person-Sv/shipment (6.65 x 10-3 person-rem/shipment)
Appendix G

December 2006 G-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table G-2. RADTRAN 5 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments

Parameter

RADTRAN 5

Input Value Source

Shipping distance, km 3200 AEC (1972)(a)

Travel fraction – rural 0.90 NRC (1977)

Travel fraction – suburban 0.05

Travel fraction – urban 0.05

Population density – rural, persons/km2 10 DOE (2002a)

Population density – suburban, persons/km2 349

Population density – urban, persons/km2 2260

Vehicle speed – rural, km/hr 88.49 Based on average speed in rural areas given in

DOE (2002a) Vehicle speed – suburban, km/hr 88.49

Vehicle speed – urban, km/hr 88.49

Traffic count – rural, vehicles/hr 530 DOE (2002a)

Traffic count – suburban, vehicles/hr 760

Traffic count – urban, vehicles/hr 2400

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mSv/hr 0.001 AEC (1972)

Packaging length, m 7.3 Approximate length of two LWR fuel element

packages placed on end

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977), and DOE (2002a)

Stop time, hr/trip 4.5 Based on 0.0014-hour stop time per km (Hostick

et al. 1992). Assume no overnight stops.

Population density at stops, persons/km2 64,300 Based on 20 people in annular ring extending

from 1 to 10 m (3.3 to 33 ft) from the vehicle

(a) AEC (1972) provides a range of shipping distances between 40 km (25 mi) and 4800 km (3000 mi) for

unirradiated fuel shipments. A 3200-km (2000-mi) “average” shipping distance was assumed here.

& General public dose (along route - persons living near a highway): 1.61 x 10-6

person-Sv/ shipment (1.61 x 10-4 person-rem/shipment).

These values were combined with the average annual shipments of unirradiated fuel for each

advanced reactor type (see Table G-1) normalized to the WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) reference

LWR electric output (880 MW(e)) to calculate annual doses to the public and workers. The

results are compared to Table S–4 conditions. The results are shown in Table G-3. As

demonstrated, the calculated radiation doses for shipping unirradiated fuel to advanced reactor

sites are within the conditions shown in Table S–4.
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-8 December 2006

Table G-3. Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced Reactor Sites

Plant Type

Normalized

Average

Annual

Shipments

Cumulative Annual Dose;

person-Sv/yr per 1100 MW(e)(a)

Workers

Public -

Onlookers

Public -

Along Route

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 1.1 x 10-4 4.2 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-5

ABWR(b) 4.1 7.1 x 10-5 2.7 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-6

Surrogate ESBWR(c) 4.1 6.9 x 10-5 2.7 x 10-4 6.5 x 10-6

Surrogate AP1000 3.3 5.6 x 10-5 2.2 x 10-4 5.2 x 10-6

ACR-700 10.5 1.8 x 10-4 7.0 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-5

IRIS 4.6 7.9 x 10-5 3.1 x 10-4 7.4 x 10-6

GT-MHR 18.2 3.1 x 10-4 1.2 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-5

PBMR 14.5 2.5 x 10-4 9.6 x 10-4 2.3 x 10-5

10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4 Condition <1 per day 4.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2

(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

(b) In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the ABWR and ESBWR were assumed to be identical based on

information in INEEL (2003). See also the “surrogate ESBWR” information in this table.

(c) Dominion 2006a

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

| data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposures to low doses

| below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

| experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

| causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

| exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the

| relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report

| by the National Research Council (2005), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold

| dose response theory. This theory states that any increase in dose, no matter how small,

| results in an incremental increase in health risk. The NRC accepts this theory as a conservative

| model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

| overestimates those risks.

| Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

| nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

| severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from International

| Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 (ICRP 1991). All the public

| doses presented in Table G-3 are less than or equal to 0.0012 person-Sv/yr
Appendix G

December 2006 G-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

(0.12 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates associated with these doses would

all be less than 1 x 10–4 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per year. |

These risks are very small compared to the fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe |

hereditary effects that would be expected to occur annually to the same population from |

exposure to natural sources of radiation, based on the same risk model. |

G.1.3 Transportation Accidents

Accidents involving unirradiated fuel shipments are also addressed in Table S–4. Accident risks

are the product of accident frequency times consequence. Accident frequencies are likely to be

lower than they were when WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) was published because traffic accident,

injury, and fatality rates have fallen over the past 30 years. Consequences of accidents that are

severe enough to result in a release of unirradiated fuel particles are not significantly different

for advanced LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging are similar to those

analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, the impacts of accidents during transport of

unirradiated fuel to advanced LWR sites would be smaller than the WASH-1238 results that

formed the basis for Table S–4.

With respect to the advanced gas-cooled reactors, accident rates (accidents per unit distance)

and associated accident frequencies (accidents per year) would follow the same trends as for

LWRs (i.e., overall reduction relative to the accident rates used in WASH-1238). The

consequences of accidents involving gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel, however, are more

uncertain. A literature search was conducted to identify publicly available documents that

describe the effects of accidents (i.e., exposure of unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel to

structural and thermal transients). No definitive references were found. Consequently, it was

assumed here that the gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel shipments would have the same

abilities as LWR unirradiated fuel to maintain functional integrity following a traffic accident. 

This assumption is judged to be conservative because gas-cooled reactor fuel operates at

significantly higher temperatures and thus maintains integrity under more severe thermal

conditions than LWR fuel. Detailed information about the behavior of the gas-cooled reactor

fuel under impact conditions was not available. However, packaging systems for unirradiated

gas-cooled reactor fuel will be required to meet the same performance requirements as

unirradiated LWR fuel packages including fissile material controls to prevent criticality under |

normal and accident conditions. Consequently, packaging systems for unirradiated gas-cooled |

reactor fuels are expected to provide protection equivalent to those designed for unirradiated |

LWR fuels. In addition, the fuel forms for the gas-cooled reactors are somewhat similar to those |

for LWRs (i.e., uranium oxide for the PBMR and uranium oxycarbide for the GT-MHR versus

uranium oxide for LWRs). Nevertheless, the inherent failure resistance provided by unirradiated

gas-cooled reactor fuels was assumed to be similar to that provided by LWR fuels. Based on

the assumption that unirradiated gas-cooled and LWR fuels and associated packaging systems |

provide similar resistance to various environmental conditions, the staff concluded that the |
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-10 December 2006

impacts of accidents involving unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel are not expected to be

significantly different than those for unirradiated LWR fuel.

| The advanced gas-cooled reactor fuels consist of uranium oxycarbide (GT-MHR) or uranium

| oxide (PBMR) spheres coated with layer of pyrolytic carbon and silicon carbide that are

| expected to provide improved resistance to releases of gaseous and metallic fission products

| during normal and accident conditions (INEEL 2003).

G.2 Spent Fuel Shipping

This section discusses the impact of transporting irradiated or spent advanced reactor fuel from

| candidate sites to a potential high-level waste repository; for these analyses, the staff

| considered Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a surrogate destination. The section is divided into

two parts. The first part considers incident-free transportation, and the second part considers

transportation accidents.

The analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in casks with

characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical

metal pressure vessels). Each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded

onto a modified trailer. These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made in the

evaluation of the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel presented in Addendum I

to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1999). As discussed in Addendum I, these assumptions are

conservative because the alternative assumptions involve rail transportation or heavy-haul

trucks, which would reduce the number of spent-fuel shipments.

Environmental impacts of the transportation of spent fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5

computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Routing and population data for input to RADTRAN 5

for shipment by truck were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and

Michelhaugh 2000). The population data in the TRAGIS code is based on the 2000 Census.

G.2.1 Incident-Free Transportation of Spent Fuel

“Incident-free” transportation refers to transportation activities in which the shipments of

radioactive material reach their destination without releasing any radioactive cargo to the

environment. The vast majority of radioactive shipments are expected to reach their destination

without experiencing an accident or incident or releasing any cargo. The “incident-free” impacts

from these normal, routine shipments arise from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the

heavily shielded spent fuel shipping cask. Although Federal regulations in 10 CFR Part 71 and

49 CFR Part 173 impose constraints on radioactive material shipments, some radiation

penetrates the shipping container and exposes nearby persons to low levels of radiation.
Appendix G

December 2006 G-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Incident-free, legal-weight truck transportation of spent fuel has been evaluated by considering

shipments from four representative reactor sites to the proposed high-level waste repository at |

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, (referred to here as the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository) for

disposal. This assumption is conservative because it tends to maximize the shipping distance

from the East Coast and Midwest, where most of the reactors are assumed to be located. 

Therefore, shipment to one or more other potential sites, such as a monitored retrievable |

storage facility, would reduce the impacts. |

Environmental impacts from these shipments will occur to persons residing along the

transportation corridors between the potential advanced reactor sites and the proposed

repository; to persons in vehicles in close proximity to the spent-fuel shipment along the route; |

to persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle inspections; and to transportation

crew members. The impacts to these exposed population groups were quantified using the

RADTRAN 5 computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003).

This analysis assumes that all spent nuclear fuel will be transported to the proposed Yucca |

Mountain repository because Congress has directed (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as |

amended) the U.S. Department of Energy to study only Yucca Mountain for the proposed

repository.

The characteristics of specific shipping routes (e.g., population densities, shipping distances)

influence the normal radiological exposures. To address the differences that arise from the

specific reactor site from which the spent fuel shipment originates, each advanced reactor

design was assumed to be located at all of the primary and alternative ESP sites. These sites

are:

& Primary Site

 - North Anna Power Station, Virginia

& Alternative Sites

 - Savannah River Site (SRS), South Carolina

 - Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP), Ohio

 - Surry Power Station, Virginia

Input to RADTRAN 5 includes the total shipping distance between the origin and destination

sites and the population distributions along the routes. This information was obtained by

running the TRAGIS computer code (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2000) for the origin-destination

combinations of interest for legal-weight trucks. The resulting route characteristics information

is shown in Table G-4. Note that for truck shipments, all the spent fuel is assumed to be

shipped to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository over designated Highway Route Controlled

Quality (HRCQ) routes. The routes used here are the same as those used in the Yucca

Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 2002b).
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-12 December 2006

Table G-4. Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the North Anna and 

Alternative Sites to the Proposed High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain

ESP Site

One-way Shipping Distance, km Population Density, persons/km2 Stop

Time per

Total Rural Suburban Urban Rural Suburban Urban Trip, hr

Primary Site

North Anna 4409.5 3498 812.4 99.1 11.3 319 2310.6 5

Alternative Site

Savannah River Site 4263 3260 881 122 11 331.5 2311.2 5

Portsmouth Gaseous

Diffusion Plant 3902.2 3166.9 647.2 88.1 10.7 316.4 2339.7 4.5

Surry 4555.4 3590.7 863.9 100.8 11.4 317.6 2301.6 5

Shipping casks have not been designed for advanced reactor spent fuel. Although some of the

advanced reactor fuel designs are similar to current LWR fuel, no attempt has been made to

optimize the cargo capacities of shipping casks for advanced LWR fuels. For the non-LWR fuel

types (i.e., the GT-MHR and PBMR), there is little information on even a conceptual basis that

would provide a defensible technical basis for shipping cask capacities. The shipping cask 

capacity data in the Early Site Permit Environmental Report Sections and Supporting

Documentation (INEEL 2003) is summarized as follows:

& ABWR – The ABWR fuel is not significantly different from existing LWR fuel designs;

thus, the number of ABWR assemblies that can be transported in a legal-weight truck

shipment (i.e., 23 MT [25-ton] shipping cask) is not expected to be different from current

cargo capacities.

& Surrogate ESBWR – The surrogate ESBWR fuel is similar to the ABWR fuel.

& Surrogate AP1000 – The surrogate AP1000 fuel assemblies are similar to currentgeneration PWR fuel. No information was provided in INEEL (2003) on shipping cask

capacities for surrogate AP1000 spent nuclear fuel.

& ACR-700 – The ACR-700 fuel is somewhat different from the current and advanced

LWR fuel designs. INEEL (2003) estimated that an ACR-700 rail cask would hold about

10 MTU of spent fuel. This value is nearly identical to the cargo capacities of current rail

cask designs; thus, it was assumed that the truck cask capacity for ACR-700 and

current-generation LWRs would also be about the same (i.e., 1.8 MTU/shipment).

& IRIS – The IRIS fuel is similar to current-generation PWR fuel. No information was

provided in INEEL (2003) on shipping-cask capacities for IRIS spent nuclear fuel.
Appendix G

December 2006 G-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

& GT-MHR – The GT-MHR fuel is a spherical coated-particle fuel with a uranium

oxycarbide fuel kernel loaded into graphite fuel assemblies. This fuel concept is

significantly different from current and advanced LWR fuels (sintered UO2 pellets loaded

into zircaloy tubes). According to INEEL (2003), six spent fuel assemblies containing

0.023 MTU of spent fuel is assumed to be transported in a legal weight truck cask.

& PBMR – The PBMR fuel is also a spherical coated-particle fuel with uranium oxide fuel

kernels. INEEL (2003) estimated that 0.495 MTU of spent PBMR fuel can be

transported in a single legal-weight truck shipment.

These shipping cask capacities are approximations based on current shipping cask designs. 

Actual shipping cask capacities in the future may be significantly different. Applicants must

account for changes in shipping cask capacities in applications at the construction permit (CP) |

or combined operating license (COL) stage. |

Incident-free radiation doses are a function of many variables. The most important of these

variables are presented in Table G-5. Most of these variables, which are extracted from the

literature, are considered to be “standard” values used in many RADTRAN 5 applications,

including environmental impact statements and regulatory analyses.

For purposes of this analysis, the transportation crew for spent fuel shipments delivered by truck

is assumed to consist of two drivers. Escorts were considered, but they were not included

because their distance from the shipping cask would reduce the dose rates to levels well below

the dose rates experienced by the drivers. Stop times were assumed to accrue at the rate of

30 minutes per 4-hour driving time. TRAGIS outputs were used to determine the number of

stops for each origin-destination.

Doses to the public at truck stops have been significant contributors to the doses calculated in

previous RADTRAN 5 analyses. For this analysis, stop doses are the sum of the doses to

individuals located in two annular rings centered at the stopped vehicle, as illustrated in

Figure G-1. The inner ring represents persons who may be at the truck stop at the same time

as a spent fuel shipment and extends 1 to 10 m from the edge of the vehicle. The outer ring

represents persons who reside near a truck stop and extends from 10 to 800 m from the

vehicle. This scheme is the same as that used in Sprung et al. (2000).

Population densities and shielding factors were also taken from Sprung et al. (2000) and were

based on the observations of Griego et al. (1996).

The results of these routine (incident-free) exposure calculations are shown in Table G-6 for

spent fuel shipments from all 11 primary and alternative sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain

repository. Population dose estimates are given for workers (i.e., truck crew members),

onlookers (doses to persons at truck stops and persons and on highways exposed to the spent

fuel shipments), and along the route (persons living near the highway).
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-14 December 2006

Table G-5. RADTRAN 5 Incident-Free Exposure Parameters

Parameter

RADTRAN 5

Input Value Source

Vehicle speed – rural, km/hr 88.49 Based on average speed in rural areas

given in DOE (2002a). Because most

travel is on interstate highways, the

same vehicle speed is assumed in rural,

suburban, and urban areas. No speed

reductions were assumed for travel at

rush hour.

Vehicle speed – suburban, km/hr 88.49

Vehicle speed – urban, km/hr 88.49

Traffic count – rural, vehicles/hr 530 DOE (2002a)

Traffic count – suburban, vehicles/hr 760

Traffic count – urban, vehicles/hr 2400

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle,

 mSv/hr

0.14 Approximate dose rate at 1 m (3 ft) that

is equivalent to maximum dose rate

allowed by DOT and NRC regulations

(i.e., 0.1 mSv/hr at 2 m (~7 ft) from the

side of a transport vehicle)

(DOE 2002b)

Packaging dimensions, m Length – 5.2

Diameter – 1.0

DOE (2002b)

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977), and

DOE (2002a)

Stop time, hr/trip Route-specific See Table G-4.

Population density at stops,

 persons/km2

30,000 Sprung et al. (2000)

Min/max radii of annular area around

 vehicle at stops, m

1 to 10 Sprung et al. (2000)

Shielding factor applied to annular

 area surrounding vehicle at stops

1(no shielding) Sprung et al. (2000)

Population density surrounding truck

 stops, persons/km2

340 Sprung et al. (2000)

Min/max radius of annular area

 surrounding truck stop, m

10 to 800 Sprung et al. (2000)

Shielding factor applied to annular

 area surrounding truck stop

0.2 Sprung et al. (2000)
Appendix G

December 2006 G-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure G-1. Illustration of Truck Stop Model (Sprung et al. 2000)

This discussion addresses whether or not the environmental effects of incident-free advanced

reactor spent fuel shipments are within the guidelines established in Table S–4. The bounding

cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S–4 are:

& Transport workers 0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem)

per reference reactor year.

& General public (onlookers and along route) 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem)

per reference reactor year.

Calculation of the cumulative doses entailed converting the per-shipment risks given in

Table G-6 to estimates of environmental effects per reference reactor year of operation. The

per-shipment results, which are independent of reactor type (i.e., the doses are dependent on

the assumed external radiation dose rate emitted from the cask, which is fixed at the regulatory

maximum limit for all of the advanced reactor types), are given in terms of the population dose 
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-16 December 2006

Table G-6. Routine (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from

Shipping Spent Fuel from the North Anna and Alternative Sites to the Proposed

High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain

Reactor Site

Population Dose, person-Sv/shipment(a)

Crew Onlookers Along Route

North Anna 1.0 x 10-3 3.5 x 10-3 9.2 x 10-5

Portsmouth 9.1 x 10-4 3.2 x 10-3 7.3 x 10-5

Savannah River 9.9 x 10-4 3.5 x 10-3 1.0 x 10-4

Surry 1.1 x 10-3 3.5 x 10-3 9.7 x 10-5

(a) Multiply person-Sv/shipment times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/shipment.

per shipment of spent fuel. To develop estimates of the annual environmental impacts, the

following assumptions were made:

& The basis for the annual number of shipments of spent fuel from the reference LWR in

WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) will be used. In WASH-1238, it was assumed that

60 shipments per year would be made, each shipment carrying 0.5 MTU of spent fuel. 

This equates to shipping 30 MTU of spent fuel per year. This is equivalent to the annual

refueling requirements for the reference LWR. It was assumed that the other reactor

types would also ship spent fuel at a rate equal to their annual refueling requirements.

& Shipping cask capacities that were used to calculate annual spent fuel shipments for the

advanced LWRs were assumed to be the same as for the reference LWR (i.e., approximately 0.5 MTU per truck shipment).

& The annual numbers of spent fuel shipments from the advanced gas-cooled reactors

| were taken directly from INEEL (2003). These estimates were 34 shipments per year

| from a GT-MHR site and 12 shipments per year from the PBMR site.

Table G-7 provides the estimated annual population doses from routine (incident-free)

transportation of spent fuel from ESP sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. The

results in Table G-7 have been normalized to the WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) net electrical

| generation (i.e., 880 MW(e)). Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high

| dose rates, currently there are no data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer

| following exposure to low doses below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. 

| However, radiation protection experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation

| exposure may pose some risk of causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk

| is higher for higher radiation exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model

| is used to describe the relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer

| induction. A recent report by the National Research Council (2005), the BEIR VII report,

| supports the linear, no-threshold dose response theory. This theory states that any increase in 
Table G-7. Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation, Normalized to Reference

LWR Net Electrical Generation

Reactor Type | Reference LWR (WASH-1238) ABWR(b) Surrogate ESBWR Surrogate AP1000

No. Shipments

per year 60 41 40 40

Environmental Effects, person-Sv per reference reactor year(a) |

Reactor Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

North Anna | 6.2 x 10-2 2.1 x 10-1 5.5 x 10-3 4.2 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 3.7 x 10-3 4.1 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 3.6 x 10-3 4.1 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 3.6 x 10-3 |

Portsmouth | 5.5 x 10-2 1.9 x 10-1 4.4 x 10-3 3.7 x 10-2 1.3 x 10-1 3.0 x 10-3 3.6 x 10-2 1.3 x 10-1 2.9 x 10-3 3.6 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-1 2.9 x 10-3 |Savannah River | 6.0 x 10-2 2.1 x 10-1 6.0 x 10-3 4.0 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 4.1 x 10-3 4.0 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 4.0 x 10-3 3.9 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 4.0 x 10-3 |Surry | 6.4 x 10-2 2.1 x 10-1 5.8 x 10-3 4.3 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 3.9 x 10-3 4.2 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 3.8 x 10-3 4.2 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-1 3.8 x 10-3 |

Reactor Type ACR-700 IRIS GT-MHR PBMR

No. Shipments

per year 90 35 34 12

Environmental Effects, person-Sv per reference reactor year(a) |

Reactor Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

North Anna 9.2 x 10-2 3.2 x 10-1 8.2 x 10-3 3.6 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-1 3.2 x 10-3 3.4 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-1 3.1 x 10-3 1.2 x 10-2 4.0 x 10-2 1.0 x 10-3

Portsmouth 8.1 x 10-2 2.8 x 10-1 6.6 x 10-3 3.1 x 10-2 1.1 x 10-1 2.5 x 10-3 3.0 x 10-2 1.1 x 10-1 2.4 x 10-3 1.0 x 10-2 3.6 x 10-2 8.2 x 10-4Savannah River 8.9 x 10-2 3.2 x 10-1 9.0 x 10-3 3.4 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-1 3.5 x 10-3 3.3 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-1 3.3 x 10-3 1.1 x 10-2 3.9 x 10-2 1.1 x 10-3Surry 9.5 x 10-2 3.2 x 10-1 8.7 x 10-3 3.7 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-1 3.3 x 10-3 3.5 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-1 3.2 x 10-3 1.2 x 10-2 4.0 x 10-2 1.1 x 10-3(a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.(b) In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the ABWR and ESBWR were assumed to be identified based on information in INEEL (2003). See also the “Surrogate

ESBWR” columns in this table

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-17 December 2006

Appendix G
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-18 December 2006

dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in health risk. NRC accepts this

| theory as a conservative model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing

| that the model probably over-estimates those risks.

| Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

| nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

| severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP Publication

| 60 (ICRP 1991). All the population doses presented in Table G-7 are less than one personSv/yr (100 person-rem/yr); therefore, the total detriment estimates associated with these

| population doses would all be less than 0.1 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe

| hereditary effects per year. These risks are very small compared to the fatal cancers, nonfatal

| cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would occur annually in the same population from

| exposure to natural sources of radiation.

| As shown in Table G-7, many of the estimated population doses are higher than the Table S–4

conditions. Two key reasons for the higher population doses relative to Table S–4 are the

higher number of spent fuel shipments estimated for some of the reactor technologies and the

longer shipping distances used in this assessment than were used in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972).

WASH-1238 used a “typical” distance for a spent fuel shipment of 1600 km (1000 mi), whereas

| the shipping distances used in this assessment ranged from about 2900 km (1800 mi) to

4700 km (2900 mi). The higher numbers of shipments are based on spent fuel shipping casks

designed to transport short-cooled fuel (150 days out of the reactor). It was assumed in this

analysis that the shipping cask capacities are 0.5 MTU/shipment, roughly equivalent to one

PWR or two BWR spent fuel assemblies per shipment. Newer designs are based on

longer-cooled spent fuel (5 years out of reactor) and have larger capacities than those used in

this assessment. DOE (2002b) spent fuel shipping cask capacities were approximately

1.8 MTU/shipment, or up to four PWR or nine BWR fuel assemblies per shipment. Use of the

newer shipping cask designs will reduce the number of spent fuel shipments and the associated

environmental impacts. If the population doses are adjusted for the shipping distance (a factor

of 2 to 3) and shipping cask capacity (a factor of 4), the routine population doses from spent fuel

shipments from all reactor types and all sites fall within the Table S–4 conditions.

Most of the stops made for actual spent fuel shipments are short duration stops

(i.e., 10 minutes) for brief visual inspections of the cargo (e.g., checking the cask tie-downs). 

These stops typically occur in areas devoid of people, such as overpasses or freeway ramps in

unpopulated areas. Therefore, doses to residents surrounding these types of stops are

negligible. In DOE (2002b), close-proximity exposures (i.e., from 1 to 15.8 m from the cask)

were not assumed to occur at the short-duration inspection stops. In this analysis, for the

purpose of developing bounding estimates of environmental effects, close-proximity (1 to 10 m

from cask) exposures at all truck stops were included in the RADTRAN 5 calculations. Because

the numbers of stops in this analysis are effectively doubled relative to DOE (2002b), truck stop

doses are also doubled. The doses to residents would also be lower; however, because doses
Appendix G

December 2006 G-19 NUREG-1811, Volume I

to residents are two to three orders of magnitude (i.e., a factor of 100 to 1000) less than the

calculated close-proximity doses, this reduction does not affect the total stop dose.

The number of exposed persons at stops is higher in this analysis by about a factor of 1.5

relative to DOE (2002b) assumptions (6.9 persons in DOE 2002b versus 10 persons assumed

in this analysis). Thus, the bounding doses calculated in this analysis are also a factor of 1.5

(10 divided by 6.9) greater than those given in DOE (2002b). Furthermore, empirical data

provided in Griego et al. (1996) indicate that a 30-minute stop is toward the high end of the stop

time distribution. Average stop times for food and refueling observed by Griego et al. (1996) are

on the order of 18 minutes. This amounts to another factor of 1.5 increase in stop doses

calculated here relative to DOE (2002b).

Based on these observations, the staff concludes that the stop model used in this study

overestimates public doses at stops by approximately a factor of four (factor of two for

close-proximity exposure time at stops, a factor of 1.5 for average stop time at food and

refueling stops, and a factor of 1.5 for the number of people in proximity to the shipping cask).

Coupled with the factor of two reduction in shipping cask dose rates that result from fuel aging,

the doses to onlookers at stops could be reduced to about one-eighth of the doses shown in

Table G-7 [1/(2 x 1.5 x 1.5 x 2)  0.12] to reflect more realistic truck shipping conditions. Based

on the previous discussion, use of more realistic dose rates, shipping cask capacities, and truck

stop model assumptions in the RADTRAN 5 calculations could substantially reduce the

environmental effects presented in Table G-7.

Table G-8 provides a comparison between the radiological incident-free doses calculated in

NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977) and those calculated here. The table also summarizes the key

incident-free input parameters used in NUREG-0170 and in this study. Comparisons are also

made between the doses for spent fuel shipments in NUREG-0170 and doses calculated in this

EIS for a shipment with a similar shipping distance, to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository

(2530 km in NUREG-0170 versus 2853 km to Yucca Mountain). As shown in the table, many

parameters have changed over the years and the technical bases for them have improved. For

example, the work of Griego et al. (1996) has improved the basis for assumptions about stop

times and persons exposed at truck stops, and the TRAGIS computer code has improved the

basis for shipping distances and population distributions along highway routes.

The incident-free impacts at truck stops shown in the table have been adjusted, as discussed

above, to reflect more realistic conditions than assumed in the bounding analysis. Adjustments

were not made to the onlookers, along route, and crew doses shown in Table G-7. As shown,

the adjusted doses in Table G-8 for spent fuel shipments to the proposed Yucca Mountain

Repository are about a factor of two lower than the per-shipment doses from NUREG-0170

when the doses to and doses associated with in-transit storage from NUREG-0170 are

excluded. Storage doses were excluded from this analysis because spent fuel shipments

proceed directly from the reactor site to Yucca Mountain with no intermediate storage involved.
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-20 December 2006

Table G-8. Comparison of Incident-Free Doses from NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977) Spent Fuel

| Shipments and Spent Fuel Shipment from a Similar Distance to the Proposed

| High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain

| Incident-Free Exposure Parameter

NUREG-0170

(NRC 1977)

| Shipment to 

Yucca Mountain

One-way shipping distance, km 2530 2853

Travel fraction

 Urban 0.05 0.02

 Suburban 0.05 0.12

 Rural 0.9 0.86

Population density along highway, persons per km2

 Urban 3861 2391.3

 Suburban 719 310.2

 Rural 6 9.1

Speed, km/hr

 Urban 24 88

 Suburban 40 88

 Rural 88 88

Traffic count, vehicles/hr

 Urban 2800 2400

 Suburban 780 760

 Rural 470 530

Shipment dose Rate, mSv/hr at 2m 0.1 0.1

Crew dose rate, mSv/hr 0.02 Calculated (7.4 m from package)

Stop time, hr per trip

 Urban 2 3 hours per trip (30 minutes per

 Suburban 5 4 hours driving time)

 Rural 1

Population density at stops (per km2

)

 Urban 3861 Distribution: 1 to 10 m - 30,000;

 Suburban 719 10 to 800 m - 340 (see Figure G-1)

 Rural 6

Person-Sv/shipment

Crew 1.2 x 10-3 4.8 x 10-4

Off-link 1.5 x 10-4 3.1 x 10-4

On-link 7.4 x 10-5 1.7 x 10-4

Stops 1.9 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-4(a)

Total 1.6 x 10-3 8.5 x 10-4

Handlers + Storage 2.1 x 10-3 Not calculated

Grand Total 3.7 x 10-3 8.5 x 10-4

(a) Stop doses have been adjusted as described in the text to reflect more realistic assumptions than were used in

the bounding analysis (Table G-7).
Appendix G

(a) Inhalation dose factors were used because inhalation is the dominant dose pathway based on

information in NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977) and Sprung et al. (2000).

December 2006 G-21 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Handler doses were excluded from this analysis because doses to workers who load the spent

fuel cask at reactors and unload them at the proposed repository are treated as facility doses,

not transportation doses.

G.2.2 Transportation Accident Impacts

RADTRAN 5 assesses accident risk by calculating a risk value, which is the product of the

probabilities and consequences of accidents. RADTRAN 5 considers a spectrum of potential

transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and low consequences

(e.g., “fender-benders”) to those with low frequencies and high consequences (e.g., accidents in

which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical and thermal conditions).

Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The

radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were taken directly from the Early Site Permit

Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003). The report

included hundreds of radionuclides for each advanced reactor type. A screening analysis was

conducted to select the dominant contributors to accident risks to simplify the RADTRAN 5

calculations. The screening identifies the radionuclides that will contribute more than

99.999 percent of the dose from inhalation.

A sum-of-fractions approach was used for this screening. First, the inventory of each

radionuclide was multiplied by its respective inhalation dose conversion factor, taken from

Federal Guidance Report 13 (EPA 2002).(a) These values were then summed. Then, each

inventory-conversion factor product was divided by the sum of the products to obtain the

fraction of the total inhalation dose for each radionuclide. The resulting fractions were then

sorted from largest to smallest, their cumulative contributions were calculated, and those that

contributed to 99.999 percent of the inhalation-dose potential were selected. Two gases, |

krypton-85 and iodine-129, were added to the list because they are more easily released than

the solid and semi-volatile species contained in the fuel.

The inventories of radionuclides used in this study are shown in Table G-9. Note that the list of

radionuclides provided in the table includes all of the radionuclides that were included in the |

analysis conducted by Sprung et al. (2000), which validates the screening process used in this |

EIS. Also note that INEEL (2003) did not provide radionuclide source terms for radioactive |

material deposited on the external surfaces of LWR spent fuel rods, which is commonly referred |

to as “crud.” In addition, data on activation products was provided for only the ABWR. The |

ABWR spent fuel transportation risks were calculated assuming the entire Co-60 inventory is in |

the form of crud. This is very conservative as the source term used here is about two orders of |
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-22 December 2006

| magnitude greater than that given in Sprung et al. (2000). Because crud is deposited from

| corrosion products generated elsewhere in the reactor cooling system and the complete reactor

| design and operating parameters are uncertain, the quantities and characteristics of crud

| deposited on advanced reactor spent fuel are unknown at this time. Consequently, the impacts

| of crud and activation products on spent fuel transportation accident risks will need to be

| examined at the CP or COL stage.

Table G-9 shows that the dominant radionuclides are approximately the same regardless of fuel

type. The table does not show radionuclide inventory data for the ACR-700 and IRIS advanced

reactors, as those were not given in INEEL (2003). Nor were they provided in WASH-1238

(AEC 1972) for the reference LWR. Consequently, accident risks were not quantified for these

reactor types.

Robust shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the heavy radiation shielding

and accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent fuel shipping casks must be

certified Type B packaging systems, which means they must withstand a series of severe

hypothetical accident conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding capability. 

| These casks are also designed with fissile material controls to ensure that the spent fuel

| remains subcritical under both normal and accident conditions. The tests include a 9-m (30-ft)

free drop onto an unyielding surface, a drop onto a puncture probe, an exposure to an engulfing

800(C fire for 30 minutes, and an underwater immersion. According to Sprung et al. (2000), the

probability of encountering accident conditions more severe than these tests that could lead to

shipping cask failure are less than 0.01 percent of all accidents (i.e., more than 99.99 percent of

all accidents would not result in a release of radioactive material from the shipping cask). It was

assumed that shipping casks for advanced reactor spent fuels will provide equivalent

mechanical and thermal protection of the spent fuel cargo.

The RADTRAN 5 accident risk calculations were performed using unit radionuclide inventories

(Bq/MTU) for the spent fuel shipments from the various reactor types. The resulting risk

estimates were then multiplied by assumed annual spent fuel shipments (MTU/yr) to derive

estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent fuel shipments from each potential

ESP site. As was done for routine exposures, it was assumed that the numbers of shipments of

spent fuel per year are equivalent to the annual discharge quantities: 32.76 MTU/yr for the

ABWR and surrogate ESBWR; 24.4 MTU/yr for a single-reactor surrogate AP1000 site;

6.8 MTU/yr for the four-reactor GT MHR site; and 8.3 MTU/yr for the eight-reactor PBMR site. 

These data were taken from INEEL (2003) and have not been normalized to the reference LWR

net electrical generation.

Route-specific accident rates (accidents per km) were derived for the RADTRAN 5 accident risk

analysis. The approach used to develop accident rates for spent fuel shipments is as follows. 

The TRAGIS data provide estimates of the distance traveled in each state along a route and the

type of highway (interstate, state highway, or other). Saricks and Tompkins (1999) provide 
Appendix G

December 2006 G-23 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table G-9. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for 

Each Advanced Reactor Type, Bq/MTU(a)

Radionuclide |

ABWR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

Surrogate

ESBWR

Inventory(b),

Bq/MTU

Surrogate

AP1000

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

GT-MHR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

PBMR |

Inventory, |

Bq/MTU |

Am-241 4.96 x 10 | 13 4.81 x 1013 2.69 x 1013 8.18 x 1013 7.55 x 1013 |

Am-242m 1.24 x 10 | 12 1.02 x 1012 4.85 x 1011 5.03 x 1011 8.51 x 1011 |

Am-243 1.20 x 10 | 12 1.21 x 1012 1.24 x 1012 5.14 x 1011 4.77 x 1012 |

Ce-144 4.22 x 10 | 14 5.00 x 1014 3.28 x 1014 2.15 x 1015 1.19 x 1015 |

Cm-242 2.04 x 10 | 12 1.80 x 1012 1.05 x 1012 1.51 x 1012 2.78 x 1012 |

Cm-243 1.37 x 10 | 12 1.28 x 1012 1.14 x 1012 2.02 x 1011 1.96 x 1012 |

Cm-244 1.80 x 10 | 14 1.84 x 1014 2.87 x 1014 2.83 x1013 5.48 x 1014 |

Cm-245 2.43 x 10 | 10 2.50 x 1010 4.48 x 1010 1.65 x 108 5.29 x 1010 |

Co-60(a) 1.01 x 10 | 14 1.06 x 1014 (c) (c) (c) |

Cs-134 1.78 x 10 | 15 1.92 x 1015 1.78 x 1015 2.21 x 1015 4.03 x 1015 |

Cs-137 4.59 x 10 | 15 4.70 x 1015 3.44 x 1015 1.08 x 1016 1.41 x 1016 |

Eu-154 3.81 x 10 | 14 3.90 x 1014 3.38 x 1014 3.23 x 1014 3.74 x 1014 |

Eu-155 1.93 x 10 | 14 2.00 x 1014 1.71 x 1014 8.77 x 1013 1.08 x 1014 |

Pm-147 1.25 x 10 | 15 1.31 x 1015 6.51 x 1014 6.92 x 1015 5.07 x 1015 |

Pu-238 2.27 x 10 | 14 2.28 x 1014 2.25 x 1014 1.17 x 1014 4.55 x 1014 |

Pu-239 1.43 x 10 | 13 1.43 x 1013 9.44 x 1012 2.25 x 1013 1.11 x 1013 |

Pu-240 2.28 x 10 | 13 2.30 x 1013 2.01 x 1013 3.96 x 1013 3.32 x 1013 |

Pu-241 4.51 x 10 | 15 4.51 x 1015 2.58 x 1015 8.33 x 1015 7.18 x 1015 |

Pu-242 8.29 x 10 | 10 8.29 x 1010 6.73 x 1010 1.56 x 1011 4.51 x 1011 |

Ru-106 6.07 x 10 | 14 6.88 x 1014 5.74 x 1014 1.48 x 1015 1.68 x 1015 |

Sb-125 1.99 x 10 | 14 2.14 x 1014 1.42 x 1014 2.21 x 1014 2.51 x 1014 |

Sr-90 3.27 x 10 | 15 3.36 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016 |

Y-90 3.27 x 10 | 15 3.36 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016 |

(a) To convert Bq/MTU to Ci/MTU, divide the value by 3.7 x 1010 Bq/Ci. |

(b) The source of the spent fuel inventories is INEEL (2003) except for the surrogate ESBWR inventories, which |

were taken from Dominion (2006b). The surrogate ESBWR inventories reflect the increased core thermal |

power assumed in Dominion (2006a). |

(c) Cobalt-60 is an activation product. Only the ABWR/ESBWR submittal in INEEL (2003) provided inventory |

data for activation products; it was scaled up for the surrogate ESBWR. |

accident rates for each state that are a function of highway type. The approach taken to

estimate route-specific accident rates was to multiply the state-level accident or fatality rates by

the distances traveled in each state on the corresponding highway type and then sum over all

the states on each route. For example, for interstate highways, the interstate distances and

interstate accident rates were used. For non-interstate highway travel, either the “Primary” or

“Other” accident rates given by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were used. This approach

allowed computation of route-specific accident rates.
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-24 December 2006

Transportation accident risk analysis in RADTRAN 5 is performed using an accident severity

and package release model. The user can define up to 30 severity categories, with each

category increasing in magnitude. Severity categories are related to fire, puncture, crush, and

immersion environments created in vehicular accidents. For this analysis, the 19 severity

categories defined by Sprung et al. (2000) were adopted.

Each severity category has an assigned conditional probability (or the probability, given an

accident occurs, that it will be of the specified severity). The accident scenarios are further

defined by allowing the user to input release fractions and aerosol and respirable fractions for

each severity category. These fractions are a function of the physical-chemical properties of the

materials being transported as well as the mechanical and thermal accident conditions that

define the severity categories. The severity categories and release fractions used here are

presented in Table G-10. 

The severity categories and release fractions published by Sprung et al. (2000) were designed

specifically to address accidents involving current generation LWR fuel and the current

generation of spent fuel shipping casks. While some of the advanced reactor fuel designs are

similar to current-generation reactor fuel designs (e.g., the ABWR, surrogate ESBWR,

Surrogate AP1000, ACR-700, and IRIS), others are significantly different, including the GT-MHR

and PBMR. Extrapolating the current generation of LWR fuel and shipping casks to advanced

LWR fuels and shipping casks is expected to be relatively straightforward because the fuel

form, cladding, and physical and mechanical properties are similar. Furthermore, substantial

experimental data exist to develop technically defensible release fractions for various

radionuclide groups (e.g., gases, semi-volatiles such as cesium and ruthenium, and

particulates). However, because detailed experimental studies of releases from GT-MHR and

PBMR fuels have not been conducted, there are significant uncertainties about potential release

quantities from these fuels.

For this assessment, release fractions for current generation LWR fuels were used to

approximate the impacts from the advanced reactor spent fuel shipments. This essentially

assumes that the behavior of the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel

coatings) is similar to that of current LWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal conditions. 

Because of the lack of experimental data on gas-cooled reactor fuels, it is currently not known if

this approach is bounding. However, gas-cooled reactors operate at much higher temperatures

than LWRs; thus, high-temperature conditions anticipated in transportation accident fires are

expected to have less effect on radionuclide releases than they would for LWR fuels. 

Consequently, smaller release fractions are anticipated for advanced gas-cooled reactor fuels

than for LWR fuels subjected to thermal transients.

For accidents that result in a release of radioactive material, RADTRAN 5 assumes the material

is dispersed into the environment according to standard Gaussian diffusion models. The code

allows the user to choose two different methods for modeling the atmospheric transport of 
Appendix G

December 2006 G-25 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table G-10. Severity and Release Fractions Used to Model Spent Fuel Transportation

Accidents (Sprung et al. 2000)

Severity

Category

Severity

Fraction(b)

Release Fractions(a)

Gas Cesium Ruthenium Particulates

Corrosion

Products

1 1.53 x 10-8 0.8 2.4 x 10-8 6.0 x 10-7 6.0 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-3

2 5.88 x 10-5 0.14 4.1 x 10-9 1.0 x 10-7 1.0 x 10-7 1.4 x 10-3

3 1.81 x 10-6 0.18 5.4 x 10-9 1.3 x 10-7 1.3 x 10-7 1.8 x 10-3

4 7.49 x 10-8 0.84 3.6 x 10-5 3.8 x 10-6 3.8 x 10-6 3.2 x 10-3

5 4.65 x 10-7 0.43 1.3 x 10-8 3.2 x 10-7 3.2 x 10-7 1.8 x 10-3

6 3.31 x 10-9 0.49 1.5 x 10-8 3.7 x 10-7 3.7 x 10-7 2.1 x 10-3

7 0(c) 0.85 2.7 x 10-5 2.1 x 10-6 2.1 x 10-6 3.1 x 10-3

8 1.13 x 10-8 0.82 2.4 x 10-8 6.1 x 10-7 6.1 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-2

9 8.03 x 10-11 0.89 2.7 x 10-8 6.7 x 10-7 6.7 x 10-7 2.2 x 10-3

10 0(c) 0.91 5.9 x 10-6 6.8 x 10-7 6.8 x 10-7 2.5 x 10-3

11 1.44 x 10-10 0.82 2.4 x 10-8 6.1 x 10-7 6.1 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-3

12 1.02 x 10-12 0.89 2.7 x 10-8 6.7 x 10-7 6.7 x 10-7 2.2 x 10-3

13 0(c) 0.91 5.9 x 10-6 6.8 x 10-7 6.8 x 10-7 2.5 x 10-3

14 7.49 x 10-11 0.84 9.6 x 10-5 8.4 x 10-5 1.8 x 10-5 6.4 x 10-3

15 0(c) 0.85 5.5 x 10-5 5.0 x 10-5 9.0 x 10-6 5.9 x 10-3

16 0(c) 0.91 5.9 x 10-6 6.4 x 10-6 6.8 x 10-7 3.3 x 10-3

17 0(c) 0.91 5.9 x 10-6 6.4 x 10-6 6.8 x 10-7 3.3 x 10-3

18 5.86 x 10-6 0.84 1.7 x 10-5 6.7 x 10-8 6.7 x 10-8 2.5 x 10-3

19 0.99993 0 0 0 0 0

(a) RADTRAN 5 also models the fraction of the released particulate material that is small enough to be dispersible

in prevailing wind conditions and the fraction that is respirable. For this analysis, these parameters were set to

1.0 (i.e., 100 percent dispersible and 100 percent respirable).

(b) Severity fractions are the conditional probabilities, given the occurrence of an accident, that the mechanical and

thermal conditions experienced by a spent fuel shipping cask are within the conditions defined by the Severity

Category. See Sprung et al. (2000) for detailed information about the derivation of these data. Generic |

steel-depleted uranium-steel cask designs were assumed for the severity fractions. |

(c) The “0" values for certain severity fractions indicate the conditional probability of an accident that results in the |

mechanical and thermal accident conditions defined by the severity category is 0.0. The severity categories with |

“0" values were retained in the table for consistency with the source document (i.e., Sprung et al. 2000). |

radionuclides after a potential accident. The user can input either Pasquill atmospheric-stability

category data or averaged time-integrated concentrations. In this analysis, the default standard

cloud option (using time-integrated concentrations) was used.
Appendix G

| (a) The internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered, as the staff assumed

| evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a potential transportation accident.

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-26 December 2006

RADTRAN 5 was used to calculate the population dose from the released radioactive material

for four of five(a) possible exposure pathways:

& External dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material (cloudshine).

& External dose from radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume

(groundshine). The analysis included the radiation exposures from this pathway even

though the area surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated and

decontaminated, thus preventing long-term exposures from this pathway.

& Internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants (inhalation).

& Internal dose from radioactive materials that were deposited on the ground and then

resuspended (resuspension). The analysis included the radiation exposures from this

pathway even though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a

potential accidental release would prevent long-term exposures.

A sixth pathway, external doses arising from increased radiation fields surrounding a shipping

cask with damaged shielding, was considered but not included in the analysis. It is possible

that shielding materials incorporated into the cask structures could become damaged as a result

of an accident. For example, casks with lead shielding could undergo a slumping phenomenon

in which impact or fire causes gaps to form in the lead. Radiation would penetrate through the

gaps in the shielding at higher intensities, leading to higher radiation dose rates. These events,

which are commonly referred to as “loss of shielding events,” were not included in this

assessment because their contribution to spent fuel transportation risks is much smaller than

the dispersal accident risks.

Standard radionuclide uptake and dosimetry models are incorporated into RADTRAN 5. The

computer code combines the accident consequences and frequencies of each severity

category, sums up the severity categories, and then integrates across all the shipments. 

Accident-risk impacts are provided in the form of a collective population dose (person-rem over

the entire shipping campaign).

The shipping distances and population distribution information for the routes used for the

evaluation of the impacts of incident-free transportation (see Table G-4) were also used to

calculate transportation impacts. Representative shipping casks described above were

assumed.

Table G-11 presents unit (per MTU) accident risks associated with transportation of spent fuel

from each potential ESP site to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository.
Appendix G

December 2006 G-27 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table G-11. Unit Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Risks for Advanced Reactors

Site |

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR

Surrogate

ESBWR

Surrogate

AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

Population Dose, person-Sv/MTU(a) |

North Anna 2.3 x 10 | -7 2.4 x 10-7 2.1 x 10-8 3.2 x 10-8 5.4 x 10-8

Portsmouth 2.3 x 10 | -7 2.4 x 10-7 2.1 x 10-8 3.1 x 10-8 5.2 x 10-8

Savannah River 2.6 x 10 | -7 2.8 x 10-7 2.4 x 10-8 3.6 x 10-8 6.1 x 10-8

Surry 2.4 x 10 | -7 2.5 x 10-7 2.2 x 10-8 3.3 x 10-8 5.6 x 10-8

(a) To convert to person-rem, multiply person-Sv by 100. |

Projected annual accident risks are presented in Table G-12. As expected, accident risks are

highest for the longest shipments. Also, consistent with past spent fuel transportation risk

assessments, the accident impacts are several orders of magnitude lower than routine impacts.

Considering the small magnitude of the risks presented in Table G-12 and the conservative |

computational methods and data used to address uncertainties, the overall transportation |

accident risks associated with ABWR, surrogate ESBWR, Surrogate AP1000, GT-MHR, and

PBMR spent fuel shipments are judged to be small. Although likely to also be small, accident

risks associated with IRIS and ACR-700 spent fuel shipments could not be analyzed because of

the lack of radionuclide source-term data. Additional analyses are necessary to quantify the

impacts of IRIS and ACR-700 spent fuel shipments.

Table G-12 presents the environmental risks of transportation accidents when shipping spent |

fuel from the proposed ESP sites and alternative sites to the proposed Yucca Mountain |

Repository. The shipping distances and population distribution information for the routes were |

the same as those used for the normal “incident-free” conditions. The table presents estimates |

of population dose (person-Sv/reference reactor year) for several of the advanced reactor |

designs. |

Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses |

below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem), and low dose rates. However, radiation protection |

experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of |

causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation |

exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response model is used to describe the |

relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report |

by the BEIR VII report (National Research Council 2005), supports the linear, no-threshold dose

response theory. This theory states that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in |

an incremental increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-28 December 2006

Table G-12. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

Normalized to Reference LWR Net Electrical Generation

|

|

| MTU/reference reactor year

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR

Surrogate

ESBWR

Surrogate

AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

20.3 20.3 19.7 6.0 5.8

Population Dose, person-Sv/per reference reactor year(a) |

| North Anna 4.7 x 10-6 5.0 x 10-6 4.2 x 10-7 1.9 x 10-7 3.1 x 10-7

| Portsmouth 5.2 x 10-6 5.5 x 10-6 4.0 x 10-7 1.8 x 10-7 3.0 x 10-7

| Savannah River 5.3 x 10-6 5.6 x 10-6 4.7 x 10-7 2.2 x 10-7 3.5 x 10-7

| Surry 4.9 x 10-6 5.1 x 10-6 4.3 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-7 3.2 x 10-7

| (a) Multiply person-Sv/reference reactor year times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/reference reactor year.

| model for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

| over-estimates those risks.

|

| Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the

| nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

| severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem]) from ICRP Publication

60 (ICRP 1991). All the population doses presented in Table G-12 are less than 1.0 x 10-5 |

person-Sv (1.0 x 10-3 | person-rem) per year; therefore, the total detriment estimates associated

with these population doses would all be less than 1.0 x 10-6 | fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers,

| and severe hereditary effects per year. These risks are quite small compared to the fatal

| cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur

| annually in the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation using the same

| risk model.

G.3 Shipment of Radioactive Waste

This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting radioactive waste from

advanced reactor sites. The environmental conditions listed in 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to

shipments of radioactive waste are as follows:

& radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is packaged and in a solid form [51.52(a)(4)]

& radioactive waste (except spent fuel) is shipped from the reactor by truck or rail

[51.52(a)(5)].

INEEL (2003) indicates that all of the advanced reactors will transport their radioactive waste by

truck. Furthermore, INEEL (2003) indicates that all of the advanced reactors plan to solidify and

package their radioactive waste. In addition, all of the advanced reactors will be subject to NRC

(10 CFR Part 71) and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for the shipment of

radioactive material (49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, and 178).
Appendix G

December 2006 G-29 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table S–4 also specifies the following conditions that apply to shipments of radioactive waste:

& weight – less than 33,000 kg (73,000 lb) per truck or 100 tons per cask per rail car

& traffic density – less than one truck shipment per day or three rail cars per month.

The advanced reactors are assumed to be capable of shipping their radioactive wastes in

compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions. With respect to the traffic density, all of

the advanced reactor vendors provided radioactive waste generation estimates. Table G-13

provides these estimates, in addition to the radioactive waste generation estimates for the

reference LWR in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972).

Table G-13. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors

Reactor Type

INEEL (2003)

Waste Generation

Information

Annual

Waste

Volume,

m3

/yr per

Unit

Electrical

Output,

MW(e) per

Unit

Normalized

Rate, m3

/1100

MW(e) Unit

(880 MW(e)

Net)(a)

Shipments/

1100 MW(e)

(880 MW(e)

Net) Electrical

Output(b)

Reference LWR |

(WASH-1238)

100 m3

/yr per unit 108 1100 108 46

ABWR 100 m3/yr per unit 100 1500 62 27

Surrogate ESBWR 100 m3

/yr(c) per unit 100 1520(d) 60 26

Surrogate AP1000 55 m | 3

/yr 

per unit

56 1150 45 20 |

ACR-700 47.5 m3/yr per unit 47.5 731 64 28

IRIS 25 m | 3

/yr

per modules

74

(3 modules)

1005

(3 modules)

67 29

GT-MHR 98 m3

/yr (4 module

Plant)

98

(4 modules)

1140

(4 modules)

86 37(e)

PBMR 100 drums/yr per

modules

168

(8 modules)

1320

(8 modules)

118 51(e)

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3).

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output

are given in Table 6-3 for each reactor type. All are normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical output

(1100-MW(e) unit with an 80 percent capacity factor).

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste

shipment capacity of 2.34 m3

 per shipment (108 m3/yr divided by 46 shipments/yr).

(c) Dominion indicated in its May 24, 2006 response to RAIs that no change is anticipated in the volume of

radioactive waste produced (Dominion 2006b). The quantity of radioactive waste generated is more closely

related to Dominion's operational practices than the reactor's power output. The staff concludes that

increases in solid radioactive waste generation estimates for the surrogate ESBWR, if any, would be small

and that any increase would be within the range of uncertainty of the waste generation estimates.

(d) Dominion 2006a

(e) The applicant states in INEEL (2003) that 90 percent of the waste could be shipped on trucks carrying 28 m3

(1000 ft3) of waste and the remaining 10 percent in shipments carrying 5.7 m3 (200 ft3) of radioactive waste. 

This would result in six to seven shipments per year after normalization to the reference LWR electrical

output.
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-30 December 2006

As shown in the table, only the PBMR generates a larger volume of radioactive waste than the

reference LWR in WASH-1238. However, the GT-MHR and PBMR information in INEEL (2003)

assumed these advanced reactors would ship wastes using two different packaging systems: 

one that hauls 28.3 m3

/shipment (1000 ft3 per shipment) and one that hauls 5.7 m3/shipment

(200 ft3

/per shipment). Under those conditions, the number of shipments of radioactive waste

per year, normalized to 1100 MW(e) electric generation capacity, would be about six

shipments/year per 1100 MW(e) (880 net MW(e)) for the GT-MHR and seven shipments/year

per 1100 MW(e) for the PBMR. These estimates are well below the reference LWR

(42 shipments per 1100 MW(e)). In any event, all the estimates are well below the one truck

shipment per day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S–4. Doubling the shipment

estimates to account for empty return shipments is still well below the one shipment per day

condition.

G.4 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, “Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material.”

| 49 CFR Part 171. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, Part 171, “General

| Information, Regulations, and Definitions.”

|

| 49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous

| Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency

| Response Information, and Training Requirements.”

|

| 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers -

| General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings.”

|

| 49 CFR Part 178. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 49, Transportation, Part 178,

| “Specifications for Packagings.”

|

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

| Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia.

|

| Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

| NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

| dated May 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

Griego, N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. “Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model
Appendix G

December 2006 G-31 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Input Parameters for Truck Stops” in Conference Proceedings B Waste Management 96,

CONF-960212-44. Tucson, Arizona.

Hostick, C.J., J.C. Lavender, and B.H. Wakeman. 1992. Time/Motion Observations and Dose

Analysis of Reactor Loading, Transportation, and Dry Unloading of an Overweight Truck Spent

Fuel Shipment. PNL-7206, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit

Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Office of Nuclear Energy,

Science, and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of |

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 60. Elsevier Science, |

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. |

Johnson, P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2000. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic

Information System (WebTRAGIS) User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-2000/86, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed on February 7, 2005 at

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106749.pdf

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

National Research Council. 2005. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

Radiation: BEIR VII - Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels

of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Neuhauser, K.S., F.L. Kanipe, and R.F. Weiner. 2003. RADTRAN 5 User Guide.

SAND2003-2354, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Accessed on

February 7, 2005 at http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand_doc/2003/032354.pdf

Saricks, C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates of Surface Freight

Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,

Illinois.

Sprung, J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills,

K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of

Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C.
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, Volume I G-32 December 2006

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk

Assessment. DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a

Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste

at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Cancer Risk Coefficients for

Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. Federal Guidance Report No. 13, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Final Environmental Statement on

Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1,

Washington, D.C.

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

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

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.

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

| U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

| an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811 (Draft). 

| Washington, D.C.
Appendix H

Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment
December 2006 H-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix H

Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment

The staff performed an independent dose assessment on the radiological impacts of normal

operation for new nuclear units at the Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) early site

permit (ESP) site. The results of this assessment are presented in this appendix and are

compared to the results from Dominion found in Section 5.9 (Radiological Health Impacts). 

The appendix is divided into three sections: (1) H.1 – Dose Estimates to the Public from Liquid

Effluents, (2) H.2 – Dose Estimates to the Public from Gaseous Effluents, and (3) H.3 – Dose

Estimates to the Biota from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents. Additional supporting documentation |

on the staff’s independent radiological dose assessment to include the computer runs is |

available through ADAMS (NRC 2006). |

To facilitate comparison with Dominion’s estimates, all doses and radioactivity levels are

reported in millirem (mrem) and curies (Ci), respectively.

H.1 Dose Estimates to the Public from Liquid Effluents |

|

To estimate doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) and the population from the liquid

effluent pathway, the staff used the LADTAP II code (Strenge et al. 1986) and input parameters

supplied by Dominion as part of their ESP Environmental Report (ER) (Dominion 2006).

H.1.1 Scope

Doses to the MEI were calculated for the following:

& Total Body – Dose was the total from all pathways (i.e., drinking water, fish consumption,

shoreline usage, swimming exposure, and boating) with the highest value for either the

adult, teen, child, or infant compared to the 0.03 mSv/yr (3 mrem/yr) per reactor design

objective in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50, Appendix I.

& Organ – Dose was the total for each organ from all pathways (i.e., drinking water, fish

consumption, shoreline usage, swimming exposure, and boating) with the highest value

for either the adult, teen, child, or infant compared to the 0.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem/yr) per

reactor design objective in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

The values of input parameters used by Dominion were reviewed by the staff and determined to

be appropriate to use as inputs into the LADTAP II code for its independent calculation. Default

values from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977) were used when input parameters were not

available.
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-2 December 2006

H.1.2 Resources Used

The staff used a version of the LADTAP II code entitled NRCDOSE version 2.3.4 (Bland 2000),

obtained through the Oak Ridge Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) to

calculate doses to the public from liquid effluents.

H.1.3 Input Parameters

Table H-1 provides a listing of the major parameters used by the staff in calculating dose to the

public from liquid effluent releases during normal operation. Table H-2 lists the liquid effluent

releases used by the staff in calculating dose to the public from one ESP unit. This table is the

same as Table 5.4-6 of Dominion (2006).

| In latest revision to the Dominion ER (Dominion 2006), the tritium release was revised from

| 3100 Ci/yr per unit to 850 Ci/yr per unit. The basis for this change was the potential for the

| 3100 Ci/yr per unit tritium release rate to result in concentrations in Lake Anna exceeding the

| Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L found in

| 40 CFR Part 141. As discussed in Section H.3.3, the revised tritium release rate of 850 Ci/yr

| per unit would result in an estimated tritium concentration in Lake Anna of 9417 pCi/L which is

| well below EPA’s drinking water standard for tritium of 20,000 pCi/L found in 40 CFR Part 141.

Table H-1. Parameters Used in Calculating Dose to Public from Liquid Effluent Releases

Parameter Staff Value Comments

Source term (Ci/yr)(a) Table 5.4-6 of the ER

(Dominion 2006) 

Table 5.4-6 of Dominion (2006)

represents the bounding liquid effluent

source term based on the plant

parameter envelope approach.

Discharge flow rate m3 | /s (gpm)

|

0.0062 (100) Site-specific value from Table 5.4-1 of

the ER (Dominion 2006).

Source term multiplier 1 Site-specific value from the ER

(Dominion 2006).

Site type Fresh water Site-specific value from the ER

(Dominion 2006).

Reconcentration model None Table 5.4-1 of the ER (Dominion 2006).

Effluent discharge rate from

impoundment system to

receiving water body

N/A Not applicable because reconcentration

was not assumed

Impoundment total volume N/A Not applicable because reconcentration

was not assumed
Appendix H

December 2006 H-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table H-1. (contd)

Parameter Staff Value Comments

Shore width factor 0.3 Value from Regulatory Guide 1.109

(NRC 1977).

Dilution factors for aquatic food |

and boating, shoreline and |

swimming, and drinking water |

|

|

|

|

1000 Site-specific value from the ER |

(Dominion 2006). The dilution factor of |

1000 is based on a plant effluent |

discharge rate of 0.0062 m3/s (100 gpm) |

with a dilution flow of 0.62 m3/s |

(100,000 gpm) per Table 5.4-1 of ER |

(Dominion 2006). |

Transit time (h) 0 Site-specific value from Table 5.4-1 of

the ER (Dominion 2006). The value is

conservative.

Consumption and usage factors

for adult, teen, children, and

infant

Values from Table 5.4-2 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Values were the default values from

Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977).

Population supplied by drinking

water (population)

22,100 Site-specific value provided by

Dominion (Dominion 2004a). 

Dilution factor for water intake |

locations, shoreline exposure |

location, swimming usage |

location, and boating usage |

location (population) |

|

|

1000 Site-specific value from the ER |

(Dominion 2006). The dilution factor of |

1000 is based on a plant effluent |

discharge rate of 0.0062 m3/s (100 gpm) |

with a dilution flow of 0.62 m3/s |

(100,000 gpm) per Table 5.4-1 of ER |

(Dominion 2006). |

Total shoreline usage time

(person-hours/year) (population)

1.31 x 106 Site-specific value provided by

Dominion (Dominion 2004a).

Total exposure time for

swimming usage location

(person-hours/year) (population)

8.76 x 105 Site-specific value provided by

Dominion (Dominion 2004a).

Total exposure time for boating

activities (person-hours/year)

(population)

2.19 x 106 Site-specific value provided by

Dominion (Dominion 2004a). 

(a) To convert Ci/yr to Bq/yr, multiply the value by 3.7 x 1010.
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-4 December 2006

| Table H-2. Liquid Effluent Release Source Terms from the ER on a Per Unit Basis

(Dominion 2006)(a,b)

Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr)

C-14 4.4 x 10-4 Rb-88 2.7 x 10-4 Rh-103m 4.9 x 10-3 Cs-138 2.1 x 10-4

Na-24 3.5 x 10-3 Rb-89 4.8 x 10-5 Rh-106 7.4 x 10-2 Ba-137m 1.2 x 10-2

P-32 6.6 x 10-4 Sr-89 3.6 x 10-4 Ag-110m 1.1 x 10-3 Ba-139 2.5 x 10-5

Cr-51 2.1 x 10-2 Sr-90 3.8 x 10-5 Ag-110 1.4 x 10-4 Ba-140 5.5 x 10-3

Mn-54 2.8 x 10-3 Sr-91 9.8 x 10-4 Sb-124 6.8 x 10-4 La-140 7.4 x 10-3

Mn-56 4.2 x 10-3 Sr-92 8.8 x 10-4 Te-129m 1.4 x 10-4 La-142 2.5 x 10-5

Fe-55 6.4 x 10-3 Y-90 3.4 x 10-6 Te-129 1.5 x 10-4 Ce-141 1.3 x 10-4

Fe-59 2.0 x 10-4 Y-91m 1.0 x 10-5 Te-131m 1.0 x 10-4 Ce-143 1.9 x 10-4

Co-56 5.7 x 10-3 Y-91 2.4 x 10-4 Te-131 3.0 x 10-5 Ce-144 3.2 x 10-3

Co-57 7.9 x 10-5 Y-92 6.6 x 10-4 Te-132 2.4 x 10-4 Pr-143 1.4 x 10-4

Co-58 3.4 x 10-3 Y-93 9.8 x 10-4 I-131 1.4 x 10-2 Pr-144 3.2 x 10-3

Co-60 1.0 x 10-2 Zr-95 1.0 x 10-3 I-132 2.8 x 10-3 W-187 2.1 x 10-4

Ni-63 1.5 x 10-4 Nb-95 1.9 x 10-3 I-133 2.4 x 10-2 Np-239 1.4 x 10-2

Cu-64 8.2 x 10-3 Mo-99 3.9 x 10-3 I-134 1.9 x 10-3 Total w/o H-3 3.7 x 10-1

| Zn-65 7.5 x 10-4 Tc-99m 5.1 x 10-3 I-135 8.2 x 10-3 H-3 8.5 x 102 |

Zn-69m 6.0 x 10-4 Ru-103 4.9 x 10-3 Cs-134 9.9 x 10-3

Br-83 7.5 x 10-5 Ru-105 1.0 x 10-4 Cs-136 1.2 x 10-3

Br-84 2.0 x 10-5 Ru-106 7.4 x 10-2 Cs-137 1.3 x 10-2

(a) Table 5.4-6 of Dominion (2006).

(b) To convert from Ci/yr to Bq/yr, multiply the value by 3.7 x 1010.

H.1.4 Comparison of Results

| Table H-3 compares Dominion’s results on a per unit basis with those calculated by the staff. 

Doses calculated were similar.

Table H-3.Comparison of Doses to the Public from Liquid Effluent Releases on a Per Unit Basis

Type of Dose

Applicant’s ER

(Dominion 2006)(a)

Staff’s

Calculation(a)

Percentage

Difference

| Total body (mrem/yr) 0.81 (adult) 0.81 (adult) 0

Organ dose (mrem/yr) 2.5 (child bone) 2.5 (child bone) 0

| Thyroid (mrem/yr) 0.68 (infant) 0.69 (infant) 1.5

Population dose from liquid

| pathway (person-rem)

| 8.6 8.6 0

(a) To convert mrem/yr to mSv/yr divide by 100.
Appendix H

December 2006 H-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

H.2 Dose Estimates to the Public from Gaseous Effluents (Units 3 |

and 4) |

|

The gaseous effluents from the proposed ESP reactor units are evaluated in this section. To |

estimate doses to the maximally exposed individual and to the population within an 80-km

(50-mi) radius of the ESP site from these gaseous effluents, the staff used the GASPAR II code

(Strenge et al. 1987) and input parameters supplied by Dominion in the ER (Dominion 2006).

H.2.1 Scope

The staff calculated gamma air dose, beta air dose, total body dose, and skin dose from noble

gases at the nearest site boundary located 1.4 km (0.88 mi) east-southeast of the North Anna

ESP site. Dose to the MEI was also calculated for the following locations:

• nearest site boundary (plume and inhalation)

• nearest residence (plume and inhalation)

• nearest garden (vegetable)nearest meat cow (meat).

MEI doses were not calculated for the nearest dairy cow and goat, within 8 km (5 mi) as

specified in NUREG-1555 because as stated in the ER (Dominion 2006), there were no milk

cows or goats within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed ESP units.

The values of input parameters used by Dominion are given in the ER (Dominion 2006) or in a

response to a Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated May 17, 2004 (Dominion 2004b). 

These values were reviewed by the staff and determined to be appropriate to use as input into

GASPAR II for its independent calculation. Default values from Regulatory Guide 1.109

(NRC 1977) were used when input parameters were not available.

Population doses were calculated for all types of releases (noble gases, iodine and particulates,

and H-3 and C-14) using the GASPAR II code.

H.2.2 Resources Used

The staff used a version of GASPAR II code entitled NRCDOSE, Version 2.3.5 (Bland 2000),

obtained through the Oak Ridge RSICC to calculate doses to the public from gaseous effluents.

H.2.3 Input Parameters

Table H-4 provides a listing of the major parameters used in calculating dose to the public from

gaseous effluent releases during normal operation. Table H-5 lists the gaseous effluent releases

used by the staff in calculating dose to the public. This table is the same as Table 5.4-7 of

Dominion (2006). 
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-6 December 2006

Table H-4. Parameters Used in Calculating Dose to Public from Gaseous Effluent Releases

Parameter Staff Value Comments

Source term for calculating

noble gas dose at site boundary

and dose to the maximally

exposed individual (Ci/yr)(a)

Table 5.4-7 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

These are the bounding plant

parameter envelope (PPE)

values.

Population distribution 2.784 x 106

 – from Table 2.5-8 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Atmospheric dispersion factors

(sec/m3

)

Table 2.7-17 to Table 2.7-19 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Ground deposition factors (m-2) Table 2.7-20 of the ER (Dominion

2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Milk production rate within 80

km (50 mi) (L/yr)

7.2 x 108 – Table 5.4-3 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Meat production rate within

80 km (50 mi) (kg/yr)

1.7 x 109

 – Table 5.4-3 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Vegetable/fruit production rate

within 80 km (50 mi) (kg/yr)

5.4 x 108

 – Table 5.4-3 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Pathway receptor locations

(direction, distance, and

atmospheric dispersion factors): 

nearest site boundary,

vegetable garden, residence,

meat animal

Table 5.4-4 and Table 2.7-14 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Consumption factors for leafy

vegetable, meat, milk, and

vegetable/fruit

Table 5.4-5 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

Factors taken from Regulatory

Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977).

Fraction of year leafy

vegetables that are grown

0.5 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Fraction of year that milk cows

that are on pasture 

0.67 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Fraction of milk-cow intake that

is from pasture while on pasture

1 Default value of GASPAR II

code.

Average absolute humidity over

the growing season (g/m3

)

8.0 Default value of GASPAR II

code.

Average temperature over the

growing season ((F)

0 Default value of GASPAR II

code.

Fraction of year goats are on

pasture

0.75 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Fraction of year beef-cattle are

on pasture

0.67 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Fraction of beef-cattle intake

that is from pasture while on

pasture

1 Default value of GASPAR II

code.

(a) To convert Ci/yr to Bq/yr, multiply the value by 3.7 x 1010.
Appendix H

December 2006 H-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table H-5. Gaseous Effluent Release Source Term from the ER on a Per Unit Basis

(Dominion 2006)(a,b)

Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr)

H-3 3.5 x 103 Kr-85 4.1 x 103 Ru-103 3.8 x 10-3 Xe-135m 7.7 x 102

C-14 1.2 x 101 Kr-87 4.9 x 101 Rh-103m 1.2 x 10-4 Xe-135 8.2 x 102

Na-24 4.4 x 10-3 Kr-88 7.4 x 101 Ru-106 7.8 x 10-5 Xe-137 9.8 x 102

P-32 1.0 x 10-3 Kr-89 4.7 x 102 Rh-106 2.1 x 10-5 Xe-138 7.8 x 102

Ar-41 3.0 x 102 Kr-90 4.2 x 10-4 Ag-110m 2.2 x 10-6 Xe-139 5.3 x 10-4

Cr-51 3.8 x 10-2 Rb-89 4.7 x 10-5 Sb-124 2.0 x 10-4 Cs-134 6.8 x 10-3

Mn-54 5.9 x 10-3 Sr-89 6.2 x 10-3 Sb-125 6.1 x 10-5 Cs-136 6.5 x 10-4

Mn-56 3.8 x 10-3 Sr-90 1.2 x 10-3 Te-129m 2.4 x 10-4 Cs-137 1.0 x 10-2

Fe-55 7.1 x 10-3 Y-90 5.0 x 10-5 Te-131m 8.3 x 10-5 Cs-138 1.9 x 10-4

Co-57 8.2 x 10-6 Sr-91 1.1 x 10-3 Te-132 2.1 x 10-5 Ba-140 3.0 x 10-2

Co-58 2.3 x 10-2 Sr-92 8.6 x 10-4 I-131 5.1 x 10-1 La-140 2.0 x 10-3

Co-60 1.4 x 10-2 Y-91 2.6 x 10-4 I-132 2.4 Ce-141 1.0 x 10-2

Fe-59 8.9 x 10-4 Y-92 6.8 x 10-4 I-133 1.9 Ce-144 2.1 x 10-5

Ni-63 7.1 x 10-6 Y-93 1.2 x 10-3 I-134 4.1 Pr-144 2.1 x 10-5

Cu-64 1.1 x 10-2 Zr-95 1.7 x 10-3 I-135 2.6 W-187 2.1 x 10-4

Zn-65 1.2 x 10-2 Nb-95 9.2 x 10-3 Xe-131m 1.8 x 103 Np-239 1.3 x 10-2

Kr-83m 1.3 x 10-3 Mo-99 6.5 x 10-2 Xe-133m 8.7 x 101 Total 1.8 x 104

Kr-85m 3.6 x 101 Tc-99m 3.3 x 10-4 Xe-133 4.6 x 103

(a) Table 5.4-7 of the ER (Dominion 2006).

(b) To convert from Ci/yr to Bq/yr, multiply the value by 3.7 x 1010.

H.2.4 Comparison of Doses to the Public from Gaseous Effluent Releases

Table H-6 compares Dominion’s results for doses from noble gases at the site boundary on a |

per unit basis with the results calculated by the staff. The calculated doses were similar. |

Table H-6. Comparison of Doses to the Public from Noble Gas Releases on a Per Unit Basis

Type of Dose

Dominion’s ER

(Dominion 2006)

Staff’s

Calculation

Percentage

Difference

Gamma air dose at site boundary – (mrad/yr)(a) 3.2 3.2 0 |

Beta air dose at site boundary – (mrad/yr)(a) 4.8 4.7 -2.1 |

Skin dose at site boundary – (mrem/yr)(a) 6.2 6.2 0 |

(a) To convert from mrad/yr or mrem/yr to mGy/yr or mSv/yr, divide by 100.
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-8 December 2006

| Table H-7 compares doses to the MEI calculated on a per unit basis by Dominion and the staff. 

Doses to the MEI were calculated at the nearest site boundary, nearest residence, nearest

garden, and nearest meat cow. The calculated doses were similar.

Table H-7. Comparison of Doses to the MEI from Gaseous Effluent Releases on a Per Unit

Basis

Location Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mrem/yr)(a,b)

Skin Dose

(mrem/yr)(a,b)

Thyroid Dose

(mrem/yr)(a,b)

Nearest site

boundary (1.4 km

[0.88 mi] eastsoutheast)

Plume 2.1 (2.1) 6.2 (6.2) (d) 

Nearest site

boundary (1.4 km

[0.88 mi] eastsoutheast)

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

0.3 (0.3)

0.31 (0.3)

0.27 (0.27)

0.16 (0.16)

(c)

(c)

(c)

(c)

1.6 (1.6)

2.0 (2.0)

2.3 (2.3)

2.0 (2.0)

Nearest garden

(1.5 km [0.94 mi]

northeast)

Vegetable

Adult

Teen

Child

0.44 (0.43)

0.57 (0.57)

1.1 (1.1)

(c)

(c)

(c)

4.9 (4.9)

6.6 (6.6)

13.1 (12.6)

Nearest residence

(1.5 km [0.96 mi]

north-northeast)

Plume 1.4 (1.4) 4.0 (4.0) (d) 

Nearest residence

(1.5 km [0.96 mi]

north-northeast)

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

0.2 (0.19)

0.2 (0.2)

0.18 (0.17)

0.10 (0.10)

(c)

(c)

(c)

(c)

1.0 (1.0)

1.3 (1.3)

1.5 (1.5)

1.3 (1.3)

Nearest meat cow

(2.2 km [1.37 mi]

southeast)

Meat

Adult

Teen

Child

0.067 (0.067)

0.049 (0.049)

0.079 (0.079)

(c)

(c)

(c)

0.15 (0.15)

0.11 (0.11)

0.17 (0.17)

(a) Values in parentheses represent the values that the staff calculated. The Dominion values (those not in

parentheses) were taken from Table 5.4-9 of the ER (Dominion 2006).

(b) To convert from mrem/yr to mSv/yr, divide by 100.

(c) Skin dose is not applicable for the inhalation, vegetable, and meat pathways.

(d) Thyroid dose is not applicable for the plume pathway.
Appendix H

December 2006 H-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

H.2.5 Comparison of Results – Population Doses

Table H-8 compares Dominion’s population dose estimates on a per unit basis taken from |

Table 5.4-12 of the ER (Dominion 2006) with the staff's estimate. The calculated doses were

similar.

Table H-8. Comparison of Population Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases on a Per |

Unit Basis |

Pathway

Applicant's Estimate

(person-rem/yr)(a)

Staff's Estimate

(person-rem/yr)

Percentage

Difference

Liquid 8.6 8.6 (see Section H.1.4) 0 |

Noble gases 3.5 2.8 (plume) -20

Iodine and particulates 1.4 1.2(b) -14

H-3 and C-14 14 13.7 -2.1

Total 28 26.3 -6.1 |

(a) Estimated population dose for one ESP unit (see Table 5.4-12 of the ER) (Dominion 2006).

(b) Dose represents the summation of doses from iodine and particulates.

H.3 Dose Estimates to the Public from Airborne Tritium Releases |

from Unit 3 Wet Cooling Towers |

|

As discussed in Section 5.9.1, the staff identified another atmospheric release pathway from the |

proposed new units, the release of tritium to the atmosphere, as water vapor, from the |

evaporation of cooling water from the Unit 3 wet cooling towers. Lake Anna is used as makeup |

water for the Unit 3 wet cooling towers (Dominion 2006). As reported in North Anna Station’s |

annual radiological environmental operating reports (VEPCo 2001a-2006a), Lake Anna tritium |

concentrations are above ambient background levels, but are within the limit specified by the |

EPA drinking water standard. This section provides an analysis of the dose to the public from |

this pathway, which would be an addition to the dose estimated from the plant stacks presented |

in Section H.2. |

|

H.3.1 Scope

|

The staff calculated dose to the MEI from Unit 3 wet cooling tower releases for the following |

locations: |

|

& nearest site boundary (plume and inhalation) |

& nearest residence (plume and inhalation) |

& nearest garden (vegetable) |

& nearest meat cow (meat). |
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-10 December 2006

| MEI doses were not calculated for the nearest dairy cow and goat, within 8 km (5 mi) as

| specified in NUREG-1555 because as stated in the ER (Dominion 2006), there were no milk

| cows or goats with 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed ESP site.

|

| Population doses were also calculated.

| H.3.2 Resources Used

|

| The staff used a version of GASPAR II code entitled NRCDOSE, Version 2.3.5 (Bland 2000),

| obtained through the Oak Ridge RSICC to calculate doses to the public from the tritium release

| from the Unit 3 cooling system.

|

H.3.3 Input Parameters

|

| The input parameters in Table H-4 were used in this calculation with the exception of the source

| term. An estimated 216 Ci/yr of tritium was released to the atmosphere. The staff calculated

| this value by multiplying the average annual tritium concentration (9417 pCi/L) estimated in

| Lake Anna times the evaporation rate (727 L/s) from the Unit 3 wet cooling towers. Tritium

| concentration in Lake Anna during the operation of the current units and the proposed ESP

| units was estimated by summing the average tritium concentration in lake over the past six

| years (VEPCO 2001a-2006a) and the estimated additional tritium concentration that would

| result from two new units. The staff reviewed annual effluent monitoring reports for North Anna

| Units 1 and 2 (VEPCO 2001b-2006b) and annual radiological environmental operating reports

| (VEPCO 2001a-2006a) for the past six years and determined that the average annual tritium

| release into the liquid effluents was 814 Ci and the average annual tritium concentration in the

| lake was 3049 pCi/L. Assuming this same relationship for two new units results in a PPE tritium

| release activity of 850 Ci/yr per unit or 1700 Ci/yr for the ESP site, the estimated tritium

| concentration in the lake from two new units would be 6368 pCi/L. Adding this to the existing

| concentration of 3049 pCi/L, the total tritium concentration in Lake Anna is estimated to be

| 9417 pCi/L. The evaporation rate used in the staff’s water budget model for the Unit 3

| closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system in the maximum water conservation

| mode (727 L/sec) was used in the calculation because it results in greater evaporation on a

| yearly basis than Dominion’s value. 

|

| The following additional assumptions were made in this calculation: (1) the release point for the

| Unit 3 wet cooling tower was assumed to be located at the same location as the new reactor

| units (the Unit 3 cooling towers would be located just west of the new units, and (2) the

| atmospheric dispersion factors for releases from the new units were used.

|

H.3.4 Results

|

| Table H-9 presents the doses to the MEI calculated by the staff from the tritium release from the

| Unit 3 wet cooling towers. These doses are insignificant when compared to MEI dose from 
Appendix H

December 2006 H-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table H-9. Dose Estimates to the MEI from Airborne Tritium Releases from New Unit 3 with |

Closed-Cycle Combination Wet and Dry Cooling Tower System

Location Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mrem/yr)(a)

Skin Dose

(mrem/yr)(a)

Thyroid Dose

(mrem/yr)(a)

Nearest site |

boundary (1.4 km |

[0.88 mi] east- |

southeast) |

Plume (b) (b) (d) |

|

|

Nearest site |

boundary (1.4 km |

[0.88 mi] east- |

southeast) |

|

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

0.018

0.018

0.016

0.0093

(c)

(c)

(c)

(c)

|

0.018 |

0.018 |

0.016 |

0.0093 |

Nearest garden |

(1.5 km [0.94 mi] |

northeast) |

|

Vegetable

Adult

Teen

Child

0.017

0.020

0.031

(c)

(c)

(c)

|

0.017 |

0.020 |

0.031 |

Nearest |

residence (1.5 km |

[0.96 mi] north- |

northeast)

Plume (b) (b) (d) |

|

Nearest |

residence (1.5 km |

[0.96 mi] north- |

northeast)

|

|

Inhalation

Adult

Teen

Child

Infant

0.012

0.012

0.011

0.0061

(c)

(c)

(c)

(c)

|

0.012 |

0.012 |

0.011 |

0.0061 |

Nearest meat |

cow (2.2 km [1.37 |

mi] southeast) |

|

Meat

Adult

Teen

Child

0.0018

0.0011

0.0013

(c)

(c)

(c)

|

0.0018 |

0.0011 |

0.0013 |

Note: This type of release considers the presence of tritium in Lake Anna, which would be used as makeup water |

in the operating of the cooling system. Tritium would be released in the form of water vapor. This release would |

be in addition to that from the plant stacks. |

(a) To convert from mrem/yr to mSv/yr, divide by 100.

(b) Tritium does not contribute to total body dose or skin dose. |

(c) Skin dose is not applicable for the inhalation, vegetable, and meat pathways.

(d) Thyroid dose is not applicable for the plume pathway.

atmospheric releases from the stacks of both new units found in Table H-7. Results were less

than 6 percent of the total body dose from the new units and less than 2 percent of the thyroid |

dose from the new units. |
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-12 December 2006

Population dose from the tritium released from the Unit 3 wet cooling towers was estimated to

| be 0.57 person-rem compared to 17.7 person-rem from atmospheric releases from the new

units. This is approximately 3.2 percent of the population dose from the new units.

| H.4 Cumulative Dose Estimates

|

| Table H-10 compares Dominion’s results for cumulative dose estimates to the MEI with those

| calculated by the staff. Cumulative dose estimates include doses from all pathways (i.e.,

| external, liquid effluent, and gaseous effluent) for both the proposed Units 3 and 4 and existing

| NAPS Units 1 and 2. Cumulative doses estimates calculated by Dominion and the staff were

similar.

|

| Table H-10. Comparison of Cumulative Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual

|

| Dose

Dominion ER

(Dominion 2006)(a, b)

Staff’s

Calculation(c)

| Percentage

| Difference

| Whole body dose equivalent (mrem/yr) 6.8 7.0 2.9

| Thyroid dose (mrem/yr) 27 27 0

| Dose to other organ – bone (mrem/yr) 12 12 0

| (a) Doses from direct radiation were determined to be negligible (Dominion 2006).

| (b) Sum of dose from liquid and gaseous effluent releases for the two existing NAPS units and the proposed units

| (Dominion 2006). Doses from exiting units were taken from VEPCo (2002b).

| (c) The staff’s calculation included the sum of doses from liquid and gaseous effluent releases from the two

| existing NAPS units and the proposed units. Dose from the existing units includes the contribution from tritium

| concentrations in Lake Anna. Dose from two new units includes the contribution from airborne tritium releases

| from the Unit 3 wet cooling towers as discussed in Section H.3.

|

| H.5 Dose Estimates to the Biota from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents

|

To estimate doses to the biota from the liquid and gaseous effluent pathways, the staff used the

LADTAP II code (Strenge et al. 1986) and GASPAR II code (Strenge et al. 1987) and input

parameters supplied by Dominion as part of its ER (Dominion 2006).

H.5.1 Scope

Doses to both terrestrial and aquatic biota were calculated using the LADTAP II code. Aquatic

| biota include fish, invertebrate species, and algae. Terrestrial biota include muskrat, raccoon,

heron, and duck. The code calculates an internal dose component and external dose

component and sums them for a total body dose. The values of input parameters used by

Dominion were reviewed by the staff and determined to be appropriate to use in its independent
Appendix H

December 2006 H-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

calculation. Default values from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977) were used when values of 

input parameters were not otherwise available.

The LADTAP II code calculates biota dose from the liquid effluent pathway only. Terrestrial

biota will also be exposed via the gaseous effluent pathway. These values would be the same

as those for the MEI calculated using the GASPAR II code. Dominion used the MEI doses at a

location 0.40 km (0.25 mi) east-southeast from the proposed ESP site to estimate these doses. 

To account for the closer proximity of the main body mass of animals to the ground compared to

humans, the MEI calculation for the biota assumed a ground deposition factor twice that used in

the MEI calculation for a member of the public.

H.5.2 Resources Used

To calculate doses to the public from liquid releases, the staff used a computer code entitled

NRCDOSE, Version 2.3.5 (Bland 2000), which is a version of the LADTAP II code and the

GASPAR II code, obtained through the Oak Ridge Radiation Safety Information Computational

Center.

H.5.3 Input Parameters

Most of the LADTAP II input parameters are specified in Section H.1.3 to include the source

term, discharge flow rate, reconcentration model, effluent discharge rate from the impoundment 

system to the receiving water body, impoundment total volume, and shore width factor. 

Parameters unique to the biota dose calculation were taken from Table 5.4-14 (terrestrial biota

parameters) and Table 5.4-15 (shoreline and swimming exposures) of the ER (Dominion 2006). 

These parameter values were default values used in the LADTAP II code (Strenge et al. 1986),

and are appropriate values to use in calculating biota dose.

H.5.4 Comparison of Results

Table H-11 compares Dominion’s biota dose estimates from liquid effluents taken from

Table 5.4-16 of the ER (Dominion 2006) with the staff's estimate. The estimated doses were

similar.

Table H-12 compares Dominion’s biota dose estimates for gaseous effluents taken from

Table 5.4-16 of the ER (Dominion 2006) with the staff’s estimate. The staff calculated the biota

dose from gaseous effluents by summing the annual beta air dose, the annual gamma air dose,

and two times the ground deposition dose at a location 0.40 km (0.25 mi) east-southeast from

the proposed North Anna ESP site. Atmospheric dispersion factors used in the calculation were

taken from Table 2.7-15, Table 2.7-18, Table 2.7-19, and Table 2.7-20 of the ER

(Dominion 2006). The estimated doses were similar.
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-14 December 2006

Table H-11. Comparison of Dose Estimates to the Biota from Liquid Effluents from One

New Unit

Biota

Dominion’s ER

(mrad/yr)(a)

Staff’s Calculation

(mrad/yr)(a)

Percentage

Difference

| Fish 9.7 9.7 0

Invertebrate 46 47 2.2

Algae 54 55 1.9

| Muskrat 43 43 0

| Raccoon 4.9 4.9 0

| Heron 54 54 0

| Duck 43 43 0

(a) To convert from mrad/yr to mGy/yr, divide by 100.

Table H-12. Comparison of Dose Estimates to the Biota from Gaseous Effluents from

One New Unit

Biota

Dominion’s ER

(mrad/yr)(a)

Staff’s Calculation

(mrad/yr)(a,b)

Percentage

Difference

Fish (c) (c) (c)

| Invertebrate species (c) (c) (c)

Algae (c) (c) (c)

Muskrat 34 38 12

Raccoon 34 38 12

Heron 34 38 12

Duck 34 38 12

(a) To convert from mrad/yr to mGy/yr, divide by 100.

(b) Dose equals the sum of the annual beta air dose, the annual gamma dose, and two times the ground

deposition dose at 0.4 km (0.25 mi) east-southeast of the North Anna ESP site.

| (c) Fish, invertebrate species, and algae would not be exposed to gaseous effluents.

| H.6 References

|

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

Production and Utilization Facilities.”

| 40 CFR Part 141, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part

| 141, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.”
Appendix H

December 2006 H-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Bland J.S. 2000. NRC DOSE for Windows. Radiation Safety Information Computational

Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. Letter dated July 12, 2004 from

E.S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC

request RAI E5.4.2-2. dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter dated May 17, 2004, from

E.S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC

request dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 9, Glen Allen, Virginia. |

Strenge D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User

Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Strenge D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II - Technical Reference and User

Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.109 – Calculation of

Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating

Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Washington, D.C.

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

Review for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Radiological Dose Calculations for the

North Anna ESP EIS. Accession No. ML063050600.

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2001a. 2000 Annual Radiological |

Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2000 to December 31, |

2000). Richmond, Virginia. |

|

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002a. 2001 Annual Radiological |

Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2001 to December 31, |

2001). Richmond, Virginia. |

Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2003a. 2002 Annual Radiological |

Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2002 to December 31, |

2002). Richmond, Virginia. |

|
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, Volume I H-16 December 2006

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2004a. 2003 Annual Radiological

| Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2003 to December 31,

| 2003). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2005a. 2004 Annual Radiological

| Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2004 to December 31,

| 2004). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006a. 2005 Annual Radiological

| Environmental Operating Report North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2005 to December 31,

| 2005). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2001b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Report

| North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Report

| North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2003b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Report

| North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2004b Annual Radioactive Effluent Report

| North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2005b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Report

| North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004). Richmond, Virginia.

|

| Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006b. Annual Radioactive Effluent Report

| North Anna Power Station (January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005). Richmond, Virginia.

|
Appendix I

ESP Site Characteristics and Plant Parameter Envelope
December 2006 I-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix I

ESP Site Characteristics and Plant Parameter Envelope

The site specific plant parameter envelope (PPE) values and the Early Site Permit (ESP) site

characteristics are from Environmental Report (ER) Table 3.1-9 unless otherwise specified. The

staff used time dependent atmospheric dispersion factors for this Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) instead of dispersion factors that are not time dependent. |

In its ER, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) listed its proposed ESP site

characteristics and plant parameters. These characteristics and parameters were used by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in its independent evaluation of the environmental

impacts of the proposed new Units 3 and 4. In some cases, as noted, the staff substituted |

values based on its own analysis. The ESP site characteristics specifically used in the staff’s |

evaluation are presented in Table I-1. PPE parameters that are relevant to the environmental

review are presented in Table I-2. The staff used the values in both Tables I-1 and I-2 in its

evaluation.

Table I-1. ESP Site Characteristics

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

Atmospheric Dispersion

(Ȥ/Q) (Accident)

Time-dependent values as listed in Table 5-14 of this EIS

• Exclusion Area

Boundary (EAB)

3.34 x 10-5 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

• 0 to 2 hr interval

• Low Population Zone

(LPZ)

2.17 x 10-6 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

• 0 to 8 hr interval

1.5 x 10-6 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

• 8 to 24 hr interval

1.2 x 10-6 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

• 1 to 4 day interval

9.0 x 10-7 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

• 4 to 30 day interval
Appendix I

NUREG-1811, Volume I I-2 December 2006

Table I-1. (contd)

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

Gaseous Effluents

Dispersion,

Deposition (Annual

Average)

• Atmospheric

Dispersion (Ȥ/Q)

Ȥ/Q values presented in 

ER Table 2.7-14

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The atmospheric dispersion coefficients used to

estimate dose consequences of normal airborne

releases.

 Residence 2.4 x 10-6 sec/m3

2.4 x 10-6 sec/m3

2.1 x 10-6 sec/m3

| • No decay

• 2.26-day decay

• 8-day decay

 EAB 3.7 x 10-6 sec/m3

3.7 x 10-6 sec/m3

3.3 x 10-6 sec/m3

• No decay

• 2.26-day decay

• 8-day decay

 Meat animal 1.4 x 10-6 sec/m3

1.4 x 10-6 sec/m3

1.2 x 10-6 sec/m3

• No decay

• 2.26-day decay

• 8-day decay

 Vegetable garden 2.0 x 10-6 sec/m3

2.0 x 10-6 sec/m3

1.8 x 10-6 sec/m3

• No decay

• 2.26-day decay

• 8-day decay

• Ground Deposition

(D/Q)

D/Q values presented

in

ER Table 2.7-14

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The ground deposition coefficients used to estimate

dose consequences of normal airborne releases

 Residence 7.2 x 10-9/m2

 EAB 1.2 x 10-8/m2

 Meat animal 3.1 x 10-9/m2

| Vegetable garden 6.0 x 10-9/m2

Dose Consequences

• Normal 10 CFR Part 20;

10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I, Dose

Objectives; and

40 CFR Part 190 dose

limits

• Radiological dose consequences due to gaseous and

liquid releases from normal operation of the plant

| Liquid effluent 1.6 mrem/yr

1.4 mrem/yr

5.0 mrem/yr

• Total body (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11)

| • Thyroid (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11)

• Other organ/bone (Value for two units, see ER

Table 5.4-11)
Appendix I

Table I-1. (contd)

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

December 2006 I-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Dose Consequences

 Gaseous effluent 4.8 mrem/yr

25 mrem/yr

6.5 mrem/yr

6.2 mrem/yr

• Total body (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11)

• Thyroid (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11)

• Other organ/bone (Value for two units, see ER

Table 5.4-11)

• Skin (Value for one unit, see ER Table 5.4-10)

 Total 6.4 mrem/yr |

27 mrem/yr

11 mrem/yr

6.2 mrem/yr

• Total body (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11) |

• Thyroid (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11) |

• Other organ/bone (Value for two units, see ER

Table 5.4-11)

• Skin (Value for one unit, see ER Table 5.4-10)

• Post-Accident 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)

and 10 CFR 100 dose

limits [Same for 2nd

unit]

• Radiological dose consequences due to gaseous

releases from postulated plant accidents.

• Design basis accidents (DBA) as listed in Tables 5-15,

5-16, and 5-17 of this EIS

• Severe accidents as listed in Tables 5-18, 5-19, and

5-20 of this EIS

• Minimum Distance

to Site Boundary

2854.9 ft

[Same for 2nd unit]

• Minimum lateral distance from the ESP PPE

boundaries to the EAB

Liquid Radwaste

System

• Normal Dose

Consequences

|

|

10 CFR Part 20;

10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I, Dose

Objectives; and

40 CFR Part 190 dose

limits

1.6 mrem/yr |

1.4 mrem/yr |

5.0 mrem/yr

• Total body (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11)

• Thyroid (Value for two units, see ER Table 5.4-11)

• Other organ/bone (Value for two units, see ER

Table 5.4-11) |
Appendix I

Table I-1. (contd)

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

NUREG-1811, Volume I I-4 December 2006

Population Density

• Population density

at the time of initial

site approval and

within about 5

years thereafter

Population density

meets the guidance of

RS-002, Section 2.1.3

for RG 4.7, Regulatory

Position C.4 

[Both units]

• At the time of initial site approval and within about

5 years hereafter, the population densities, including

weighted transient population, averaged over any radial

distance out to 20 miles (cumulative population at a

distance divided by the circular area at that distance),

would not exceed 500 persons per square mile.

• Population density

at the time of initial

operation

Population density

meets the guidance of

RS-002, Section 2.1.3

[Both units]

• The population densities, including weighted transient

population, averaged over any radial distance out to

30 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided

by the area at that distance), would not exceed

500 persons per square mile at the time of initial

operation.

• Population density

over the lifetime of

the new units until

2065

Population density

meets the guidance of

RS-002, Section 2.1.3

[Both units]

• The population densities, including weighted transient

population, averaged over any radial distance out to

30 miles (cumulative population at a distance divided

by the area at that distance), would not exceed

1000 persons per square mile over the lifetime of new

units.

Population Center

Distance

10 CFR 100.21(b)

Meets requirement

[Both units]

• The distance from the ESP PPE to the nearest

boundary of a densely populated center containing

more than about 25,000 residents is not less than one

and one-third times the distance from the ESP PPE to

the outer boundary of the LPZ.

EAB 10 CFR 100.21(a)

Meets requirement

[Both units]

• The exclusion area boundary is the perimeter of a

5000-ft-radius circle from the center of the abandoned

NAPS Unit 3 containment.

LPZ 10 CFR 100.21(a)

Meets requirement

[Both units]

• The LPZ is a 6-mile-radius circle centered at the NAPS

Unit 1 containment building.
Appendix I

December 2006 I-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table I-2. Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

Structure Height 234 ft

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The height from finished grade to the top of

the tallest power block structure, excluding

cooling towers

Structure Foundation

Embedment

140 ft

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The depth from finished grade to the bottom

of the basemat for the most deeply

embedded power block structure

Normal Plant Heat Sink

• Condenser/Heat

Exchanger Duty

1.03 x 1010 Btu/hr

[Additional 1.03 x 1010

Btu/hr for 2nd unit]

• Waste heat rejected from the main

condenser and the auxiliary heat exchangers

during normal plant operation at full station

load

• Maximum Inlet

Temperature

Condenser/ Heat

Exchanger

100°F

[Same for the 2nd unit]

• Maximum intake temperature at condenser

and heat exchanger inlet

• Unit 3 Closed-Cycle, Dry and Wet Tower

Height 180 ft • The height above finished grade of the

cooling towers

Make-Up Flow Rate 15,384 gpm, maximum

(MWC mode) 

22,268 gpm, maximum

(EC mode)

• The expected rate of removal of water from

Lake Anna to replace water losses from the

closed-cycle cooling water system

Evaporation Rate 8707 gpm, 365-day rolling |

average(a), maximum

(MWC mode)

16,695 gpm, maximum

(EC mode)

• Maximum rates at which water is lost by |

evaporation resulting from operation of the |

plant cooling towers. |

(a) The staff used a 100 percent capacity factor based on a 365-day rolling average evaporative water use vs. the applicant’s

96 percent capacity factor based on long term annual average evaporative water use.
Appendix I

NUREG-1811, Volume I I-6 December 2006

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

Drift Rate 8 gpm, maximum

(MWC mode)

8 gpm, maximum

(EC mode)

• Expected rates at which water is lost by drift

resulting from operation of the plant cooling

towers based on 0.001% of cooling water

flow

Blowdown Flow Rate 3844 gpm, maximum

(MWC mode)

5565 gpm, maximum

(EC mode)

• Flow rate of the blowdown stream from the

closed-cycle cooling water system to the

WHTF

Blowdown Temperature 100°F, maximum • The maximum expected temperature of the

cooling tower blowdown stream to the WHTF

Blowdown Constituents 

and Concentrations

• Free Available

Chlorine

• Copper

• Iron

• Sulfate

• Total Dissolved

Solids

<0.3 ppm

<1 ppm

<1 ppm

<300 ppm

<3000 ppm

• The maximum expected concentrations for

anticipated constituents in the cooling water

system blowdown to the WHTF

Heat Rejection Rate 1.03 E 10 Btu/hr • The expected maximum heat rejection rate to

the atmosphere during normal operation at

full station load.

| Noise <65 dBA EAB • Maximum expected sound level at the EAB

from operation of the cooling towers

• Unit 4 Dry Cooling Towers

Evaporation Rate None or negligible (on the

order of 1 gpm, average)

• The expected rate at which water is lost by

evaporation from the cooling water system

Height 180 ft • The vertical height above finished grade of

the cooling towers

Makeup Flow Rate None or negligible (on the

order of 1 gpm, average)

• The expected rate of removal of water from

Lake Anna to replace evaporative water

losses from the cooling water system
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

December 2006 I-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Noise <60 dBA at EAB • Maximum expected sound level at the EAB |

from operation of the cooling towers

Heat Rejection Rate 1.03 x 1010 Btu/hr • Waste heat rejected to the atmosphere from

the cooling water system, during normal

plant operation at full station load

Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)

Mechanical Draft Cooling

Towers

• Blowdown Constituents

and Concentrations

• Free Available

Chlorine

• Copper

• Iron

• Sulfate

• Total Dissolved

Solids

[Same for 2nd unit]

<0.3 ppm

<1 ppm

<1 ppm

<300 ppm

<3000 ppm

• The maximum expected concentrations for

anticipated constituents in the UHS blowdown

to the WHTF

• Blowdown Flow Rate 144 gpm expected, 850 gpm

maximum 

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The normal expected and maximum flow rate

of the blowdown stream from the UHS system

to the WHTF

• Evaporation Rate 411 gpm normal, 850 gpm

shutdown

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The expected (and maximum) rate at which

water is lost by evaporation from the UHS

system

• Height 60 ft

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The vertical height above finished grade of

mechanical draft cooling towers associated

with the UHS system

• Maximum Consumption

of Raw Water

850 gpm, nominal 

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The expected maximum short-term

consumptive use of water from Lake Anna by

the UHS system (evaporation and drift losses)
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

NUREG-1811, Volume I I-8 December 2006

• Monthly Average

Consumption of Raw

Water

411 gpm

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The expected normal operating consumption

of water from Lake Anna by the UHS system

(evaporation and drift losses)

Release Point

• Elevation Ground Level • The elevation above finished grade of the

release point for routine operational and

accident sequence releases

Source Term

• Gaseous (Normal) Maximum values presented

in Table H-5 of this EIS and

ER Table 5.4-7

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The annual activity, by isotope, contained in

routine plant airborne effluent streams

• Atmospheric (Design

Basis Accidents)

Ci as indicated in

ER Table 7.1-3 • AP1000 Main Steam Line Break, Pre-existing

Iodine Spike

ER Table 7.1-5 • AP1000 Main Steam Line Break, AccidentInitiated Iodine Spike

ER Table 7.1-6a • ABWR Cleanup Water Line Break

ER Table 7.1-6c • ESBWR Feedwater System Pipe Break

ER Table 7.1-7 • AP1000 Locked Rotor Accident

ER Table 7.1-9 • AP1000 Rod Ejection Accident

ER Table 7.1-12 • ABWR Failure of Small Lines Carrying

Primary Coolant Outside Containment

ER Table 7.1-13a • ESBWR Failure of Small Lines Carrying

Primary Coolant Outside Containment

ER Table 7.1-14 • AP1000 Steam Generator Tube Rupture,

Pre-Existing Iodine Spike

ER Table 7.1-16 • AP1000 Steam Generator Tube Rupture,

Accident Initiated Iodine Spike

ER Table 7.1-18 • ABWR Main Steam Line Break

ER Table 7.1-20a • ESBWR Main Steam Line Break

ER Table 7.1-11 • AP1000 Loss-of-Coolant Accident

ER Table 7.1-11 • ABWR Loss-of-Coolant Accident

ER Table 7.1-24a • ESBWR Loss-of Coolant Accident
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

December 2006 I-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

ER Table 7.1-25 • AP1000 Fuel Handling Accident

ER Table 7.1-25 • ABWR Fuel Handling Accident

ER Table 7.1-29 • ESBWR Fuel Handling Accident

ER Table 7.1-31 • ESBWR Cleanup Water Line Break

• Tritium 3500 Ci/yr |

[Same for 2nd unit]

(maximum values)

• The annual activity of tritium contained in |

routine plant airborne effluent streams

Liquid Radwaste System

• Release Point Dilution

Factor

1000 (minimum)

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The ratio of liquid potentially radioactive

effluent streams to liquid non-radioactive

effluent streams from plant systems to the

WHTF through the discharge canal used for

NAPS Units 1 and 2

• Liquid Values presented in 

Table H-2 of the EIS and ER

Table 5.4-6 (maximum values)

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The annual activity, by isotope, contained in

routine plant liquid effluent streams

• Tritium 850 Ci/yr

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The annual activity of tritium contained in |

routine plant liquid effluent streams |

Solid Radwaste System

• Activity 2700 Ci/yr

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The annual activity contained in solid

radioactive wastes generated during routine

plant operations

• Volume 9041 cu ft/yr

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The expected volume of solid radioactive

wastes generated during routine plant

operations
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

NUREG-1811, Volume I I-10 December 2006

Plant Characteristics

• Acreage Approximately 128.5 acres

[Both units]

• Approximate area on the NAPS site that would

be affected on a long-term basis as a result of

additional permanent facilities

• Megawatts Thermal 4500 MWt

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The thermal power generated by one unit

(may be the total of several modules)

• Plant Population –

Operation

Approximately 720 

permanent employees

[Both units]

• Anticipated number of new employees that

would be required for operation of the new

units

• Plant Population –

Refueling / Major

Maintenance

Approximately 700 to 1000

temporary workers during

planned outages

[Same for 2nd unit]

• Anticipated number of additional workers

onsite during planned outages of the new units

• Plant Population –

Construction

5000 people maximum

[simultaneous construction]

• Peak workforce of 5000 for construction of

both new units

• Maximum Fuel

Enrichment for LightWater-Cooled Reactors

5%

[Same for 2nd unit]

• Concentration of U-235 in fuel

• Maximum Fuel Burn-up

for Light-Water-Cooled

Reactors

62,000 MWd/MTU

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The value derived by calculating the reactor

thermal power multiplied by the time of

irradiation divided by fuel mass (expressed as

megawatt-days per metric ton of irradiated

fuel)

• Maximum Fuel

Enrichment for

Gas-Cooled Reactors

19.8%

[Same for 2nd unit]

• Concentration of U-235 in fuel

• Maximum Fuel Burn-up

for Gas-Cooled Reactors

133,000 MWd/MTU

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The value derived by calculating the reactor

thermal power multiplied by the time of

irradiation divided by fuel mass (expressed as

megawatt-days per metric ton of irradiated

fuel)
Appendix J

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, Permit Conditions, 

Representations, Assumptions, and Unresolved Issues
December 2006 J-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix J

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, Permit Conditions,

Representations, Assumptions, and Unresolved Issues

If an early site permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP site is issued and an applicant references it

in an application for a construction permit (CP) or a combined license (COL), the applicant

would have to demonstrate that the design selected for the site falls within the bounds of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) ESP analysis in this environmental impact statement

(EIS). With regard to the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of

proposed Units 3 and 4, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion), made a number of

representations in its application. As listed in this appendix, the staff relied on these

representations and staff-developed assumptions in assessing the environmental impacts

associated with construction and operation of the units. As such, fulfillment of these

representations and assumptions provide part of the basis for the final impact assessment. 

Should a CP or COL applicant reference the ESP, and the staff ultimately determine that a

representation or assumption has not been satisfied at the CP/COL stage, that information

would be considered new, and potentially significant, and the affected impact area could be

subject to re-examination.

Table J-1 references Dominion’s representations and the staff’s assumptions about design

(Appendix I, the plant parameter envelope), permits and authorizations (Appendix L), mitigation

(Section 4.10 and 5.11 of the EIS), and the site redress plan (section 4.11). Table J-2 contains

references to representations and assumptions organized by technical area without repeating

the information in Table J-1. Table J-3 is a list of unresolved issues. Table J-4, is a list of

recommended ESP environmental permit conditions.

Within the ER (Dominion 2006), Dominion provides:

(1) representations to address certain issues in the design, construction, and operation of the

facility

(2) representations of planned compliance with current laws, regulations, and requirements

(3) representations of to future activities and actions that it will take should it receive an ESP

and decide to apply for a COL for the North Anna ESP site

(4) representations of Dominion’s estimates of future activities and actions of others and the

likely environmental impacts of those activities and actions that would be expected should

Dominion decide to apply for a CP or COL.

The following tables are meant to aid the staff and the applicant in the event this EIS is

referenced in a CP or COL application. The tables are not meant to replace the analysis in

the EIS.
NUREG-1811, Volume I J-2 December2006

Appendix J Table J-1. Appendix I, Appendix L, Section 4.10, and 5.11 Assumptions and Commitments Area Representations/Assumptions Site Characteristics An applicant referencing this EIS will demonstrate its application is bounded by the

ESP site characteristics contained in Table I-1.

Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) Values An applicant referencing this EIS will demonstrate its application is bounded by the

PPE values contained and referenced in Table I-2.

 Authorizations and Permits An applicant referencing this EIS will provide the status of the authorizations and

permits specified in Appendix L.

Mitigation of Construction Impacts An applicant referencing this EIS will demonstrate its application contains the

mitigation measures contained in Section 4.10.

Mitigation of Operational Impacts An applicant referencing this EIS will demonstrate its application contains the

mitigation measures contained in Section 5.11.

New and Significant Information An applicant referencing this EIS will provide, in its application, any new information

that could affect the technical basis or conclusions for determination of an impactlevel in the EIS.

Table J-2. Assumptions by Technical Area Not Contained in Table J-1

Technical Area Representations/Assumptions SourceLand Use–TransmissionCorridors and Offsite Areas

Based on an initial evaluation, the existing transmission lines have sufficientcapacity to carry the total output of the existing units and the new units. Asystem study (load flow) modeling these lines with the new units’ powercontribution would be performed to confirm this conclusion, if and whenDominion decided to proceed with the development of new units at the ESPsite.

ER Section 4.1.2
December 2006 J-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix J

Table J-2. (contd)

Technical Area Representations/Assumptions SourceMeteorology and Air Quality The meteorological monitoring program would continue throughout the

construction and operational phases of the project. The monitoring programwould be a continuation of the ongoing meteorological monitoring program forthe North Anna Power Station (NAPS) site. The impacts on local air qualityfrom onsite construction activities would be mitigated through a dust controlplan, while the impacts on local air quality from automobile exhaust fromincreased site workers would be mitigated through a construction managementplan.

ER Sections 4.4.1.4,4.4.2.2.1e, and 6.4

Water Use and Quality Flows and temperatures specified in Appendix I are bounding. ER Table 3.1-9Water Use and Quality Groundwater use would be limited to potable and landscape maintenance

function.

ER Section 3.3.1

Terrestrial Ecology The existing transmission lines would be adequate to transmit additional power

generated by Units 3 and 4.

ER Section 3.7.2

Terrestrial Ecology Once the facility design is finalized, appropriate analyses of transmission and

distribution system adequacy would be made.

ER Section 3.7.2

Terrestrial Ecology There would be no new impacts created as a result of operation of a new

facility with regards to maintenance of transmission line rights-of-way.

ER Section 5.6.1

Terrestrial Ecology No important species as described in NUREG-1555 currently live on the ESP

site or are likely to, and except for a few small, potential wetlands, no importanthabitats are present on the ESP site.

ER Section 2.4.1

Terrestrial Ecology The existing switchyard would be used, with modifications. ER Section 3.7.1Terrestrial Ecology Total area for the ESP construction site is approximately 200 acres including

approximately 80 acres of forested habitat.

ER Section 4.3.1.2

Aquatic Ecology The operational-phase aquatic ecological monitoring program for the new units

would be similar to the ongoing Virginia Power and Virginia Department ofGame and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) monitoring programs.

ER Section 6.5.2.3
NUREG-1811, Volume I J-4 December2006

Appendix J Table J-2. (contd) Technical Area Representations/Assumptions Source Aquatic Ecology The passage through the cofferdam will not represent critical velocity into the

intake.

ER Section 3.4.2.1

Socioeconomics Lake Anna lake levels, temperatures, and downstream flows are the same as

shown in Appendix K and Section 5.4.2.4.

EIS Appendix K andSection 5.4.2.4

Socioeconomics General growth of the regional economy and population will occur within the

times and in the locations projected in the ER.

ER Section 2.5.1

Socioeconomics State and local governments will continue to expand and upgrade

infrastructure and public services to meet general population growth.

EIS Sections 4.5, 5.5

Socioeconomics Construction workers moving into the region of the plant will concentrate in

areas with larger amounts of available housing (e.g., Henrico County,Richmond). Operations work force will be geographically distributed similarlyto the existing NAPS workforce.

ER Sections 4.4.2.2and 5.8.2

Socioeconomics Lake Anna lake levels, temperatures, and downstream flows are the same as

shown in Appendix K and Sections 5.4.2.4.

EIS Appendix K andSection 5.4.2.4

Socioeconomics Although noise would not cause adverse offsite impacts, a noise study would

be performed as part of the final selection of the Units 3 and 4 cooling systemsand the results described in the COL application. 

ER Section 5.8.1.2

Socioeconomics The evaluation of the need for noise impact from the transmission system

would be completed at a “suitable time” within Dominion’s future planning work.

ER Section 5.8.1.2
December 2006 J-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix J

Table J-2. (contd)

Technical Area Representations/Assumptions SourceHistoric and CulturalResources

Dominion would implement the necessary administrative steps to make propernotifications in the event of any unanticipated discovery (including humanremains). These steps would include stop-work, assessment, and notificationprotocol.The primary controls to be used to minimize impacts in the event of anunanticipated discovery would include ongoing coordination with VDHR withregards to the potential presence of historic and cultural resources withinplanned disturbed areas, adherence to Dominion administrative proceduresregarding activities to be implemented in the event of an unanticipateddiscovery, and adherence to specific permit requirements through theirintegration into construction scheduling and work practices.

ER Section 4.1.3

Environmental Justice Minority and low income populations will continue to exist in the same

proportions and locations as populations increase

EIS Section 2.10

Human Health Radioactive waste management systems would be designed to minimize

releases from reactor operations to values as low as reasonably achievable(ALARA). These systems would be designed and maintained to meet therequirements of 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.

ER Section 3.5

Human Health Gaseous releases of light-water reactors (LWR) are well known, and studies of

gas-cooled reactor operation have indicated that their gaseous releases wouldbe bounded by the LWR data.

ER Section 3.5.2

Human Health Nonradioactive solid wastes are addressed by local regulation under “truckand-haul” permitting. Hazardous wastes are handled by permitted contractors

and are addressed onsite in compliance with Federal regulations.

ER Section 3.6.3.3

Fuel Storage All of the LWR technologies considered have a design storage capacity for

spent fuel shipping casks that far exceeds that needed to accommodate 5-yearcooling.

ER Section 3.8.1
NUREG-1811, Volume I J-6 December2006

Appendix J Table J-2. (contd) Technical Area Representations/Assumptions Source Human Health The calculated construction worker doses are based on available dose rate

measurements and calculations. It is possible that these dose rates wouldincrease in the future as site conditions change. However, the ESP site wouldbe continually monitored during the construction period and appropriate actionswould be taken as necessary to ensure that the construction workers areprotected from radiation.

ER Section 4.5.4.4

Human Health The new units would release liquid effluents to the Waste Heat Treatment

Facility through the discharge canal used for the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2.

ER Section 5.4.1.1 

Human Health Transmission lines carrying the additional power would not exceed the NESC

criteria for electric shock.

EIS Section 5.8.4

Human Health Dominion would require appropriate procedures if it was necessary to store

mixed wastes temporarily on the ESP site. These procedures would includeproper labeling of containers, installation of fire detection and suppressionequipment (if required), use of fences and locked gates, availability ofemergency shower and eyewash facilities, posting of hazard signs, and regularinspections. Dominion would also develop and implement contingency plans,emergency preparedness plans, and spill prevention procedures that would beimplemented in the event of a mixed waste spill. Personnel who aredesignated to handle mixed waste or to respond to mixed waste emergencyspills would receive appropriate training to enable them to perform their workproperly and safely.

ER Section 5.5.2.3 

Human Health The structure of the ESP site Radiation Environmental Management Program

(REMP) would be based on the necessary components of the monitoringprogram established for the existing units, which encompasses the entireNAPS site and would be expanded to include radiological environmentalmonitoring for the new units. This expanded REMP would continue to be inaccordance with the existing units’ Technical Specifications and is described inthe NAPS UFSAR Section 11.6. It would be implemented through the existingunits’ Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), and via administrative andtechnical procedures.

ER Section 6.2.1 
December 2006 J-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix J

Table J-2. (contd)

Technical Area Representations/Assumptions SourceTransportation The transportation impact analysis used information from INEEL (2003) to

estimate the unirradiated and spent fuel shipping cask capacities.

EIS Sections 6.2.2.1,6.2.2.2, G.1.1, andG.2.1

Transportation The transportation impact analysis for advanced reactor spent fuel shipments

assumed the radiation dose rate emitted from the shipments is at the maximumallowed by Federal regulations

EIS Sections 6.2.2.1and G.2.1

Transportation It was assumed that shipping casks for advanced reactor spent fuel will provide

equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the spent fuel cargo [relativeto the current LWR spent fuel shipping cask designs].

EIS Sections 6.2.2.2and G.2.2

Transportation For this assessment, release fractions for current generation LWR fuels were

used to approximate the impacts from advanced reactor spent fuel shipments. This essentially assumes that the behavior of fuel materials and containmentsystems (cladding, fuel coatings) is similar to that of the current generationLWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal conditions.

EIS Sections 6.2.2.2and G.2.2
NUREG-1811, Volume I J-8 December2006

Appendix J Table J-3 Issues Not Resolved Issue EIS Section Comment Need for Power 1.1.3 In accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, assessment of benefits is not

required at ESP stage. 

Energy Alternatives 1.4 Commission determined that energy alternatives need not be addressed

at the ESP stage. (68 FR 55905, 55911)

Water Quality 5.3.3 Chemical concentrations of waste streams other than Unit 3 blowdown

to the WHTF was not defined.

Alternatives to Mitigate Severe Accident 5.10.3 Review Standard, RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits stated that the SAMA review could be deferred to the COL stagewhen the detailed design information is available. Design not selected.Issue to be resolved in COL application when a design is selected.

Design and Severe accident 5.10.3 Design and severe accident impacts are unresolved for gas-cooled

reactors due to insufficient information. Issue to be resolved in COLapplication if a gas cooled is selected. 

Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid WasteManagement

6.1 Environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle activities and solid

waste management for other than LWR reactors are not resolved.

Transportation 6.2.4 For gas-cooled reactors, the impacts [of transporting fuel and radioactive

waste to and from the reactor] are likely to be small, but this issue is notresolved because of the lack of verifiable information on these designs. Verifiable information is lacking about unirradiated and spent fuelshipping cask designs, fuel performance under applied mechanical andthermal accident conditions, unirradiate fuel initial core/refuelingrequirements, spent fuel generation rates, and radioactive wastegeneration rates.

Decommissioning 6.3 Design not selected. Issue to be resolved in COL application when a

design is selected.
December 2006 J-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix J

Table J-4. Recommended Permit Conditions for the North Anna Early Site Permit

Condition

No. EIS Section Recommended Permit Condition

1 4.11 Applicant will have a site redress plan as stated in EIS section 4.11 and the North Anna ESP

Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans, Revision 9.

2 1.5 The holder of this ESP shall not perform any site preparation or preliminary construction activities

authorized by 10 C.F.R. 52.25 unless such holder obtains the certification required pursuant toSection 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from the Commonwealth of Virginia, orobtains a determination by the Commonwealth that no certification is required and submits thecertification or determination to the NRC before commencement of any such activities.

3 The CP or COL applicant will conduct an instream flow incremental methodology study pursuant

to the Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.

4 Dominion shall conduct a comprehensive lnstream Flow lncremental Methodology study (IFIM),

designed and monitored in cooperation and consultation with the VDGIF and the VDEQ, toaddress potential impacts of the proposed Units 3 and 4upon the fishes and other aquatic resources of Lake Anna and downstream waters. Development of the Scope-Of-Work for the lFlM study shall begin in 2007, and the IFlM studyshall be completed prior to issuance of a combined construction and operating license (COL) forthis project. Dominion agrees to consult with VDGIF and VDEQ regarding analysis andinterpretation of the results of that study, and to abide by surface water management, release,and instream flow conditions prescribed by VDGIF and VDEQ upon review of the completed lFlMstudy, and implemented through appropriate state or federal permits or licenses.
Appendix K

Staff’s Independent Review of 

Water Budget Impacts
December 2006 K-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix K

Staff’s Independent Review of 

Water Budget Impacts

K.1 Summary

This appendix discusses the methods used for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

staff’s independent review of Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s (Dominion) assessment of

the impacts of the proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) Unit 3’s closed-cycle,

combination dry and wet cooling system and the staff’s findings. The NRC staff computed

impacts of plant operations on the Lake Anna reservoir lake level elevation and discharge to the

North Anna River downstream of North Anna Dam. Dominion has proposed dry cooling for Unit

4, and the staff concluded that any resulting impacts to the water resources from Unit 4 would

be undetectable and were not analyzed further. Therefore, no further mention of Unit 4 is

included in this appendix.

The Lake Anna reservoir (or “the reservoir”) was formed by impounding the North Anna River

above the North Anna Dam. Construction of the dam was permitted by the Virginia State

Corporation Commission in 1969 (Virginia State Corporation Commission 1969). The Lake

Anna reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water, Lake Anna and the Waste Heat

Treatment Facility (WHTF). The WHTF is composed of three lagoons and is designated by the

Commonwealth of Virginia as a waste heat treatment facility in Dominion’s Virginia Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit (VDEQ 2001) for the North Anna Power Station

(NAPS) (Figure K-1). The lagoons have a total surface area of approximately 3200 ac and are

separated from the rest of Lake Anna by a series of dikes. The main body of the lake is

approximately 17 mi long with 272 mi of irregular shoreline and approximately 9900 ac of

water surface.

The scope of the staff’s evaluation was limited to an assessment based on the relevant values

stated in Dominion’s plant parameter envelope (PPE). The staff evaluated whether or not PPE

values were reasonable. If the ESP is granted and an applicant for a construction permit (CP)

or combined license (COL) references the ESP, the applicant would be required to demonstrate

that the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP. The staff’s

evaluation also relied on a variety of environmental data that were obtained independently of

Dominion. For instance, streamflow data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey,

meteorological data were obtained from the National Weather Service, and lake geometry data

were independently digitized from maps of the lake.

Heat rejected from proposed Unit 3 would be rejected to the atmosphere via the wet and dry

cooling system, but blowdown associated with cooling system operation would be discharged

into the WHTF. The cooling system blowdown would be discharged into the existing discharge 
NUREG-1811, Volume I K-2 December 2006

Appendix K

Figure K-1. Main Features of Lake Anna Reservoir
Appendix K

December 2006 K-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

canal at a maximum PPE discharge rate of 12.4 cfs and a maximum PPE temperature of 100EF. 

Existing Units 1 and 2 employ once-through cooling water systems. With Units 1 and 2, and the

proposed Unit 3 operating simultaneously, the blowdown discharge from Unit 3 would mix in the

discharge canal with the circulating once-through water discharged from Units 1 and 2. 

The combined discharge of Units 1 and 2 is approximately 4300 cfs, which is almost 350 times

greater than the proposed Unit 3 system maximum blowdown rate of 12.4 cfs. Therefore, the

waste heat associated with Unit 3 blowdown is not expected to alter water temperature in either

the WHTF or Lake Anna.

The quantity of water consumed by the Unit 3 wet cooling tower system would reduce the net

discharge from North Anna Dam. In addition, during periods of drought when the lake is below

elevation 250 ft above mean sea level (MSL), the consumptive use of water from the operation

of the Unit 3 wet cooling tower system would reduce the water volume in the lake. This

reduction of volume would result in a warming of the reservoir, assuming that the waste heat

load from Units 1 and 2 to the reservoir remains constant. Warming is expected to be minimal,

as shown by staff’s independent assessment, because the difference in overall reservoir volume

is slight. For example, the difference in lake level elevation with and without operation of the

Unit 3 cooling system was computed to be to be less than 3 in. for 69 percent of the simulated

period (a 23 year period) and less than 1.0 ft for 94 percent of the simulation period.

The water budget assessment examined hydrological impacts from both the existing NAPS

Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Unit 3 to bound the minimum lake level elevations. A period of

record of more than 23 years was examined to determine a critical historical period for

comparison between the existing conditions with Units 1 and 2 and the proposed conditions with

Units 1, 2, and 3. The critical period selected was the 34-month period between June 2000 and

April 2003, specifically targeting the minimum lake level elevations occurring during October of

2002. The staff estimated the following minimum lake level elevations for the critical period:

 C Units 1 and 2 (existing/observed conditions): 245.2 ft

 C Units 1 and 2 plus Unit 3 (proposed conditions): 243.5 ft

K.2 Plant Parameter Envelope

An ESP is a Commission approval of a location for siting one or more nuclear power facilities. 

An ESP application may refer to the characteristics of a specific reactor design, or a PPE, which

is a set of postulated design parameters representing the characteristics of a reactor or reactors

that might be built on a selected site.

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

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

selection of a reactor design until the construction permit (CP) or COL stage.
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, Volume I K-4 December 2006

In this evaluation, the staff relied on the following PPE values from Dominion as listed in its

Environmental Report (ER) as ESP site characteristics and design parameters (Table 3.1-9)

| (Dominion 2006) and summarized in Appendix I of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS):

 C Unit 3 Evaporation Rate – Dominion defined this parameter as “...expected rates at

which water is lost by evaporation resulting from operation of the plant cooling towers.” 

Dominion stated that the maximum flow rate varies from 16,695 gpm in Energy

Conservation (EC) model to 11,532 gpm in Maximum Water Conservation (MWC) mode.

Dominion stated that the average evaporation rate is 8707 gpm with an associated

96 percent plant capacity factor with wet tower cooling.

 C Unit 3 Blowdown Flow Rate – Dominion defined this parameter as, “...flow rate of the

blowdown stream from the closed-cycle cooling water system to the WHTF.” Dominion

stated that the maximum flow rate in EC mode is 5565 gpm and the maximum flow rate

in MWC mode is 3844 gpm.

 C Unit 3 Blowdown Discharge Temperature – Dominion defined this parameter as, “...the

maximum expected temperature of the cooling tower blowdown stream to the WHTF.” 

Dominion provided a value of 100EF.

K.3 Plant and North Anna Dam Operation Assumptions

The existing two NAPS units are able to operate at a lake level elevation as low as 242 ft MSL. 

Dominion is proposing that Unit 3 also be allowed to operate to a lake level elevation as low as

242 ft MSL.

Normal plant cooling for Unit 3 would be accomplished by a closed-cycle, combination dry and

wet cooling tower system. The cooling system would operate in EC and MWC modes. In EC

mode, all of the rejected heat would be dissipated through use of the wet tower system. When

the reservoir water surface elevation is at or above elevation 250 ft MSL, EC mode would be

used. In MWC mode, a minimum of one-third of the rejected heat from Unit 3 would be

removed by the dry tower system. During periods of favorable atmospheric conditions, more

than one-third (and possibly as much as 100 percent) of the rejected heat may be dissipated

through the dry towers. MWC mode would be used when the lake level elevation falls below

250 ft MSL for seven consecutive days, and would continue to be used until the lake level

elevation is restored to 250 ft MSL.

Operating rules for the North Anna Dam were assumed to be unchanged if the proposed Unit 3

is constructed. North Anna Dam is operated in accordance with the Lake Level Contingency

Plan (a condition of the NAPS Virginia pollution discharge elimination system [VPDES] permit

issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company [VEPCo] by the Virginia Department of
Appendix K

December 2006 K-5 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Environmental Quality [VDEQ]). Releases from the dam are designed to maintain the lake level

elevation as close to elevation 250 ft MSL as possible. When the lake level elevation drops

below elevation 250 ft MSL because of inadequate inflows to offset natural and induced

evaporative losses, the releases from North Anna Dam are reduced to 40 cfs. If the lake level

elevation continues to declined below elevation 248 ft MSL, releases are decreased to 20 cfs. 

Discharges are increased to 40 cfs when the lake level elevation rises again to elevation 248 ft

MSL, and are increased further when the lake level rises above elevation 250 ft MSL. 

K.4 WHTF and Lake Anna Bathymetry

The staff obtained digital 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphic quadrangles of Lake Anna from

the Department of Geography at Radford University (http://www.runet.edu/~geoserve/

Virginia.html). These images served as the source data set for bathymetry. A mosaic of the

raw images was used to generate a geo-referenced base map that was then digitized using the

ESRITM software package ArcMapTM 9.0. The resulting 10 ft interval contours from elevation

180 to 250 ft MSL are shown in Figure K-1.

A continuous surface was created from these contours. This surface was broken into three

zones based on observed water temperatures in the reservoir (see Figure K-1): (1) the WHTF,

(2) Lake Anna from North Anna Dam upstream to the Highway 208 Bridge, and (3) Lake Anna

arms upstream of the Highway 208 Bridge. Impounded surface areas and volumes were then

calculated for each section as a function of water surface elevation, the results of which are

presented in Table K-1.

The Lake Anna reservoir, which was formed when North Anna Dam began to impound water, is

comprised of numerous fingers and arms. The reservoir is approximately 17 mi long, and

several dikes have been constructed to increase travel time of water exiting from the NAPS

discharge canal exit and flowing through the WHTF and the lake to the intake for existing

Units 1 and 2. Connecting canals, which are trapezoidal in cross section, have been

constructed to convey flow from each of the three ponds formed by these dikes. The collection

of ponds and connecting canals are collectively labeled as the WHTF.

Water leaving the discharge canal may only exit the WHTF through Dike 3. This dike contains a

submerged discharge structure with adjustable stop logs to constrict the exiting discharge. This

structure creates a positively buoyant high velocity (typically >6 ft/s) jet, which was designed to

quickly entrain cooler Lake Anna water.
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, Volume I K-6 December 2006

Table K-1. Computed Areas and Volumes as a Function of Lake Level Elevation for the

Various Zones of Lake Anna Reservoir (See Figure K-1)

Lake Anna Reservoir WHTF

Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft) Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft)

250 13,068 312,171 250 3,194 64,082

240 9,219 200,737 240 2,120 37,515

230 6,553 121,877 230 1,374 20,045

220 4,418 67,021 220 830 9,026

210 2,715 31,354 210 418 2,787

200 1,281 11,377 200 139

190 523 3,257

180 129

Lake Anna Lake Anna Arms

Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft) Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft)

250 5,540 174,374 250 4,334 73,715

240 4,528 124,032 240 2,571 39,190

230 3,614 83,323 230 1,565 18,509

220 2,803 51,240 220 786 6,755

210 2,034 27,055 210 263 1,512

200 1,101 11,377 200 40

190 523 3,257

180 129

K.5 Dominion’s Assessment

Dominion developed a water balance model that simulated releases from the North Anna Dam

and lake level elevations in the reservoir on a weekly basis for the period between October

1979 and April 2003. During this period, Units 1 and 2 were both operating (Existing Units

Scenario). The model was separately used to predict releases from the dam and water surface

elevations in the reservoir had Unit 3 been operating during the same period (Existing Units plus

Unit 3 Scenario). Variations in dam outflow frequencies, periods below various lake level

elevations, and the relative difference in lake level elevations between the two scenarios were

then examined and presented by Dominion.

The minimum lake level elevation of the reservoir was 245.1 ft MSL for the Existing Units

Scenario and 244.2 ft for the Existing Units plus Unit 3 Scenario, a difference of 0.9 ft. The

percent of time North Anna Dam discharge was 20 cfs was 5.2 percent of the period for the

Existing Units Scenario and 7.3 percent for the Existing Units plus Unit 3 Scenario, a difference

of 2.1 percent.
Appendix K

December 2006 K-7 NUREG-1811, Volume I

K.6 Boundary Condition for Staff’s Assessment

The staff performed an independent water balance calculation to predict impacts of the

proposed Unit 3 on the reservoir and releases from North Anna Dam (Cook et al. 2005). This

was accomplished by first simulating the more than 23 year period between October 1979 and

April 2003, when only Units 1 and 2 were operating. The assessment was then used to predict

how the reservoir and downstream releases would be altered had Unit 3 been operating.

The model required input of time-series boundary condition data. Inflows to the lake were input

for each time step. Outflows were computed based on the previous time-step lake level

elevation and the relationship between lake level and discharge for North Anna Dam. 

Meteorological data were used to estimate the volume of precipitation falling directly on the lake

and to compute volume lost from the reservoir through evaporation. Lake inflows and

meteorological data were held constant for all scenarios; however, outflows varied between

scenarios according to the lake level elevation.

K.6.1 Inflows

The principal tributaries of Lake Anna are the North Anna River, Pamunkey Creek, and Contrary

Creek. Unfortunately, no stream flow gauges were installed on these tributaries. Estimates of

inflows to Lake Anna were derived from measurements of streamflow in an adjacent basin. 

Daily average stream flows for the Little River near Doswell, Virginia, were obtained from

U.S. Geological Survey (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) gauge 01671100. The Little River is a

tributary to the North Anna River downstream of North Anna Dam. The size of the Little River

watershed at this gauging station is 107 mi2

, which is approximately one-third the size of the

North Anna watershed where it enters Lake Anna. Inflows to Lake Anna were therefore

computed during the simulation period by multiplying the watershed scale ratio to the daily

average Little River discharges.

K.6.2 Meteorology

Meteorological information about the atmosphere above the lake is necessary to compute

evaporation for this assessment. Dew point temperature and wind speed were obtained from

the Richmond airport (EarthInfo 2003), which was the nearest location that collected data during

the critical drought period. Hourly observed data were used as model inputs for the simulated

drought period. Precipitation falling onto Lake Anna was considered an inflow boundary

condition for the water budget assessment. Total accumulated precipitation on each day was

obtained from National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and was originally collected at the

Richmond airport (NCDC 2004).
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, Volume I K-8 December 2006

Based on precipitation data measured at the Richmond airport from January 1, 1921, to

May 31, 2004, Figure K-2 shows the long-term mean monthly precipitation and monthly

precipitation for the three driest water years in the Richmond record (water years 1924, 2002,

and 1954). The total precipitation during the 2002 water year was 26.4 in., which is

60.6 percent of mean annual precipitation. The precipitation for the 2001 water year totaled

33.1 in., which is 75.9 percent of mean annual precipitation. Combined precipitation during

water years 2001 and 2002 was the driest 2-year period in the precipitation record. Table K-2

shows the monthly precipitation during water years 2001 and 2002 as a percentage of the long

term corresponding monthly mean.

K.7 Staff’s Assessment Approach

The staff’s assessment was completed in two steps. In the first step, the natural evaporation

rate from the lake, the induced evaporation from Units 1 and 2, and a small monthly-averaged

inflow adjustment that force computed water surface elevations to match observed values were

computed. Once these variables were computed, they were then held constant during the

second step, which evaluated the impact of the proposed Unit 3 on the reservoir and releases

from North Anna Dam.

Evaporation rate at the water’s surface represents the volume per surface area per unit time

of liquid water that is vaporized into the atmosphere. Numerous formulations to compute

evaporation rate exist in the technical literature. The formulation used in this analysis is that

recommended by TVA (1972), which is also reported in Bras (1990) and is credited to

Marciano-Harbeck (1954). Additional details regarding the formulation as applied in the North

Anna analysis can be found in Cook et al. (2005).

Water temperatures during the historical period were based on results from the Lake Anna

Cooling Pond Model developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ho and Adams

1984). This calibrated and validated model predicts water temperatures at various locations

around the WHTF and lake with the two existing reactor operating. These water temperatures

were used only to compute natural evaporation from the reservoir (i.e., the background

evaporation rate in the case with no reactors operating) and the induced evaporation resulting

from operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2. 

The volumetric water balance for the first step was computed using the appropriate watershed

inflows, precipitation falling onto the lake, natural evaporation, induced evaporation from Units 1

and 2, and observed and estimated outflows from North Anna Dam. The resulting volume was

then converted to a water surface elevation in the reservoir and compared to observed data. 

Differences in computed elevations were removed using a monthly-averaged inflow adjustment. 

The inflow adjustment was small and averaged 4.6 cfs over the 1978 to 2003 simulation period.
Appendix K

December 2006 K-9 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure K-2. Monthly Precipitation (in.) at the Richmond Airport

Table K-2. Monthly Precipitation as a Percentage of Long-Term Monthly Means During Water

Years 2001 and 2002

Percentage of Long-Term Monthly Mean

Month Water Year 2001 Water Year 2002

October 0.3 20.4

November 59.9 5.9

December 76.8 53.9

January 61.4 106.8

February 73.9 23.8

March 100.9 119.9

April 68.9 75.1

May 55.5 95.4

June 176.2 42.1

July 53.5 32.0

August 106.4 66.6

September 59.2 79.6

Total Annual 75.9 60.6
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, Volume I K-10 December 2006

The second step of the assessment evaluated the relative impacts of Unit 3 operations on the

reservoir and releases from the North Anna Dam. The time-series of natural evaporation rate,

induced evaporation from NAPS Units 1 and 2, and inflow adjustment were applied from step

one. Constant evaporation rates for the proposed Unit 3, based on PPE values, were applied

and the volumetric water balance was computed. In these calculations, changes in surface

area and volume as a result of reservoir drawdown were explicitly considered and influenced

both the volume of natural evaporation leaving the lake and precipitation volume falling on

the lake.

K.8 Assessment Results

While the entire period of October 15, 1978, through April 9, 2003, was simulated, the critical

water surface elevation period was between April 2001 and February 2003. During this critical

period, the region experienced a severe drought, and concerns over water use conflicts arose

as the lake level elevation in Lake Anna reservoir dropped to record lows in October 2002.

Figure K-3 displays the computed time-series of lake level elevation throughout the entire

simulation period. The Existing Units scenario represents the historical variation in lake level

elevation during the more than 23 years of simulation with both Units 1 and 2 operating. The

Existing Units plus Unit 3 scenario includes a constant loss rate of 8707 gpm from the lake,

which represents the long-term average PPE evaporative loss rate from the proposed use of a

wet cooling tower system for Unit 3. Figure K-4 displays the computed time-series of results

during the critical drought period when minimum lake level elevation values were reached. As

shown in the figure, the decline in lake level elevation is gradual, declining from elevation 250 ft

above MSL in July 2001 to the minimum level in October 2002, a 15-month period. The return

of lake level to elevation 250 ft MSL was rapid in comparison, and occurred over a 4-month

period between October 2002 and February 2003. 

Table K-3 presents the percentage of time the lake level elevation of the reservoir was near

several threshold levels, which correspond to prescribed outflow discharge rates from North

Anna Dam. Simulation results indicate that the percent of time the reservoir was at or below

elevation 248 ft MSL and North Anna Dam was discharging 20 cfs would have increased from

6 percent with only the existing Units 1 and 2 operating to 11 percent if the proposed Unit 3 was

also operating. The percent of time the reservoir elevation was at or below 246 ft was predicted

to increase by 0.9 percent, from 1 to 2 percent, during the simulation period. The minimum lake

level elevation reached in October 2002 during the critical drought period fell by 1.7 ft, from

245.2 ft MSL to 243.5 ft MSL. At no time during the simulation did the lake level elevation reach

the minimum operational plant intake elevation of 242.0 ft MSL, when the plant would shut

down.
Appendix K

December 2006 K-11 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Figure K-3. Time Series of Lake Anna Lake Level Elevations for the Entire Simulation Period

Figure K-4. Time Series of Lake Anna Lake Level Elevations During the Critical Drought Period
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, Volume I K-12 December 2006

Table K-3. Lake Level Elevation Exceedance Table and the Minimum Water Surface Elevation

for the 1978 to 2003 Simulation Period (values expressed as percent of the total

simulation period)

Lake Level

Elevation (ft)

North Anna Dam

Discharge (cfs) Existing Units 1 & 2 

Existing Units 1 & 2 

plus Unit 3

At or above 250 ft Follows rating curve

(>40 cfs)

37% 34%

Between 250 and 248 ft 40 cfs 57% 55%

At or below 248 ft 20 cfs 6% 11%

At or below 246 ft 20 cfs 1% 2%

Minimum elevation 245.2 ft 243.5 ft

Table K-4 presents differences in water surface elevation computed by subtracting the

time-series of elevations computed for the Existing Units Scenario from the Existing Units plus

Unit 3 scenarios (see Figure K-3). As a percent of the total simulation period, differences were

less than 3 in. for over 69 percent of the simulation and less than 1 ft for over 94 percent of the

simulation. The time-averaged difference in lake level elevation between the two scenarios

was 2.8 in.

Figure K-5 presents the cumulative distribution frequency of Lake Anna lake level elevation for

the simulation period for scenarios:

1. Existing Units

2. Existing Units plus Unit 3 at 8707 gpm average evaporation rate

3. Existing Units plus Unit 3 at 16,695 gpm (EC mode) when above 250 ft MSL dropping to the

8707 gpm average evaporation rate when below 250 ft MSL

4. Existing Units plus Unit 3 at 16,695 gpm (EC mode) when above 250 ft MSL decreasing to

11,532 gpm when below 250 ft MSL.

Figure K-5 shows that, because the lake does not store this water for later use during times of

water scarcity, any additional Unit 3 evaporative losses that occur when the lake is above

elevation 250 ft MSL do not impact the frequency of lake elevations below 250 ft MSL. 

However, if the Unit 3 evaporative loss is increased during periods when the lake is below

250 ft MSL, the duration of lake levels less than elevation 250 ft MSL would increase. For

example, the frequency of lake elevation at or below 246 ft MSL increased from 1.1 percent for

the existing units only scenario to 2.0 percent for the scenario where Unit 3 evaporative losses

are 8707 gpm and 2.6 percent for the scenario when Unit 3 evaporation losses are 11,532 gpm.
Appendix K

December 2006 K-13 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table K-4. Differences in Lake Level Elevation between the Existing Units 1 and 2 Scenario

and the Existing Units 1 and 2 Plus Unit 3 Scenario for the 1978 to 2003 Simulation

Period

Elevation Difference

Percent of Time of the

Total Simulation

Less than 3 in. 69.0%

Less than 6 in. 85.0%

Less than 12 in. 94.2%

Average difference 2.8 in.

Maximum difference 1.7 ft

Figure K-5. Cumulative Distribution Function of Lake Anna Lake Level Elevation

Additional cumulative distribution frequencies, like those shown in Figure K-5, were developed

for NAPS Units 1 and 2 plus proposed Unit 3 with modified lake level. The staff determined the

increase in normal pool elevation necessary to maintain the current frequency of occurrence of

20 cfs discharge from North Anna Dam (i.e., the occurrence of 20 cfs releases). Inherent in this

analysis is the assumption that the 23-yr period of record simulated would be representative of

future conditions (e.g., inflows, precipitation, etc.) at the site.

If Unit 3 is constructed and the normal pool elevation of Lake Anna is concurrently raised 10

inches to 250.8 ft, the frequency of occurrence of elevation 248 ft would be unchanged. This
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, Volume I K-14 December 2006

conclusion assumes that the return period of drought and wet periods were approximately the

same as the 23 year simulation period. This also implies that if the threshold for releasing 20 cfs

from North Anna Dam is unchanged (i.e., remains at elevation 248 ft), the frequency of

occurrence of 20 cfs would also remain the same.

Alternatively, the frequency of occurrence of 20 cfs releases from North Anna Dam could be

reduced, if the threshold for decreasing releases from 40 cfs was lowered below an elevation of

248 ft. The staff evaluated lowering the threshold elevation for reducing releases from the dam

to 20 cfs for the NAPS Units 1 and 2 plus proposed Unit 3 8707 gpm scenario. Results from

this analysis indicate that if Unit 3 were operated and the threshold elevation reduced by

approximately 10 in. to elevation 247.2 ft MSL, the occurrence frequency of 20 cfs releases

would not change from the Units 1 and 2 only scenario.

| The forced evaporation from proposed Unit 3 would reduce the volume of water released from

| North Anna Dam, thereby impacting downstream water users. To characterize this impact, the

| staff estimated the change in the reliability of a hypothetical off-stream storage reservoir used to

| service a steady water demand. The capacity of a reservoir adequate to provide releases of a

| steady flow of 20 cfs from the North Anna Dam from the operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2 was

| calculated to provide 95 percent reliability. The staff estimated that the reliability of the same

| hypothetical reservoir would decrease from 95 to 90 percent with the addition of Unit 3's

| additional consumptive water loss. 

K.9 Conclusions

The separate analyses performed by the staff and Dominion resulted in different estimates of

| the frequency that the level of Lake Anna would drop below 75.6 m (248 ft) with Unit 3

| operating. Without Unit 3, the staff and Dominion estimated that Lake Anna would drop below

| 75.6 m (248 ft) 5.7 percent of the time and 5.2 percent of the time, respectively. However, with

| Unit 3 operating the staff and Dominion estimated that Lake Anna would drop below 75.6 m

| (248 ft) 11 percent of the time and 7.3 percent of the time, respectively. The staff has

| concluded that there are two primary causes for this difference in the frequency estimates with

Unit 3 operating. First, the staff used an evaporation rate of 47,462 m3 | /day (8707 gpm) over

any 365 day period compared to Dominion’s representation of 47,462 m3 | /day (8707 gpm) at a

96 percent capacity factor. Second, the staff applied the average evaporation rate of 47,462

m3 | /day (8707 gpm) throughout the period, while Dominion applied an evaporation rate that

| varied depending on temperature. 

|

| The staff’s analysis relied exclusively on the specific consumptive water use (evaporation)

| estimates that Dominion committed to in its plant parameter envelope (PPE). The PPE provides

| the bounding parameters used by the staff to analyze the impacts. However, in its analysis,

| Dominion made additional representations that were not in its PPE. For instance, as mentioned
Appendix K

December 2006 K-15 NUREG-1811, Volume I

above, Dominion considered the relationship between the weather and the estimated

consumptive water use for Unit 3. In its analysis, Dominion indicated that Unit 3 would use no |

water for condenser cooling (i.e., the condenser heat load for Unit 3 would be serviced entirely |

by the dry tower) if the air temperature was below 67EF. This temperature value is not a |

parameter that Dominion committed to in the PPE. Also, Dominion estimated the daily |

consumptive water losses for both the condenser and service water cooling systems based on |

air temperature and relative humidity. The staff concluded that the consumptive water use |

estimates used by Dominion are not unreasonable if the representations described above are |

fulfilled. However, because the bases for these values were not included in Dominion’s PPE, |

the staff performed an independent analysis relying on average and maximum consumptive |

water use values reported by Dominion in its PPE. |

In the PPE, Dominion stated that the average evaporation rate for Unit 3 was 8707 gpm with a |

96 percent capacity factor. However, Unit 3 has the potential to operate at a capacity factor |

greater than 96 percent for extended periods. Therefore, the staff used the PPE definition |

described in Appendix I of the EIS that drops the 96 percent capacity factor and states that |

“...the average evaporation rate over any 365 day period will not exceed 8707 gpm”. The |

definition of the PPE instantaneous maximum evaporation rate parameters for the MWC and EC |

modes was unchanged.

The only operational activity with respect to proposed Unit 3 that would result in a detectable

hydrological alteration of the environment is the additional consumptive use of water to cool the

unit. Although some blowdown from the closed-cycle, combination dry and wet cooling system

would occur, the quantity of discharge is much less than the discharge from the existing Units 1

and 2. The additional withdrawal of cooling water for the new Unit 3 would increase the

duration of time the lake level elevation is below 250 ft MSL, and hence periods of reduced

releases from North Anna Dam would occur. Unit 3 evaporative cooling withdrawals would also

reduce the minimum lake level elevation of Lake Anna during periods of drought.

Calculated lake level elevations during the critical period between June 2000 through April 2003

predicted minimum elevations during the second week of October 2002. The minimum

elevation predicted for continuous operation of Units 1 and 2 is 245.2 ft, whereas, the addition of

Unit 3 would result in further declines to 243.5 ft.

The periods of minimum releases from the dam would also increase with the operation of the

proposed Unit 3. For example, the percentage of time of minimum release (20 cfs) would

increase from 6 percent to 11 percent, and the percentage of time release greater than 40 cfs

would decrease from 37 percent to 34 percent.
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, Volume I K-16 December 2006

K.10 References

Bras R.L. 1990. Hydrology: An Introduction to Hydrologic Science. Addison Wesley

Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts.

Cook C.B., L.W. Vail, and D.L. Ward. 2005. Report on the North Anna Early Site Permit Water

Budget Model (LakeWBT) for Lake Anna. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,

Washington.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 8, Glen Allen, Virginia.

EarthInfo Inc. 2003. National Climatic Data Center Surface Airways TD-3280, East:2, CD-ROM

Database. Boulder, Colorado.

Ho E. and E.E. Adams. 1984. Final Calibration of the Cooling Lake Model, North Anna Power

Station. Report No. 295, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. TD-3200, Summary of the Day, Richmond

International Airport and Richmond Byrd Field, WBAN ID 13740. Purchased online via

http://nndc.noaa.gov/onlinestore.html. Accessed August 3, 2005.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Heat and Mass Transfer between a Water Surface

and the Atmosphere, Water Resources Research, Laboratory Report No 14 prepared for the

Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Control Planning, Engineering Laboratory, Report

No. 0-6803, Norris, Tennessee.

Marciano T.T. and G.E. Harbeck, Jr. 1954. “Mass Transfer Studies.” In Water Loss

Investigations, Lake Hefner Studies, Technical Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional

Paper 269, Washington, D.C.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Authorization to Discharge Under

the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Law,

Virginia Electric and Power company, North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Permit No.

VA0052451, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond,

Virginia.

Virginia State Corporation Commission. 1969. Order of June 12, 1969, O.B. 58, p. 353.
Appendix L

Authorizations and Consultations
December 2006 L-1 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Appendix L

Authorizations and Consultations

Table L-1 contains a list of the environmental-related authorizations, permits, certifications, and

consultations, potentially required by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native

American tribal agencies for activities related to site preparation, construction, and operation of

potential new nuclear units at the North Anna early site permit site.
Appendix L

NUREG-1811, Volume I L-2 December 2006

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

Agency Authority Requirement Activity Covered

| Federal

| Aviation

| Administration

49 USC 1501;

14 CFR 77.13;

Code of Virginia,

Section 5.1-25.1

Construction Notice Notice of erection of structures

(>200 feet) potentially impacting air

navigation. A permit from the

Virginia Aviation Board would be

needed if FAA identifies the structure

as an air navigation obstruction. 

NRC 10 CFR Part 52,

Subpart C 

Combined License NRC requirements and procedures

applicable to issuance of combined

licenses for nuclear power facilities

NRC 10 CFR Part 30 Byproduct Materials

License

NRC license to possess special

nuclear materials 

NRC 10 CFR Part 70 Special Nuclear

Materials License 

NRC license to possess nuclear fuel 

| ACE CWA

33 USC 1344

Section 404 Permit Disturbing or crossing wetland areas

or navigable waters 

| ACE Rivers and

Harbors Act,

Section 10;

33 USC 403

Section 10 Permit Impacts to navigable waters of the

United States

FWS and

NOAA

Fisheries

Endangered

Species Act,

16 USC 1536

Consultation regarding

potential to adversely

impact protected species

Consultation concerning potential

impacts to threatened and

endangered species and their habitat

Virginia State

Corporation

Commission

Code of Virginia,

Section 56-580D 

Permit Approval for construction of new

generating facility 

VDEQ 9 VAC 5-20-160 Registration Annual re-certification of air emission

sources

VDEQ Clean Air Act,

Title V;

9 VAC 5-80-50

Operating Permit Operation of air emission sources

VDEQ 9 VAC 5-80-120 Minor Source - General

Permit

Construction and operation of minor

air emission sources

VDEQ CWA, Section

402; 9 VAC 25-10

Virginia Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System Permit (VPDES)

Regulate limits of pollutants in liquid

discharge to surface water
Appendix L

December 2006 L-3 NUREG-1811, Volume I

Table L-1. (contd)

Agency Authority Requirement Activity Covered

VDEQ 9 VAC 25-150 General Permit

Registration Statement

for storm water

discharges from

industrial activity (VAR5)

General permit to discharge storm

water during operations

VDEQ 9 VAC 25-210 Virginia Water Protection

Permit (Individual or

General)

Permit to dredge, fill, discharge

pollutants into or adjacent to surface

water. Joint application with ACE

Section 404 permit.

VDEQ CWA, Section

401;

33 USC 1341

Section 401 Certification Compliance with water quality

standards

VDEQ 9 VAC 25-220 Surface Water

Withdrawal Permit

Permit to withdraw water from Lake

Anna (unless otherwise regulated by

State Water Control Board)

VDEQ Coastal Zone

Management Act,

16 USC 1456

Consistency

determination

Compliance with Virginia Coastal

Program

VDEQ 9 VAC 25-180 General Permit

Registration Statement

for storm water

discharges from

construction activities

(VAR10)

General permit to discharge storm

water from site during construction

VDEQ 9 VAC 25-180 General Permit Notice of

Termination (NOT) for

storm water discharges

from construction

activities (VAR4)

Termination of coverage under the

general permit for storm water

discharge from construction site

activities

VDEQ 9 VAC 25-180 General Permit NOT for

storm water discharges

from industrial activity

(VAR5)

Termination of coverage under the

general permit for storm water

discharge associated with

operational site activities

Virginia

Department of

Historical

Resources

National Historic

Preservation Act,

Section 106;

36 CFR Part 800

Cultural Resources

Survey/Review

Confirm ESP site does not contain |

protected historic/cultural resources |

Virginia Marine

Resources

Commission

9 VAC 25-210 Permit Permit to fill submerged land. Joint

application with ACE Section 404

permit.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1811 Vol 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

December

YEAR

2006

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

NUREG-1811: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Regarding Early Site Permit (ESP)

for North Anna ESP Site

Final Report

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix A of report

6. TYPE OF REPORT

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of Site and Environmental Reviews

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Nos. 52-008

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion), for an early site permit (ESP). The proposed

action requested in Dominion's application is for the NRC to (1) approve a site within the existing North Anna Power Station

(NAPS) boundaries as suitable for the construction and operation of one or more new nuclear power generating facilities and (2)

issue an ESP for the proposed site located at NAPS. The proposed action does not include any decision or approval to

construct or operate one or more units; these are matters that would be considered only upon the filing of applications for a

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

The staff's recommendation to the Commission related to its environmental review of the proposed action is that the ESP should

be issued. This recommendation is based on (1)the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Dominion; (2) consultation with

Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staff's independent review; (4) the staff's consideration of public comments on

both the Draft EIS and the SDEIS; and (5) the assessments summarized in this Final EIS, including the potential mitigation

measures identified in the ER and in the EIS. In addition, in making its recommendation, the staff has concluded that the

alternative sites considered are not obviously superior to the proposed site. Finally, the staff concludes that the site preparation

and preliminary construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would not result in any significant adverse

environmental impact that cannot be redressed.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

North Anna ESP Site

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

Environmental Impact Statement

EIS

Early Site Permits

ESP

New Reactors

North Anna

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Same as 8. above