NUREG-1811 

 Supplement 1 

 

 

Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at

the North Anna ESP Site 

Draft Report for Comment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

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

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

 Reproduction and Distribution

 Services Section

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was

accessed, the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org 

212–642–4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series

are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of

Directors’ decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s

regulations (NUREG–0750).
 NUREG-1811

 Supplement 1

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for an

Early Site Permit (ESP) at

the North Anna ESP Site

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: June 2006

Date Published: July 2006 

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

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

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

draft report is being issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 45 day comment

period. The comment period begins on the date that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

publishes a Notice of Filing in the Federal Register; such Notices are published every Friday. 

The Notice will identify the comment period end date. Please specify the report number

NUREG-1811, Supplement 1, draft, in your comments, and send them by the comment period

end date to the following address:

Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop T6-D59

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by the Internet at 

North _Anna_Comments@nrc.gov

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

J. Cushing

OWFN 11 F-1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Phone: 301-415-1424

E-mail: JXC9@nrc.gov
July 2006 iii NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Abstract

2

3

4 The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this Supplement to

5 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

6 North Anna ESP Site (SDEIS) because Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion or

7 applicant) amended its ESP application, as described in Revision 6 to its application for an ESP. 

8 In Revision 6 (which was submitted to the NRC on April 13, 2006), Dominion described a new

9 approach for cooling its proposed Unit 3. Under the revised approach, Unit 3 would use a

10 closed-cycle cooling system, rather than the originally proposed once-through cooling system. 

11 The newly-proposed system would not use the 1376-ha (3400-ac) waste heat treatment facility

12 for cooling. Dominion also proposed to increase the power level of both proposed Units 3 and 4

13 from 4300 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)) to 4500 MW(t).

14

15 The proposed action requested in Dominion’s North Anna ESP application is for the NRC to

16 (1) approve a site within the existing North Anna Power Station (NAPS) boundaries as suitable

17 for the construction and operation of one or more new nuclear power generating facilities and

18 (2) issue an ESP for the proposed site located at NAPS. The proposed action does not include

19 any decision or approval to construct or operate one or more units; these are matters that would

20 be considered only upon the filing of applications for a construction permit and an operating

21 license, or an application for a combined license.

22

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

24 site preparation and construction activities; that is, those activities enumerated by Title 10 of the

25 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50.10(e)(1), which an ESP holder may perform under

26 10 CFR 52.25. In accordance with the site redress plan, the site would be redressed if the NRC

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

28 preparation and preliminary construction activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application

29 for a construction permit or combined license, and no alternative use is found for the site.

30

31 This SDEIS includes the NRC staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

32 impacts of constructing and operating a closed-cycle cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase

33 in power for proposed Units 3 and 4 and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding

34 adverse impacts. It also includes the staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission

35 regarding the proposed action.

36

37 The staff’s preliminary recommendation, in view of the environmental impacts described in the

38 Draft EIS, and the impacts reviewed in this SDEIS in relation to the changes presented in ER

39 Revision 6, is that the ESP for North Anna Units 3 and 4 should be issued. This

40 recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by Dominion, as revised; (2) consultation with

41 Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the assessments

42 summarized in the Draft EIS and this SDEIS, including the potential mitigation measures

43 identified in the ER and in both the Draft EIS and SDEIS. In addition, in making its
NUREG-1811, SDEIS iv July 2006

1 recommendation, the staff has concluded that alternative sites considered are not obviously

2 superior to the proposed site. Finally, the staff concludes that the site preparation and

3 preliminary construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would not result in any

4 significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed.
July 2006 v NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Contents

2

3

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

5

6 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii

7

8 Abbreviations/Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii

9

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

11

12 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

13

14 1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

15 1.1.2 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

16 1.1.3 ESP Application and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

17

18 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

19 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

20 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

21 1.5 Compliance and Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

22 1.6 Report Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

23 1.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14

24

25 2.0 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

26

27 2.1 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

28 2.2 Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

29 2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

30 2.4 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

31 2.5 Radiological Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

32 2.6 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

33 2.7 Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

34

35 2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

36 2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

37

38 2.8 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

39 2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

40 2.10 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

41 2.11 Related Federal Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

42 2.12 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
NUREG-1811, SDEIS vi July 2006

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

2

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

4 3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

5

6 3.2.1 Plant Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

7

8 3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

9 3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

10

11 3.2.2 Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

12

13 3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

14 3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

15

16 3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

17 3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

18

19 3.3 Power Transmission System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15

20 3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15

21

22 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

23

24 4.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

25

26 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

27 4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

28

29 4.2 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

30

31 4.2.1 Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

32 4.2.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

33

34 4.3 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

35

36 4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

37 4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

38 4.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

39

40 4.4 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

41

42 4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
July 2006 vii NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

2 4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

3

4 4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

5

6 4.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

7

8 4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

9 4.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

10 4.5.1.3 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

11 4.5.1.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

12

13 4.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

14 4.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

15

16 4.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

17 4.5.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

18 4.5.3.3 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

19 4.5.3.4 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

20 4.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

21 4.5.3.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

22 4.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

23

24 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

25 4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

26 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

27

28 4.8.1 Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

29 4.8.2 Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

30 4.8.3 Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

31 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

32

33 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

34

35 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

36 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

37 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

38 4.9.4 Total Dose to Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

39 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

40

41
NUREG-1811, SDEIS viii July 2006

1 4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction 

2 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

3 4.11 Site Redress Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

4 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

5 4.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28

6

7 5.0 Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

8

9 5.1 Land-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

10

11 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

12 5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

13

14 5.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

15 5.3 Water-Related Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

16

17 5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

18 5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

19 5.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

20

21 5.4 Ecological Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

22

23 5.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13

24

25 5.4.1.1 Cooling Tower Impacts on Terrestrial Ecological Resources . . . 5-13

26 5.4.1.2 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

27 5.4.1.3 Avian Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

28 5.4.1.4 Shoreline and Riparian Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

29 5.4.1.5 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18

30 5.4.1.6 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

31

32 5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

33

34 5.4.2.1 Intake System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19

35 5.4.2.2 Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21

36 5.4.2.3 Entrainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

37 5.4.2.4 Aquatic Thermal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26

38 5.4.2.5 Striped Bass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28

39 5.4.2.6 Downstream Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

40 5.4.2.7 Shoreline Erosion and Other Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33

41 5.4.2.8 Summary of Aquatic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-34

42
July 2006 ix NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35

2

3 5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

4

5 5.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

6

7 5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36

8 5.5.1.2 Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37

9 5.5.1.3 Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37

10 5.5.1.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-37

11

12 5.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-40

13 5.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41

14

15 5.5.3.1 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41

16 5.5.3.2 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41

17 5.5.3.3 Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-42

18 5.5.3.4 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-42

19 5.5.3.5 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44

20 5.5.3.6 Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44

21 5.5.3.7 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44

22

23 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-45

24 5.7 Environmental Justice Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-45

25 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-46

26

27 5.8.1 Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-46

28 5.8.2 Occupational Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-47

29 5.8.3 Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-48

30 5.8.4 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-49

31 5.8.5 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-49

32 5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

33

34 5.9 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

35

36 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

37 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-50

38 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

39 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-54

40 5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Members of the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-54

41 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

42
NUREG-1811, SDEIS x July 2006

1 5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-56

2

3 5.10.1 Design-Basis Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-58

4 5.10.2 Severe Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61

5 5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-69

6

7 5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation . . . . . . . . . . 5-70

8 5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-71

9 5.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-74

10

11 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

12

13 6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

14

15 6.1.1 Light-Water Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

16

17 6.1.1.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

18 6.1.1.2 Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

19 6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

20 6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

21 6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

22 6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

23 6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

24 6.1.1.8 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

25 6.1.1.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

26

27 6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

28

29 6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11

30 6.1.2.2 Enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

31 6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14

32 6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14

33 6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

34 6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

35 6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination and

36 Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

37 6.1.2.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

38

39 6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

40

41 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17

42
July 2006 xi NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

2 6.2.1.2 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20

3

4 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

5

6 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22

7 6.2.2.2 Accident Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23

8 6.2.2.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26

9

10 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26

11 6.2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30

12

13 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31

14 6.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31

15

16 7.0 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

17

18 7.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

19 7.2 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

20 7.3 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

21 7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

22 7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

23 7.6 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice . . . . . . 7-7

24 7.7 Nonradiological Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

25 7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

26 7.9 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

27 7.10 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

28 7.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11

29

30 8.0 Impacts of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

31

32 8.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

33 8.2 System Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

34

35 8.2.1 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Once-Through Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

36 8.2.2 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Wet Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

37 8.2.3 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Dry Cooling System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

38

39 8.3 Alternative Sites, Region of Interest, and Selection and Evaluation Process . . . . . 8-5

40

41 8.3.1 Dominion’s Region of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

42 8.3.2 Dominion’s Alternative Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xii July 2006

1 8.3.3 NRC’s Evaluation of Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

2 8.3.4 Greenfield and Brownfield Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

3

4 8.4 Generic Issues Consistent Among Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10

5

6 8.4.1 Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

7 8.4.2 Nonadiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

8

9 8.4.2.1 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13

10 8.4.2.2 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14

11

12 8.4.3 Radiological Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14

13

14 8.4.3.1 Radiation Doses and Health Impacts to Members of

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

16 8.4.3.2 Occupational Doses to Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-15

17 8.4.3.3 Impacts to Biota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16

18

19 8.4.4 Postulated Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16

20

21 8.5 Evaluation of Surry Power Station Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-17

22

23 8.5.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-20

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

25 8.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-24

26 8.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

27 8.5.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

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

29

30 8.5.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

31 8.5.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30

32 8.5.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

33 8.5.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38

34 8.5.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39

35

36 8.6 Evaluation of the Portsmouth ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-40

37

38 8.6.1 Land Use including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43

39 8.6.2 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-46

40 8.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-47

41 8.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49
July 2006 xiii NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.6.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

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

3

4 8.6.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-50

5 8.6.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

6 8.6.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-51

7 8.6.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-58

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

9

10 8.7 Evaluation of the Savannah River Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-60

11

12 8.7.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-62

13 8.7.2 Water Use and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-65

14 8.7.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-65

15 8.7.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-68

16 8.7.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, 

17 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-69

18

19 8.7.5.1 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-69

20 8.7.5.2 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-70

21 8.7.5.3 Community Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-71

22 8.7.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-78

23 8.7.5.5 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-80

24

25 8.8 Summary of Alternative Site Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-80

26 8.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-83

27

28 9.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

29

30 9.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

31 9.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

32

33 9.2.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

34 9.2.2 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

35

36 9.3 Obviously Superior Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

37 9.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

38 9.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10

39

40 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

41

42 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xiv July 2006

1 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8

2 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

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

4 10.4 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

5 10.5 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9

6 10.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11

7

8 Appendix A - Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement Related to

9 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s Application for an Early Site

10 Permit at North Anna Nuclear Plant Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

11 Appendix B - Organizations Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

12 Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 

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

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

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

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

17 Appendix F - Key Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

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

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

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

21 Appendix J - Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC Commitments and Assumptions 

22 Relevant to the Analysis of Impact (Tabulation to be provided in Final EIS) . . . . J-1

23 Appendix K - Staff’s Independent Review of Water Budget Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1

24 Appendix L - Authorization and Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-1
July 2006 xv NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Figures

2

3

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

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

6 2-3 North Anna Power Station Vicinity Map, 16-km (10-mi) Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

7 2-4 Lake Anna and the North Anna Power Station Waste Heat Treatment Facility . . . . 2-9

8

9 3-1 Proposed Major ESP Structures (Units 3 and 4) in Relation to Existing 

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

11 3-2 Conceptual Closed Loop Cooling Water Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

12

13 4-1 Proposed Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . 4-10

14 4-2 Schematic View of Pump Intake for the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

15

16 8-1 Surry Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19

17 8-2 Surry Power Station Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-21

18 8-3 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42

19 8-4 Potential New Nuclear Station Site at Portsmouth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44

20 8-5 Savannah River Site Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-61

21 8-6 Potential New Nuclear Station Site within the DOE Savannah River Site . . . . . . . . 8-63

22
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xvi July 2006

1 Tables

2

3

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

5 System for Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

6

7 5-1 Fish Species Most Commonly Impinged at Existing Units 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

8 5-2 Estimated Mean Monthly Impingement of RIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22

9 5-3 Larval Fish Species Most Commonly Entrained at Existing Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25

10 5-4 Estimated Mean Monthly Entrainment of Larvae of Common Fish Species . . . . . . 5-25

11 5-5 Fraction of Time at Various Lake Level Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32

12 5-6 Fraction of Time by Season That Water Vapor Plume from the Proposed

13 Unit 3 Wet-Dry Cooling Towers Would Exceed the Height of the Tallest Structure

14 in the PPE or Would Extend More than 800 m (2625 ft) from the Towers . . . . . . . 5-39

15 5-7 Liquid Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individuals at Lake Anna . . . . . . . . 5-52

16 5-8 Gaseous Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-52

17 5-9 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

18 Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . 5-53

19 5-10 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

20 Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-53

21 5-11 Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to 40 CFR Part 190 . . . 5-55

22 5-12 Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to NCRP and IAEA 

23 Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

5-13 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (Ȥ/Q, s/m3 24 ) for the North Anna ESP Site 

25 Design-Basis Accident Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60

26 5-14 Design-Basis Accident Doses for a Surrogate ESBWR Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60

27 5-15 Additional Design-Basis Accident Doses for the ABWR Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60

28 5-16 Mean Environmental Risks from Surrogate ESBWR Severe Accidents at the 

29 North Anna Power Station ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-64

30 5-17 Comparison of Environmental Risk for New Surrogate ESBWR Units at the 

31 North Anna ESP Site with Risks for Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 . . . . . . 5-66

32 5-18 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal

33 Events for an ESBWR at the North Anna ESP Site with Risks Initiated by Internal

34 Events for 28 Current Operating Plants Undergoing License Renewal . . . . . . . . . 5-67

35 5-19 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . 5-72

36

37 6-1 Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data – Taken From Table S–3

38 (Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement [AEC 1972; AEC 1974]

39 or Reference Reactor Year [NRC 1976]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

40 6-2 Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts from Gas-Cooled Reactor Designs for the

41 North Anna ESP Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12

42 6-3 Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor 

43 Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19
July 2006 xvii NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 6-4 Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced 

2 Reactor Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

3 6-5 Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation,

4 Normalized to Reference Light-Water Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24

5 6-6 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for

6 Each Advanced Reactor Type, Bq/MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

7 6-7 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

8 Normalized to Reference 1000 – MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation . . . . . . . 6-27

9 6-8 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29

10

11 8-1 Dominion Site Screening Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

12 8-2 Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Permanent Employee Residence by 

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

14 8-3 Federally and Stated-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

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

16 8-4 Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

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

18 8-5 Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

19 Potentially Occurring in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina . . . . . . . . . 8-67

20 8-6 Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . . . . . . . . 8-81

21 8-7 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites . . . . . . . . . . 8-82

22

23 9-1 Comparison of the Construction Impacts at the Proposed ESP and 

24 Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

25 9-2 Comparison of the Operational Impacts at the Proposed ESP and 

26 Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5

27

28 10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6

29 10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7

30 10-3 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Constructing and Operating Two Units

31 at the North Anna ESP Site and the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10

32
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xviii July 2006

1 Executive Summary

2

3

4 This Executive Summary was revised to reflect the changes Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

5 presented in Revision 6 of the Environmental Report for its early site permit (ESP) application for

6 proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4.

7

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

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

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

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

12 town of Mineral. On April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 6 to its application, which

13 included a revised Environmental Report (ER). The staff, in its review of Revision 6 of the

14 application, requested additional information (RAI) from Dominion. Dominion responded to the

15 RAIs and on June 21, 2006 submitted Revision 7 to the application, which included the

16 necessary information from the RAI responses.

17

18 In Revision 6 to the North Anna ESP application, Dominion proposed (1) changing its approach

19 for cooling proposed Unit 3 from the once-through cooling system, as described in previous

20 versions of the ER, to a closed-cycle system and (2) increasing the maximum power output per

21 unit from megawatts-thermal 4300 (MW(t)) to 4500 MW(t) for proposed Units 3 and 4 (hereafter

22 referred to as Units 3 and 4). Under the revised cooling system approach, Unit 3 would use a

23 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The proposed increase in power level

24 corresponds to the revision of the designed maximum power of an economic simplified boiling

25 water reactor (ESBWR), one of the reactor designs included in the plant parameter envelope

26 (PPE) and evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was issued in

27 December 2004. 

28

29 The NRC staff determined that the changes to the proposed action were substantial; therefore,

30 the staff decided to prepare a Supplement to its Draft EIS (referred to as the SDEIS) pursuant to

31 10 CFR 51.72. On May 16, 2006, following receipt of Dominion’s ER Revision 6, the staff

32 published a Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplement to the Draft EIS for the North Anna ESP

33 application in the Federal Register (71 FR 28392). The scope of this SDEIS is limited to the

34 environmental impacts associated with the change in the cooling system for Unit 3 and the

35 increase in the maximum power level for both units. The evaluation presented in this SDEIS

36 replaces the evaluation of the impacts associated with the originally proposed once-through

37 cooling for Unit 3 and modifies the analysis of impacts related to the power level increase. 

38 These revised evaluations, along with public comments received on the analysis presented in

39 this SDEIS, will be incorporated into the Final EIS together with comments and responses

40 received concerning the original Draft EIS and the staff’s consideration of such comments. 
July 2006 xix NUREG-1811, SDEIS

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

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

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

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

5 which is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound the

6 design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be built at a selected site; alternatively

7 an ESP may refer to a detailed reactor design. An ESP is not a license to build a nuclear power

8 plant; rather, the application for an ESP initiates a process undertaken to assess whether a

9 proposed site is a suitable location for such a plant should the applicant decide to pursue a CP

10 or COL.

11

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

13 Federal agencies prepare an EIS for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of

14 the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. 

15 Subpart A of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 contains the NRC

16 regulations related to ESPs. In addition, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the Commission has

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 resolved in the ESP proceeding are considered resolved in the subsequent proceeding. 

24 However, issuance of either a CP (and OL) or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power

25 plant is a major Federal action that requires its own environmental review in accordance with

26 10 CFR Part 51.

27

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

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

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

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

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

33 the environmental impacts related to the changes proposed in Revision 6 of the ER. Pursuant to

34 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), however, the applicant did not address the benefits of the proposed action

35 (e.g., the need for power). In accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, the Draft EIS and this SDEIS are

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

37 have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters.

38

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

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

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

42 EIS concludes that the activities will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xx July 2006

1 that cannot be redressed. Dominion’s application included a site redress plan that specifies how

2 the applicant would stabilize and restore the site to its preconstruction condition (or conditions

3 consistent with an alternative use) in the event these site preparation activities are performed but

4 a nuclear power plant is not constructed on the ESP site. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2),

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

6 accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, the EIS is focused on the environmental effects of construction

7 and operation of a reactor, or reactors, that have characteristics that fall within the design

8 parameters that would be specified in the ESP if it is granted.

9

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

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

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

13 North Anna ESP site during December 2003 and held a public scoping meeting on

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

15 in accordance with NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff determined and evaluated the potential

16 environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear power plants at the North

17 Anna ESP site, and stated its preliminary finding in a Draft EIS issued on December 2, 2004. 

18 On December 10, 2004, the staff issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register

19 (69 FR 71854). On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

20 issued a Notice of Filing (69 FR 75535), and initiated a 75-day comment period for the Draft EIS,

21 which ended March 2, 2005. 

22

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

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

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

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

27 staff’s preliminary recommendation regarding the proposed action.

28

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

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

31 information to assist them in formulating comments on the Draft EIS. After the comment period,

32 the staff considered all comments received. The staff’s disposition of these comments, along

33 with comments received on this SDEIS will be set forth in Appendix E of the Final EIS.

34

35 During the course of preparing this SDEIS, the staff reviewed the revised ER submitted by

36 Dominion, consulted, as necessary, with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; and followed

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

38 to conduct an independent review of the issues with respect to the changes presented in

39 ER Revision 6. The review standard draws from the previously published NUREG-0800,

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

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

42
July 2006 xxi NUREG-1811, SDEIS

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

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

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

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

5

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

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

8

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

10 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

11

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

13 important attributes of the resource.

14

15 Mitigation measures were considered for each resource area and are presented in the

16 appropriate sections.

17

18 The staff’s preliminary recommendation, in view of the environmental impacts described in the

19 Draft EIS, and the impacts reviewed in this SDEIS in relation to the changes presented in ER

20 Revision 6, is that the ESP for North Anna Units 3 and 4 should be issued. This

21 recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by Dominion, as revised; (2) consultation with

22 Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the assessments

23 summarized in the Draft EIS and this SDEIS, including the potential mitigation measures

24 identified in the ER and in both the Draft EIS and SDEIS. In addition, in making its

25 recommendation, the staff has concluded that the alternative sites considered are not obviously

26 superior to the proposed site. Finally, the staff concludes that the site preparation and

27 preliminary construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would not result in any

28 significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed. 

29
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xxii July 2006

Abbreviations/Acronyms

ABWR advanced boiling water reactor

ac acre(s)

ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ACR-700 Advanced CANDU Reactor

ADAMS Agency-wide 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

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

DGIF Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EAB exclusion area boundary

EAC Early Action Compact

EC Energy Conservation (mode of cooling tower use)

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 2006 xxiii NUREG-1811, SDEIS

ER Environmental Report

ESBWR economic simplified boiling water reactor

ESE east-southeast

ESP early site permit

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.

IHA Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration

in. inch(es)

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

IRIS international reactor innovative and secure

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

L liter(s)

LAAC Lake Anna Advisory Committee

lb pound(s)

LLW low-level waste

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOS level-of-service
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xxiv July 2006

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 Water Conservation (mode of cooling tower use)

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

NHP National Historic Park

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NNE north-northeast

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxide(s)

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
July 2006 xxv NUREG-1811, SDEIS

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

RAI Request for Additional Information

RCIC reactor core isolation cooling

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

RIS resident important (fish) species

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 Environmental Impact Statement

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

TRU transuranic (waste)
NUREG-1811, SDEIS xxvi July 2006

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

VATAX 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

VDH Virginia Department of Health

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
July 2006 1-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 1.0 Introduction

2

3

4 This section was changed to discuss the submittal of Revision 6 to the Environmental Report

5 and the issuance of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

6

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

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

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

10 ESP site located in Louisa County, Virginia, near the town of Mineral. On December 10, 2004,

11 NRC issued a Federal Register notice (68 FR 65961) announcing the availability of

12 NUREG-1811, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

13 North Anna ESP Site (Draft EIS) and sought comment on the Draft EIS. In the Draft EIS, the

14 NRC staff evaluated the impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear power units at

15 the North Anna ESP site, based on Revision 3 to Dominion’s application (NRC 2004a). On

16 April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 6 to its application, which included a revised

17 Environmental Report (ER) (Dominion 2006a). This Supplement to the Draft EIS (SDEIS)

18 evaluates the environmental impacts of changes from Revision 3 to Revision 6, including

19 Dominion’s responses to the NRC staff’s request for additional information (RAI) on Revision 6. 

20 On June 21, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 7 to its application which included the

21 necessary information from the RAI responses (Dominion 2006b).

22

23 In Revision 6 to the North Anna ESP application, Dominion proposed (1) changing its approach

24 for cooling the proposed Unit 3 from the once-through cooling system, as described in previous

25 versions of the ER, to a closed-cycle system and (2) increasing the maximum power output per

26 unit from 4300 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)) to 4500 MW(t) for each of the proposed Units 3 and

27 4 (referred to hereafter as Units 3 and 4). Under the revised cooling system approach, Unit 3

28 would use a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The proposed increase in

29 power level corresponds to the revision of the maximum power of an economic simplified boiling

30 water reactor (ESBWR), one of the reactor designs included in the plant parameter envelope

31 (PPE) and evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

32

33 The NRC staff determined that the changes to the proposed action were substantial; therefore,

34 the staff decided to prepare a Supplement to its Draft EIS (referred to as the SDEIS) pursuant to

35 10 CFR 51.72. On May 16, 2006, following receipt of Dominion’s ER Revision 6, the staff

36 published a Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplement to the Draft EIS for the North Anna ESP

37 application in the Federal Register (71 FR 28392). The scope of this SDEIS is limited to the

38 environmental impacts associated with the change in the cooling system for Unit 3 and the

39 increase in the maximum power level for both units. The evaluation presented in this SDEIS

40 replaces the evaluation of the impacts associated with the originally proposed once-through

41 cooling for Unit 3 and modifies the analysis of impacts related to the power level increase. 

42 These revised evaluations, along with public comments received on the analysis presented in
Introduction

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 1-2 July 2006

1 this SDEIS, will be incorporated into the Final EIS together with comments and responses

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

3

4 This SDEIS follows the structure of the section contents of the Draft EIS. Those sections that

5 are not affected by the changes in the revised ER are so identified. Some sections in the

6 SDEIS were not affected by the change, but the staff included them solely to provide context for

7 the reader. For example, in this chapter, the background, alternatives to the proposed action,

8 compliance and consultations, and report contents were not affected by the change but are

9 included to provide context. Sections in which the thermal or electric power level or the cooling

10 system are mentioned but not used in the evaluation for those sections will be changed in the

11 Final North Anna ESP EIS (Final EIS) to include the proper reference and are not shown here

12 as a specific change.

13

14 1.1 Background

15

16 This section is not affected by changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER and is provided solely

17 for context.

18

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

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

21 operating license (OL) or a combined construction and operating license (combined license or

22 COL) for such a facility. The ESP application and review process makes it possible to evaluate

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

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

25 20 years for future reactor siting. In addition, if the ESP includes a site redress plan, the ESP

26 holder can perform the site preparation and preliminary construction activities enumerated in

27 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). An ESP does not authorize construction or operation of a nuclear power

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

29 OL, or a COL, which are separate major Federal actions for which EISs would be prepared in

30 accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

31

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

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

34 Because site suitability encompasses construction and operational parameters, the EIS

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

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

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

38 in a safety evaluation report (NRC 2005a) that presents the conclusions reached by the NRC

39 regarding the following issues:

40
Introduction

July 2006 1-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

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

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

3 undue risk to the health and safety of the public

4

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

6

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

8 developed.

9

10 In addition, if the applicant proposes either major features of emergency plans or complete and

11 integrated emergency plans, the safety evaluation report documents whether such major

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

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

14 of a radiological emergency. Dominion has chosen to propose major features of

15 emergency plans.

16

17 1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope

18

19 This section is not affected by changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER and is provided solely

20 for context.

21

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

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

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

25 made. Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a PPE as a surrogate for a nuclear

26 power plant and its associated facilities.

27

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

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

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

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

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

33 for each parameter that it encompasses rather than the characteristics of any specific reactor

34 design. Changes to the PPE are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2 of this SDEIS.

35
Introduction

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 1-4 July 2006

1 1.1.2 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities

2

3 This section was changed to reflect the permit conditions the staff has proposed for the site

4 preparation and limited construction activities.

5

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

7 10 CFR Part 52) that references an ESP with an approved site redress plan, may in accordance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 plant is not constructed on the ESP site.

20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 10 CFR 52.25. In addition, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that applicants for

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

30 such discharges will comply with the Clean Water Act. As discussed in Section 1.5 of this

31 chapter, the staff proposes to include a condition prohibiting Dominion from conducting any

32 pre-construction activity that would result in a discharge into navigable waters without first

33 submitting to the NRC a Virginia Water Protection Permit which (under Virginia’s State Water

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

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

36 (VDEQ) that no certification is required.

37
Introduction

July 2006 1-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 1.1.3 ESP Application and Review

2

3 A description of the SDEIS process is added to clarify how issues that are not resolved at the

4 ESP stage are addressed at the COL stage and an expanded explanation of how the

5 information provided in the ER is used by the staff as a basic source of information.

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 ESRP guidance to the PPE approach.

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 staff reviews an ESP application.

39

40 Dominion’s ESP application, including its ER, was submitted under oath or affirmation as part of

41 the application for an ESP. Applicants use the body of NRC regulatory guidance
Introduction

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 1-6 July 2006

1 (e.g., Regulatory Guides, Review Standards, and Standard Review Plans) and can take

2 advantage of approaches and methods that are acceptable to the NRC to analyze

3 environmental impacts. The staff relied upon the ER as a source of basic information about the

4 plant parameters, the site, the region, and the environment. The applicant and the NRC are not

5 required to have alternate positions on the significance of environmental impacts; nevertheless,

6 at times there are different conclusions reached based on different methods and assumptions. 

7 Subsequent to the acceptance of the application, the staff visited the site; consulted with local,

8 State, Tribal and Federal agencies; and conducted its own independent review. The Draft EIS

9 and this SDEIS are the result of the staff’s review and properly includes material from various

10 sources including the ER. In the end, the NRC is responsible for the reliability of all of the

11 information used in its EIS. If, as part of its independent review, the NRC determines that

12 information presented in the ER is useful and the NRC confirms its accuracy, then the NRC may

13 use the information and analyses in its EIS.

14

15 In its analysis of some issues, the staff relied on reasonable assumptions made by Dominion or

16 the staff. The NRC staff will verify the continued applicability of these assumptions at the CP or

17 COL stage to determine whether there is new and significant information from that discussed

18 herein.

19

20 In its application and in responses to requests for additional information (RAIs), Dominion did

21 not or was unable to provide information and analysis for certain issues sufficient to allow the

22 NRC staff to complete its independent analysis. The staff was unable to determine a unique

23 significance level for such issues in this SDEIS, and therefore, these issues are not resolved for

24 the North Anna ESP site. For such issues, Dominion did not offer, nor did the staff identify

25 bases for assumptions that would allow resolution.

26

27 As provided by 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2), the Commission shall treat those matters that are resolved

28 through this EIS as resolved in any later proceeding on an application for a CP or COL

29 referencing the requested North Anna ESP. However, as discussed in the NRC staff's

30 July 6, 2005, letter to Mr. A. Heymer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a CP or COL applicant

31 must identify whether there is new and significant information on these resolved issues

32 (NRC 2005a). This complements the obligation of a COL applicant referencing an ESP to

33 provide information to resolve any significant environmental issue not considered in the

34 previous proceeding on the ESP. Inasmuch as an ESP and a COL are major Federal actions,

35 both actions require the preparation of an EIS pursuant to 10 CFR 51.20. As provided in

36 10 CFR 52.79 and under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the CP or COL

37 environmental review will be informed by the EIS prepared at the ESP stage, and the NRC staff

38 intends to use tiering and incorporation-by-reference whenever it is appropriate to do so. The

39 CP or COL applicant must address any other issue not considered and not resolved in the EIS

40 for the ESP. Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.70(b), the NRC is required to independently

41 evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in an EIS prepared for a CP
Introduction

July 2006 1-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 or COL application, and the staff may (1) inquire into the continued validity of information

2 disclosed in an EIS for an ESP that is referenced in a COL application, and (2) look for any new

3 information that may affect the assumptions, analyses, or conclusions reached in the ESP EIS.

4

5 In addition, measures and controls to limit any adverse impact will be identified and evaluated

6 for feasibility and adequacy in limiting adverse impacts at the ESP stage, where possible, and at

7 the CP or COL stage. As a result of the staff’s environmental review of the ESP application, the

8 staff may determine that conditions or limitations on the ESP may be necessary in specific

9 areas, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.24. Therefore, the staff identified in the Draft EIS when and

10 how assumptions and bounding values limit its conclusions on the environmental impacts to a

11 particular resource.

12

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

14 environmental staff (and technical experts from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

15 retained to assist the staff) visited the North Anna ESP site and alternative sites in

16 December 2003; January, February, September, and December 2005; and May 2006 to gather

17 information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs. During these site visits, the

18 staff and its contractor personnel met with the applicant’s staff, public officials, Federal and

19 State regulators, and the public. A list of the organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B. 

20 Other documents related to the North Anna ESP site were reviewed and are listed as

21 references where appropriate.

22

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

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

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

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

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

28 and in accordance with NEPA and 10 CFR Part 51, the staff determined and evaluated the

29 potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating two new nuclear power plants at

30 the North Anna ESP site, and stated its preliminary finding in a Draft EIS issued on

31 December 2, 2004. On December 10, 2004, the staff issued a Notice of Availability in the

32 Federal Register (69 FR 71854). On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection

33 Agency (EPA) issued a Notice of Filing (69 FR 75535), and initiated a 75-day comment period

34 for the Draft EIS, which ended March 2, 2005.

35

36 A public meeting was conducted on February 17, 2005, at Mineral, Virginia, to describe the

37 results of the NRC environmental review, answer questions related to the review, and provide

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

39 Draft EIS.

40
Introduction

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 1-8 July 2006

1 On April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 6 to its application (Dominion 2006a). In

2 response to the changes proposed in ER Revision 6 related to the Unit 3 cooling system and

3 the maximum power level of both Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff re-evaluated the environmental

4 impacts of these issues and has documented its conclusion in this SDEIS. The scope of the

5 SDEIS is limited to the environmental impacts associated with the changes in the ER Revision 6

6 cooling system for Unit 3 and the maximum power level of the PPE. This new evaluation will

7 replace the now obsolete evaluation of the impacts of once-through cooling for Unit 3 in the

8 Draft EIS and will modify the analysis of impacts related to the power level increase. These

9 revised evaluations, along with public comments received on the analysis presented in this

10 SDEIS, will be incorporated into the Final EIS together with comments and the staff’s

11 consideration of comments received concerning the Draft EIS.

12

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

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

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

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

17

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

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

20

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

22 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

23

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

25 important attributes of the resource.

26

27 The Final EIS will present the staff’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

28 impacts of the proposed action at the North Anna ESP site, including the environmental impacts

29 associated with construction and operation of reactors at the site, the impacts of constructing

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

31 the ESP, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental

32 effects. The Final EIS will also provide the NRC staff’s recommendation to the Commission

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

34 with characteristics that fall within the PPE.

35
Introduction

July 2006 1-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action

2

3 This section is changed to reflect that (1) the total nuclear generating capacity to be added

4 would not exceed a total of 9000 MW(t) for the two units (4500 MW(t) each), rather than the

5 originally proposed 8600 MW(t) (4300 MW(t) each) and (2) Unit 3 would use a closed-cycle,

6 combination wet and dry cooling system rather than the originally proposed once-through

7 system. 

8

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

10 ESP for the North Anna ESP site for nuclear power facilities with characteristics that fall within

11 the PPE. In addition, Dominion proposes a plan for redressing the environmental effects of

12 certain site preparation and preliminary construction activities (i.e., those activities enumerated

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

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

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

16 activities, the ESP is not referenced in an application for a CP or COL, and no alternative use is

17 found for the site. While Dominion is not currently proposing construction and operation of new

18 units, this EIS analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from the construction and

19 operation of two new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site, or at three alternative sites. 

20 These impacts are analyzed to determine whether the proposed ESP site is suitable for the new

21 units and whether there is an alternative site that is obviously superior to the proposed site.

22

23 The North Anna ESP site proposed by Dominion is located in Louisa County in northeastern

24 Virginia, near the town of Mineral. It is completely within the confines of the current North Anna

25 Power Station (NAPS) site, which is located on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna

26 approximately 8 km (5 mi) upstream of the North Anna Dam. Lake Anna is approximately

27 27 km (17 mi) long with 435 km (272 mi) of shoreline. The lake was created in 1971 by the

28 construction of a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River. Virginia Electric and Power

29 Company, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., owns the land above and below the lake

30 surface and around the lake up to the expected high-water mark.

31

32 For purpose of the ESP application, no specific plant design was selected by Dominion for the

33 ESP site; instead, a set of values of plant parameters (i.e., the PPE) has been specified for the

34 staff’s evaluation of the future development of the North Anna site. Dominion has for the

35 purpose of preparation of a combined license application selected the Economic Simplified

36 Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) (Dominion 2005a). However, for the ESP review, Dominion’s

37 application uses the PPE approach. The PPE is based on the addition of power generation

38 from two distinct units, to be designated as North Anna Units 3 and 4. Each unit represents a

39 portion of the total generation capacity to be added and would consist of one or more reactors

40 or reactor modules. These multiple reactors or modules (the number of which may vary
Introduction

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 1-10 July 2006

1 depending on the reactor type selected) would be grouped into distinct operating units. The

2 total nuclear generating capacity to be added would not exceed 9000 MW(t). Cooling water for

3 Unit 3, the first of the proposed new units, was originally envisioned as being provided by

4 Lake Anna using a once-through cooling system. With the changes proposed in ER Revision 6,

5 Unit 3 would now be cooled using a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling tower

6 system. Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers.

7

8 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

9

10 This section is not affected by changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER and is provided solely

11 for context.

12

13 The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., ESP issuance) is to provide stability in the

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

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

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

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

18 10 CFR Part 50 would take place during plant construction. Alternatively, all safety and

19 environmental issues would have to be addressed at the time of the staff’s review of a COL

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

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

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

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

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

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

26

27 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

28

29 This section is not affected by changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER and is provided solely

30 for context.

31

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

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

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

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

36 discusses the environmental impacts of three categories of alternatives: (1) alternative sites,

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

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

39
Introduction

July 2006 1-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 the alternative sites and to the no-action alternative, and qualitatively determines whether any

9 one of the alternative sites considered is obviously superior to the proposed site.

10

11 1.5 Compliance and Consultations

12

13 Changes to this section reflect a discussion about a proposed permit condition to govern site

14 preparation and limited construction activities.

15

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

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

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

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

20 establishing the acceptability of the proposed site for future development, with the exception of

21 the Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) certifications, the

22 authorizations Dominion will need from Federal, State, and local authorities for construction and

23 operation are not yet necessary; therefore, they have not been obtained. A National

24 Atmospheric Administration “stay of review” for the CZMA consistency concurrence review was

25 removed March 31, 2006, with Dominion’s submittal of additional analyses to VDEQ

26 (Dominion 2006b). 

27

28 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act specifies that “Any applicant for a Federal license or permit

29 to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities,

30 which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or

31 permitting agency a certification from the State...” (401 certification). Dominion is unable to

32 obtain 401 certification from the Commonwealth of Virginia at the ESP stage. In a letter dated

33 October 6, 2005 (Dominion 2005b), responding to an request for additional information,

34 Dominion stated:

35

36 To address the timing of this certification, the ESP should include a condition prohibiting

37 Dominion from conducting any pre-construction activity that would result in a discharge into

38 navigable waters without first submitting to the NRC a Virginia Water Protection Permit

39 (which under Virginia’s State Water Control Law at Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:5(A) constitutes
Introduction

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 1-12 July 2006

1 the certification required under FWPCA § 401) or a determination by the Virginia DEQ that

2 no certification is required.

3

4 The Commonwealth of Virginia agreed to the ESP permit condition prohibiting discharges to

5 navigable waters until a 401 certification is obtained or waived by the Commonwealth

6 (VDEQ 2006). In addition, Dominion would need to obtain the other necessary authorizations in

7 order to conduct the site preparation and preliminary construction activities allowed by

8 10 CFR 52.25(a). Authorizations and consultations potentially relevant to the proposed ESP

9 are included in Appendix L.

10

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

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

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

14 operation of the reactors that fall within the PPE.

15

16 1.6 Report Contents

17

18 The format of this SDEIS follows the format of the North Anna Draft EIS. However, in this

19 SDEIS, text is provided only in sections that have changed as a result of cooling system and

20 power increase changes described in ER Revision 6 or to provide context related to the

21 NRC staff’s evaluation of those changes. The subsequent chapters of this SDEIS are

22 organized as follows:

23

24 & Chapter 2 describes the proposed use of a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

25 cooling system and discusses the environment that would be affected by this change.

26

27 & Chapter 3 documents the characteristics of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

28 cooling system to be used as the basis for evaluation of the environmental impacts.

29

30 & Chapter 4 documents the staff’s evaluation of the environmental impacts of construction

31 of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. 

32

33 & Chapter 5 documents the staff’s evaluation of the environmental impacts of operation of

34 the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and of radiological doses

35 associated with the power increase.

36

37 & Chapter 6 documents the staff’s evaluation of the fuel cycle, transportation, and

38 decommissioning impacts in support of the power increase.

39
Introduction

July 2006 1-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 & Chapter 7 documents the staff’s evaluation of cumulative impacts, as defined in

2 40 CFR Part 1508, as revised to reflect the change to a closed-cycle, combination wet

3 and dry cooling system for proposed Unit 3 and the power increase.

4

5 & Chapter 8 discusses once-through cooling as a system design alternative and presents

6 the analysis of the no-action alternative and alternative sites.

7

8 & Chapter 9 sets forth the staff’s comparison of the environmental impacts associated with

9 the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system with the impacts of the

10 alternatives.

11

12 & Chapter 10 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and presents the staff’s

13 evaluation of the environmental impact of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

14 cooling system.

15

16 The appendices provide the following additional information:

17

18 & Appendix A - Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement Related to Dominion

19 Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s Application for an Early Site Permit at North Anna Nuclear

20 Plant Site

21

22 & Appendix B - Organizations Contacted

23

24 & Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence Related

25 to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s Application for Early Site Permit at North Anna

26 Nuclear Plant Site

27

28 & Appendix D - Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

29

30 & Appendix E - Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses

31 Volume II

32

33 & Appendix F - Key Correspondence

34

35 & Appendix G - Environmental Impacts of Transportation

36

37 & Appendix H - Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment

38

39 & Appendix I - Plant Parameter Envelope Values

40
Introduction

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 1-14 July 2006

1 & Appendix J - Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC Commitments and Assumptions

2 Relevant to the Analysis of Impact (a tabulation to be included in the Final EIS)

3

4 & Appendix K - Staff’s Independent Review of Water Budget and Water Temperature

5 Impacts

6

7 & Appendix L - Authorizations and Consultations.

8

9 1.7 References

10

11 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

12 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

13

14 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

15 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

16

17 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

18 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

19

20 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,

21 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.”

22

23 68 FR 65961. “Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an

24 Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal Register, Vol. 68,

25 No. 226. November 24, 2003. 

26

27 69 FR 75535. “Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability.” Federal Register,

28 Vol. 69, No. 242. December 17, 2004.

29

30 71 FR 28392. “Notice of Intent to prepare a supplement to the Draft EIS for the North Anna

31 ESP Site.” Vol. 71, No. 974. May 16, 2006.

32

33 Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 

34 33 USC 1251,et seq.

35

36 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

37

38 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005a. Letter to the NRC dated November 22,

39 2005, Dominion’s Submittal of ESP Application Schedule.

40
Introduction

July 2006 1-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005b. Letter to the NRC dated October 6,

2 2005, Dominion’s Response to the Supplemental Request for Additional Information

3 (Accession No. ML052790657). 

4

5 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

6 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

7

8 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. North Anna Early Site Permit

9 Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 7, Glen Allen, Virginia.

10

11 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006c. North Anna Early Site Permit

12 Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

13

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

15

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

17 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

18

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

20 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

21

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Response to comments on Draft RS-002

23 Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (ML031710698).

24

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

26 an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Washington, D.C.

27

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Processing Applications for Early Site

29 Permits. RS-002, Washington, D.C.

30

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Safety Evaluation Report for an Early

32 Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1835, September 2005.

33

34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Letter dated July 6, 2005, from

35 W. Beckner, NRC, to A. Heymer, Nuclear Energy Institute, responding to comments on the

36 scope of an NRC staff review of a combined license application.

37

38 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2006. Letter dated June 16, 2006 from

39 Jeffery A. Steers, Regional Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

40

41

July 2006 2-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 2.0 Affected Environment

2

3

4 This chapter was modified to incorporate background information necessary to support the

5 evaluation of the impacts of construction and operations in later chapters as related to changes

6 proposed in Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. Section summaries are provided for

7 context.

8

9 The site proposed by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) for an early site permit

10 (ESP) is located in Louisa County, Virginia, within the existing boundaries of the currently

11 operating North Anna Power Station (NAPS) (Dominion 2006a). Virginia Electric and Power

12 Company (referred to as Virginia Power or VEPCo) and Dominion are wholly owned

13 subsidiaries of Dominion Resources, Inc. The site is on the shore of Lake Anna approximately

14 64 km (40 mi) north-northwest of Richmond. Two operating nuclear generating units, Units 1

15 and 2, are currently located on the NAPS site, and a small hydroelectric power plant is located

16 at the base of the North Anna Dam.

17

18 The environment affected by issuance of the proposed ESP, based on Dominion’s Revision 3 to

19 its ESP application (Dominion 2004), was described in the Draft Environmental Impact

20 Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site (Draft EIS)

21 (NRC 2004a). Since that time, Dominion revised its application, and in Revision 6, changed

22 proposed plant parameters relating to the cooling system for proposed Unit 3 and the

23 maximum power level for proposed Units 3 and 4 (referred to hereafter as Units 3 and 4)

24 (Dominion 2006a).

25

26 The environment affected by the proposed ESP is described in this chapter. To provide context

27 regarding the construction and operational impacts discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, this chapter

28 gives abbreviated descriptions of the existing environment drawn from the Draft EIS. The

29 description of the environment itself is not affected by the changes presented by Dominion in

30 Revision 6 of its ER (Dominion 2006a). However, some information has been included in this

31 chapter to update or provide additional relevant detail needed to support the evaluation of the

32 Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system.

33

34 2.1 Site Location

35

36 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

37 context.

38

39 The proposed location for Units 3 and 4 is wholly within the NAPS site and is west of and

40 adjacent to the existing facilities of NAPS Units 1 and 2 (Figure 2-1). Two other NAPS units

41 received construction permits on July 26, 1974, but were not constructed. The NAPS site is

42 located in rural Louisa County, Virginia, which had a population of about 25,000 in 2000. NAPS

43 is located within a triangle formed by the cities of Richmond, Charlottesville, and

44 Fredericksburg, Virginia. Figure 2-2 shows the location of NAPS in relation to the major
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-2 July 2006

12

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

3
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 Figure 2-2. Location of North Anna Power Station, 80-km (50-mi) Region
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-4 July 2006

1 cities and towns within an 80-km (50-mi) radius. Interstate 95 passes within 26 km (16 mi) of

2 the NAPS site, and Interstate 64 passes within 29 km (18 mi). The nearest incorporated

3 community is the town of Mineral, which is approximately 10 km (6 mi) southwest of NAPS. 

4 Louisa, the county seat, is 19 km (12 mi) west of the site. NAPS is situated on a peninsula on

5 the southern shore of Lake Anna, approximately 8 km (5 mi) upstream from the North

6 Anna Dam. 

7

8 NAPS occupies approximately 422 ha (1043 ac) of land. In addition, the waste heat treatment

9 lagoons cover approximately 1400 ha (3400 ac), as shown in Figure 2-3. All site land,

10 subsurface lands, and mineral rights are owned jointly by Virginia Power, a subsidiary of

11 Dominion Resources, Inc., and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative. No public or commercial

12 highways, railroads, or waterways traverse the site. Virginia Power also owns and operates the

13 North Anna Hydroelectric Project, an 855-kW-capacity hydroelectric power plant at the base of

14 the North Anna Dam.

15

16 2.2 Land

17

18 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is presented solely for

19 context.

20

21 The NAPS site is situated on a peninsula of Lake Anna’s southern shore at the end of State

22 Route (SR) 700. Lake Anna, an artificial reservoir, was created in 1971 by Virginia Power by

23 erecting a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River. The reservoir was filled by

24 December 1972. Downstream of the dam, the North Anna River flows southeasterly, joining the

25 South Anna River to form the Pamunkey River about 43 km (27 mi) southeast of the NAPS site. 

26 The earthen dam that impounds Lake Anna is about 8 km (5 mi) southeast of NAPS.

27

28 The Lake Anna reservoir (or “the reservoir”) was formed by impounding the North Anna River

29 above the North Anna Dam. Construction of the dam was licensed by the Virginia State

30 Corporation Commission in 1969 (Virginia State Corporation Commission 1969). The Lake

31 Anna reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water, Lake Anna and the Waste Heat

32 Treatment Facility (WHTF). The WHTF is composed of three lagoons and is designated by the

33 Commonwealth of Virginia as a waste heat treatment facility. The lagoons have a total surface

34 area of approximately 1400 ha (3400 ac) and are separated from Lake Anna by a series of

35 dikes. The main body of the lake is approximately 27 km (17 mi) long with 435 km (272 mi) of

36 irregular shoreline and approximately 3900 ha (9600 ac) of water surface. The land adjacent to

37 Lake Anna is becoming increasingly residential as the area is developed. No new

38 transportation routes (roads or railroad lines) or new industrial activities are currently planned in

39 the vicinity of NAPS.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1

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

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-6 July 2006

1 The primary land cover on the NAPS site is pine and pine-hardwood mixed forest (70 percent). 

2 Approximately 20 percent of the site is used for nuclear power station facilities and activities

3 including electricity generation, maintenance and distribution facilities, warehouses, training and

4 administration buildings, lagoons and settling basin, parking lots, roads, a railroad line,

5 information center, and the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). About

6 10 percent of the site is cleared area that includes landscaped ground, open areas, laydown

7 areas, three historic cemeteries, a weapons range used for security training, and a recreation

8 and picnic area used by employees of Dominion Resources, Inc., and its subsidiaries.

9

10 The footprint of the land use identified in Figure 2-1 is unchanged from the Draft EIS

11 (NRC 2004a) and would not change with the addition of cooling towers for Unit 3. As a result,

12 the description of land use is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6

13 (Dominion 2006a). 

14

15 2.3 Meteorology and Air Quality

16

17 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 with the exception that a

18 discussion of dew point temperature measurements was added.

19

20 The ESP site is located in the Piedmont region of Virginia. The climate in this region is

21 considered continental. Summers are generally warm and humid, while winters are generally

22 mild. Based on data collected from the onsite meteorological station starting as early as 1974,

23 the prevailing winds are from the south-southwest at both the 10- and 48.4-m (33- and 159-ft)

24 levels (Dominion 2006a), although there is some seasonal variation. The average temperature

25 at the lower meteorological station level is 13.2(C (55.8(F) and is moderated by the presence of

26 Lake Anna.

27

28 Louisa County, where the North Anna ESP site is located, is within the Northeastern Virginia

29 Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), and is classified as in-attainment for all criteria

30 pollutants for which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been established

31 (40 CFR 81.347). VDEQ would regulate airborne emissions at the North Anna ESP site during

32 construction activities and routine non-radiological emissions during operation. Any emissions

33 from the operation of the proposed units are not expected to jeopardize compliance with

34 requirements set forth under the current permit.

35

36 With the addition of combination wet and dry cooling towers at the site, the potential impacts

37 from fogging, icing, and salt deposition might occur both within and outside the plant site

38 boundary. The extent to which these events would occur depends on both the local

39 meteorological conditions and the design of the wet and dry cooling towers. To determine the

40 impact of the towers on the environment during operations (Chapter 5), Dominion used dew

41 point temperature measurements and an analytical computer code. The input data for this code
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 included hourly wind speed and direction data, station barometric pressure, and dry bulb and

2 dew point temperature data collected at the 10-m (33-ft) level of the primary meteorological

3 tower during the years of 1998 through 2000, and meteorological data obtained from the nearby

4 National Weather Service Stations in Richmond and at Dulles Airport in Virginia. The

5 information collected from these sources was input to an analytical code that estimated the

6 potential impacts outlined in Chapter 5.

7

8 A general characterization of onsite humidity conditions and the potential for fogging resulting

9 from increased emission of water vapor to the atmosphere can be expressed in terms of dew

10 point depression, which is the difference between dry bulb and dew point temperature. In

11 response to questions raised by the staff, summary onsite data were provided for the number of

12 hours when the dew point depression was predicted to be five degrees or less as a function of

13 season, time of day, and wind direction for the same period that was used to estimate the

14 impacts from combination wet and dry cooling tower operation (Dominion 2006b). For the

15 winter and spring seasons, the greatest occurrence when the dew point depression was five

16 degrees or less occurred when winds were from the west-northwest. During the summer

17 season, the greatest occurrence was with winds from the southwest, while in the fall the

18 greatest occurrence was with winds from the west. In all cases, the greatest occurrence was

19 during the early morning hours. For all seasons and all wind directions, the amount of time that

20 the dew point depression was five degrees or less ranged from 37 percent (winter) to

21 28 percent (spring).

22

23 2.4 Geology

24

25 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

26 context.

27

28 The North Anna ESP site lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Trapp and

29 Horn 2000). The Piedmont Province is bounded on the west by the Blue Ridge Province and on

30 the east by the Coastal Province. The boundary between the Coastal Province and the

31 Piedmont Province is the Fall Line. The Fall Line is a low, east-facing cliff paralleling the

32 Atlantic coastline from New Jersey to the Carolinas. It separates hard Paleozoic metamorphic

33 rocks of the Appalachian Piedmont to the west from the softer, gently dipping Mesozoic and

34 Tertiary sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain. This erosional scarp, the site of many

35 waterfalls, often represents an obstruction to upstream passage of migratory fish.

36
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-8 July 2006

1 2.5 Radiological Environment

2

3 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

4 context.

5

6 A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the

7 NAPS site since 1976 (NRC 1977). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure

8 pathway, direct exposure pathway, water exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from

9 Lake Anna and the North Anna River, and ingestion exposure pathway in a 40-km (25-mi)

10 radius of NAPS. The preoperational environmental radiation monitoring program sampled

11 various media in the environment to establish a baseline to determine the magnitude and

12 fluctuation of radioactivity in the environment once the existing units began operation

13 (AEC 1973). The preoperational monitoring program included collection and analysis of

14 samples of air particulates, precipitation, milk, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt

15 as well as measurement of ambient gamma radiation. After operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2

16 began, the monitoring program continued to assess their radiological impacts to workers, the

17 public, and the environment. Modifications to the monitoring program are made based on

18 changes in the area, such as milk production, agricultural uses, and changes in lake use. 

19 Radiological releases from the existing units are summarized in the annual effluent reports and

20 radiological operating reports. Since the Draft EIS was published in November 2004, VEPco

21 issued more recent reports (see Radiological Environmental Operating Report [VEPCo 2005a]

22 and the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report [VEPCo 2005b]).

23

24 The NRC staff reviewed historical data on releases from the existing units and estimated

25 occupational and population doses. The data and analysis showed that doses from the existing

26 units to the maximally exposed individuals around NAPS were a small fraction of the limits

27 specified in Federal environmental radiation standards: 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 50,

28 Appendix I; and 40 CFR Part 190.

29

30 2.6 Water

31

32 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

33 context.

34

35 Surface Water Hydrology

36

37 The dominant hydrological feature of the NAPS site is the Lake Anna reservoir, which was

38 formed by impounding the North Anna River above the North Anna Dam. The Lake Anna

39 reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water: Lake Anna and the WHTF. The WHTF is

40 composed of three waste heat treatment lagoons separated from the lake by a series of dikes

41 (Figure 2-4). Lake Anna is approximately 27 km (17 mi) long with 435 km (272 mi) of irregular 
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38 Figure 2-4. Lake Anna and the North Anna Power Station Waste Heat Treatment Facility
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-10 July 2006

1 shoreline and approximately 3900 ha (9600 ac) of water surface area at the normal pool

2 elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) above mean sea level (MSL). By comparison, the WHTF has a

3 surface area of 1400 ha (3400 ac) at the normal pool level elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. 

4 The WHTF is designated by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a waste heat treatment facility in

5 the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit (VDEQ 2001) for NAPS

6 (Figure 2-4). The gates of Lake Anna Dam are operated to maintain a steady pool elevation at

7 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL.

8

9 The WHTF receives heated discharges from the existing units. The time for water to flow

10 through the WHTF and its exposure to the atmosphere allows the WHTF to dissipate some of

11 the waste heat to the atmosphere before the water is returned to Lake Anna. In an average

12 year at the site, precipitation exceeds evaporation. The presence of the reservoir and the

13 discharge of heat to the reservoir from Units 1 and 2 have increased evaporation and reduced

14 the total quantity of water available for release downstream of the dam. However, the dam

15 provides a minimum downstream flow during low water conditions. The historical pre-dam

minimum flows (usually less than 0.14 m3 16 /s [5 cfs] during dry summer months) were less than

the current post-dam minimum discharges of 0.57 m3 17 (20 cfs). Seasonal patterns of

18 precipitation and evaporation also impact water availability. Over an annual cycle, this seasonal

19 variability tends to result in a water deficit during July, August, and September and a water

20 surplus during the rest of the year.

21

22 Groundwater Hydrology

23

24 Recharge of the aquifers in the Piedmont Physiographic Province is predominately from local

25 infiltration. The hydraulic connection between the reservoir and nearby aquifers results in a rise

26 of the water table for those aquifers in proximity of the lake. Given the relatively small

27 fluctuations of lake water surface elevation, it is not expected that the water table in these

28 aquifers would vary significantly.

29

30 Hydrological Monitoring 

31

32 Currently, Dominion collects measurements directly associated with the current site operation

33 that are required under the terms of its existing VPDES permit. Dominion also records lake

34 level elevations at the dam. Dominion was able to use this existing monitoring program as part

35 of the pre-application monitoring program for the ESP site. At the site, Dominion records data

36 from 19 groundwater wells. Nine of these wells are associated with NAPS Units 1 and 2, one

37 was installed near the ISFSI, and nine pre-ESP-application wells were installed in 2002.

38

39 At various times in the past, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has maintained four streamflow

40 gauges in the vicinity of NAPS. Two gauges measured streamflows of tributaries draining into

41 Lake Anna and two measured streamflows downstream of Lake Anna Dam. Because of limited
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 inflow data, it is not possible to create a reliable water budget for Lake Anna directly from inflow

2 and discharge measurements. No water velocity measurements within Lake Anna have been

3 recorded.

4

5 Surface Water Use

6

7 The existing NAPS units are the largest users of surface water in the region. Because of the

8 limited projected development in the three upstream counties and policies promoting the use of

9 storm water management practices that limit the impact of impervious surfaces, upstream

10 land-use changes are not expected to appreciably alter the patterns of inflow to the reservoir. 

11 However, growth in downstream demands for surface water withdrawals could result in

12 increased water conflicts, particularly during drought periods.

13

14 Groundwater Use

15

16 Groundwater in the vicinity of the ESP site is primarily obtained from springs and wells in either

17 the saprolite or underlying crystalline bedrock. The production of groundwater in the vicinity of

18 the ESP site is generally not sufficient to satisfy large water demands because of the relatively

19 low yield of the aquifers; therefore, the majority of groundwater development in the area is for

20 domestic and agricultural use.

21

22 Surface Water Quality

23

24 Localized elevated temperature in Lake Anna is the most significant surface water-quality

25 concern associated with both the existing NAPS units. In the vicinity, eight of the tributaries

26 draining into Lake Anna are on the Virginia 2004 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as

27 impaired for one or more of the following attributes: fecal coliform bacteria, pH, or dissolved

28 oxygen. Downstream of Lake Anna, the discharge is not listed as impaired until it reaches the

29 Chesapeake Bay. Dominion has a VPDES permit for Units 1 and 2 issued by VDEQ

30 (VDEQ 2001). Before Units 3 and 4 could begin to operate, Dominion would be required to

31 obtain a VPDES permit for discharges from these units.

32

33 Groundwater Quality

34

35 There are no site-specific data available for the nonradiological chemistry of the groundwater

36 underlying the ESP site. Groundwater sampling undertaken in 1992 as part of the Louisa

37 County Water Testing Program has identified coliform contamination in aquifers near the ESP

38 site. This contamination is most likely attributable to private septic systems in the area.

39
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-12 July 2006

1 Thermal and Chemical Monitoring

2

3 The current temperature monitoring program in Lake Anna reservoir includes both continuous

4 fixed-location temperature stations and temperature profile locations that are sampled twice per

5 year. The VPDES permit requires monitoring of a variety of constituents including pH, chlorine,

6 copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, suspended solids, oil and grease, and biological oxygen

7 demand. While temperature is monitored both inside and outside the WHTF, no chemical

8 monitoring is required outside the WHTF. Community-based monitoring of Lake Anna and

9 WHTF water quality has been performed by volunteers from the Lake Anna Civic Association. 

10 Results from this community-based monitoring program are provided to the Commonwealth of

11 Virginia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

12

13 Summary

14

15 The description of the existing hydrology, water quality, and use are not affected by the changes

16 presented in ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a). The water resources, namely the WHTF and

17 Lake Anna, however, would be affected by the change in the proposed cooling water system,

18 and this change is reflected in Chapter 5 of this Supplement to the Draft EIS (SDEIS).

19

20 2.7 Ecology

21

22 This section is not affected by changes presented in the ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

23 for context.

24

25 Forests in the Piedmont Physiographic Province are nominally characterized by oak-hickory26 pine forest (Woods et al. 1999). However, the portion of northeastern Virginia that includes the

27 North Anna ESP site has been settled since the colonial era and, therefore, no longer contains

28 virgin forests. Vegetative cover surrounding the ESP site is an irregular patchwork of row crops,

29 pastures, pine plantations, abandoned (old) fields, and second growth forests of hardwoods and

30 mixed pine-hardwoods (Dominion 2006a). The Lake Anna reservoir is adjacent to the site,

31 oriented from northwest to southeast.

32

33 Much of the proposed North Anna ESP site construction area consists of dirt roads, cleared

34 areas, parking lots, buildings, and other areas recovering from prior disturbance. Because of

35 past development or use, undisturbed habitats are absent from this area.

36

37 The changes in the cooling system of Unit 3 from the once-through system proposed in ER

38 Revision 3 (Dominion 2004) to the combination wet and dry cooling system as proposed in

39 Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a) would result in the use of more land for the cooling towers and

40 less lake bank disturbance for the smaller intake. Although the cooling towers would use more

41 land, the cooling tower footprint proposed in Revision 3 is sufficient for the cooling towers for
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 Units 3 and 4; therefore, no additional land disturbance is proposed. Consequently, this section

2 is not affected by the changes presented in the ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a).

3

4 2.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

5

6 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6, but was updated to provide

7 information regarding eagles.

8

9 Approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of the 729-ha (1803 ac) NAPS site is currently forested; most of the

10 forested portion of the site is within the area where cooling towers would be constructed. 

11 Wildlife species found in the forested portions of the ESP site and surrounding areas are those

12 typically found in the forested portions of the North Anna site and in upland Piedmont forests of

13 north-central Virginia. Wildlife species in the old-field habitat of the laydown area and in the

14 transmission line rights-of-way within the ESP site would include most of those found in the

15 adjacent wooded areas.

16

17 The rolling terrain at the ESP site slopes down to the waters of Lake Anna, resulting in

18 essentially no marsh habitat along the shoreline at the site. Hydrophytic vegetation occurs

19 in a thin band approximately 0.3 to 1 m (1 to 3 ft) wide along the edge of the lake

20 (Dominion 2006a). Two intermittent streams flowing north into an unnamed arm of Lake Anna,

21 just northwest of the power-block area, bisect the area where cooling towers would be located. 

22 A narrow band of wetlands is associated with each of these streams. A small isolated wetland

23 is located within the ESP site. Dominion has mapped these wetlands, and has provided the

24 information to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for evaluation (Dominion 2005).

25

26 Several species of resident and migratory wading birds and waterfowl use Lake Anna. 

27 Waterfowl are typically most abundant at Lake Anna during the winter. Lake Anna provides

28 important habitat for migratory waterfowl on the Atlantic flyway, especially during extremely cold

29 winters when the elevated water temperature from station operation maintains a large ice-free

30 body of water.

31

32 Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a Federal- and State-listed threatened species, are

33 occasionally observed along Lake Anna. There are no known eagle nests on the ESP site

34 (NRC 2002). The nearest known nest is approximately 4.2 km (2.6 mi) to the west. The

35 loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludoviciana), a State-listed threatened species, occasionally has

36 been observed in the vicinity of NAPS and is known to breed in central Virginia (VDGIF 2004),

37 but breeding loggerhead shrikes have not been recorded at the North Anna site or along the

38 transmission line rights-of-way (Dominion 2006a). 

39

40 There are no known populations of any plants species listed as threatened or endangered

41 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the Commonwealth of Virginia on the North Anna

42 site (Dominion 2006a; NRC 2002; FWS 2004).
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-14 July 2006

1 Dominion currently performs no terrestrial ecological monitoring (Dominion 2006a). However,

2 Dominion does cooperate with private organizations such as the local chapter of the Audubon

3 Society to allow informal monitoring of selected resources at and near NAPS, and has worked

4 with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) Natural Heritage Program

5 to conduct rare plant surveys in transmission line rights-of-way.

6

7 The description of the terrestrial ecology is not affected by the changes presented in the ER

8 Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a). Discussions of the impacts on the terrestrial ecology as a result

9 of cooling tower construction and operation are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively, of

10 this SDEIS.

11

12 2.7.2 Aquatic Ecology

13

14 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

15 context.

16

17 The aquatic resources in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site are associated with Lake Anna,

18 the WHTF, and the North Anna River (VEPCo 2001). Lake Anna reservoir is typical of many

19 shallow reservoirs found in the southern and mid-Atlantic states. It contains numerous

20 phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Thirty-nine species of

21 fish (representing 12 families) have been identified in the reservoir (VEPCo 1986). It appears to

22 support a greater standing crop of fish than most U.S. reservoirs with thriving populations of

23 several forage and game fish species. Non-native fish species, including striped bass, walleye,

24 threadfin shad, and blueback herring, have been stocked in Lake Anna by Virginia Department

25 of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Striped bass, introduced during 1973, have been

26 stocked annually since 1975 to create and maintain a “put-grow-and-take” recreational fishery. 

27 Professional fishing guides take clients fishing for largemouth, striped bass, black crappie, and

28 walleye on Lake Anna, but there is no commercial fishing in the lake. 

29

30 Before the North Anna River was impounded, the fish community of the river downstream of the

31 Contrary Creek inflow was dominated by pollution-tolerant species. In the years following

32 impoundment (and partial reclamation of the Contrary Creek mine sites), there was a steady

33 increase in measures of abundance and diversity of fish in the reservoir. Fish counts taken

34 during 1984 and 1985 indicate that the operation of the existing units had little or no effect on

35 fish diversity downstream from the dam (Dominion 2006a).

36

37 The WHTF is the body of water into which waste heat from the existing units is discharged via a

38 canal. It is separated from Lake Anna by a series of dikes. A weir at Dike 3 allows water to flow

39 from the WHTF to the lake. The same aquatic communities occur in the WHTF and Lake Anna. 

40 Fish can swim from Lake Anna into the WHTF and back. However, fish are not stocked in the

41 WHTF, and only residents who live around the WHTF have access. 

42
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 The lower North Anna River below the North Anna Dam is small, approximately 23 to 46 m

2 (75 to 150 ft) wide, but it supports a diverse assemblage of stream fishes. There is no

3 commercial fishing in the North Anna River, but recreational fishing is popular. Unless stream

4 flow is unusually high, powerboats are impractical, so most anglers fish from shore or from

5 canoes and kayaks. Recreational fishermen generally seek largemouth and smallmouth bass

6 or redbreast sunfish. Bluegill and redear sunfish are present as well, but receive less attention

7 from anglers (Dominion 2006a).

8

9 Virginia Power has monitored fish populations in the Lake Anna reservoir and the North Anna

10 River for more than 25 years. No Federally or State-listed fish or mussel species has been

11 collected in any of these monitoring studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel

12 surveys or occasional special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. In addition, no

13 Federally or State-listed aquatic plant species has been collected in any of the monitoring

14 studies associated with the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2, nor has any listed species been

15 observed in surveys or special studies conducted by Virginia Power biologists. VDGIF also

16 conducts aquatic ecology monitoring as part of its management of the Lake Anna fisheries.

17

18 No Federally or State-listed fish species’ range includes Lake Anna or the North Anna River,

19 and none is believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna River

20 (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties). Two aquatic species

21 listed by the FWS as Federally endangered potentially occur in the counties adjacent to

22 Lake Anna reservoir or the North Anna River. They are dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta

23 heterodon) and the James River spiny mussel (Pleurobema collina), neither of which have

24 been observed or collected in local streams.

25

26 No Federally or State-listed aquatic plant has a range that includes Lake Anna or the North

27 Anna River, and none is believed to occur in counties adjacent to Lake Anna or the North Anna

28 River (i.e., Caroline, Hanover, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties).

29

30 The description of the aquatic ecology is not affected by the changes in ER Revision 6

31 (Dominion 2006a). Discussions of the impacts on the aquatic ecology as a result of cooling

32 tower construction and operation and the influence of the cooling water system on lake levels

33 and temperatures are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively, of this SDEIS.

34
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-16 July 2006

1 2.8 Socioeconomics

2

3 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

4 context.

5

6 This section presents the socioeconomic resources that potentially could be impacted by the

7 construction, operation, and decommissioning of two new nuclear power units at the North Anna

8 ESP site.

9

10 Demographics

11

12 The potential impact area for the analysis discussed in this section was determined by where

13 the majority of employees of the currently operating NAPS Units 1 and 2 reside. There are

14 approximately 720 employees currently at NAPS. Approximately 79 percent of these

15 employees live in Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of

16 Richmond (NRC 2002).

17

18 All or parts of 32 counties and five major cities are located within 80 km (50 mi) of the proposed

19 North Anna ESP site. The largest population center within 16 km (10 mi) of the site is the town

20 of Mineral, which is southwest of NAPS. The town of Louisa, located west of the ESP site, falls

21 within the 32-km (20-mi) radius. 

22

23 The area within 16 km (10 mi) of the ESP site is predominately rural and is characterized by

24 farmland and wooded tracts. No significant industrial or commercial facilities are in the area,

25 and none are anticipated. Recreational use of Lake Anna, which is the cooling water source for

26 NAPS, is the greatest contributor to a transient population. Numerous recreational sites,

27 consisting of boat ramps, wet slips, camping sites, picnic areas, etc., are located around the

28 reservoir.

29

30 Migrant workers are typically members of minority or low-income populations. Given the

31 expected small number of migrant workers, even if they were concentrated at a single location,

32 they would remain only for a short time and would not materially change the population

33 characteristics of any particular census tract within Louisa County.

34

35 Economy

36

37 The communities potentially impacted socioeconomically by activities at the ESP site are in

38 Henrico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties and the City of Richmond, all of which are

39 located in central Virginia. The greatest impacts would be observed in Louisa County, where

40 the NAPS site is located. All these counties, but not the City of Richmond, experienced steady

41 growth in population and economic activity during the 1990s.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-17 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 Transportation

2

3 There are 32 counties within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the ESP site. One county is in

4 Maryland while the remaining counties are in Virginia. The 31-county Virginia area is served by

5 two major freeways (Interstates 95 and 64). General transportation studies have been

6 undertaken of highways in the region, and plans are in place to upgrade several highways,

7 including those in areas around Lake Anna.

8

9 Property Taxes

10

11 Dominion has a significant impact on the economic well-being of Louisa County, paying on

12 average about 46 percent of the total property taxes between 1995 and 2003. Louisa and

13 Spotsylvania Counties have both been impacted by Lake Anna and the economic development

14 around Lake Anna. Orange County has been impacted to a lesser extent by this development

15 because it has fewer miles of shoreline. Over time, the percentage contribution of total NAPS

16 property taxes payable to Louisa County for NAPS Units 1 and 2 will decline, assuming the

17 current rate of economic growth in the county continues.

18

19 Aesthetics and Recreation

20

21 Access to the NAPS site itself is provided by SR 700, a narrow, two-lane road leading to the

22 plant boundary. The terrain is gently undulating and wooded. Most of the site structures are

23 screened from public view up to the proximity of the plant boundary. Noise from plant

24 operations is not noticeable, particularly from points outside the NAPS plant boundary. 

25

26 Housing

27

28 During refueling outages, site employment increases by as many as 700 temporary workers for

29 30 to 40 days. Each county in the area of potential impact has a comprehensive land-use plan. 

30 The county showing the greatest increase in housing units over the decade of the 1990s was

31 Spotsylvania County, which would be expected given its economic growth over the decade. 

32 Rental rates for reasonable housing in Louisa County are considered high for a small rural area,

33 and the availability of rental apartments and housing is limited. There is also a shortage of

34 rental housing in Orange and Culpeper Counties, and in nearby Charlottesville. 

35

36 Public Services

37

38 Public water supply is not a constraint to growth in the vicinity of NAPS. There are supply

39 concerns in some individual municipalities and in some of the impacted counties. There are no

40 limitations on new sources of water from groundwater, and many of the treatment plants located

41 in the area of potential impact have reserve treatment capacity, especially in the larger

42 metropolitan areas. In cases where municipal systems are approaching reserve-capacity limits,
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-18 July 2006

1 plans are in place to address those limitations by constructing new treatment systems or

2 expanding existing facilities.

3

4 Social services in the Commonwealth are provided in each county by the Virginia Department of

5 Social Services (VDSS), which operates offices in each county. None of the nearest three

6 counties has a hospital; however, there are major medical facilities in Fredericksburg and

7 Henrico Counties and in Richmond and Charlottesville. Emergency medical and fire services

8 are in transition from volunteer-based to full-time professional. Louisa, Orange, and

9 Spotsylvania Counties either are adding new buildings to their primary and secondary school

10 systems in the vicinity of Lake Anna or are concerned about overcrowding and are considering

11 such additions.

12

13 Summary

14

15 The description of the area’s socioeconomic demographics and community characteristics is not

16 affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a). Discussions of the

17 impacts of construction as related to the changes in ER Revision 6 are presented in Chapter 4,

18 and those of operation are presented in Chapter 5.

19

20 2.9 Historic and Cultural Resources

21

22 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

23 context.

24

25 The area around the North Anna ESP site is rich in prehistoric and historic Native American and

26 historic Euro-American resources. The prehistoric Native American occupation of the region

27 including the North Anna site spans from about 10,000 B.C. to A.D. 1600. Toward the end of

28 that period (about A.D. 1500 to 1675), initial contacts with Europeans and cultural changes

29 associated with subsequent European settlement of the area took place. European settlement

30 of the area around the North Anna site began shortly after 1700, and Louisa County was formed

31 in 1742. The earliest economy of the area was based on cultivation of tobacco in the fertile

32 lands along the North and South Anna River valleys. The area just upriver from the North Anna

33 site was the scene of intensive gold mining in the period from about 1830 to 1900.

34

35 A cultural resource assessment was conducted in 2001, and examination of historic and cultural

36 resource files at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources Archives indicated that no

37 previously recorded cultural resource sites were known to exist at NAPS (Ahlman and

38 Mullin 2001). Similarly, a review of historical documentation at the Louisa County Historical

39 Museum indicates few historic resources in the vicinity of the North Anna site. A field inspection

40 of the proposed ESP project area (Voigt 2003) concluded that much of the proposed ESP site

41 lies within previously disturbed areas, particularly in the eastern portion. However, some
Affected Environment

(a) Minority categories are defined as American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific Islander; or Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; “other” may be considered a separate minority

category. The 2000 Census included multi-racial data. The staff should consider multi-racial

individuals in a separate minority category, in addition to the aggregate minority category when the

Census Bureau releases the updated information (NRC 2004b).

July 2006 2-19 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 undisturbed areas in the western sector have some potential for the presence of cultural

2 resources. Reconnaissance-level historic and archaeological investigations completed in

3 1969 and 1970 for both the North Anna site area and the lake bed area yielded few results

4 (AEC 1973). Cultural resource surveys along transmission line rights-of-way associated with

5 NAPS have largely resulted in negative findings for cultural resources (Saunders 1976;

6 MacCord 1981).

7

8 The proposed plant footprint for Units 3 and 4 cooling towers is unchanged in the ER

9 Revision 6. Therefore, the description of the historic and cultural resources is not affected by

10 the changes presented in ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a).

11

12 2.10 Environmental Justice

13

14 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

15 context.

16

17 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

18 addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) 19 or low-income populations. The

20 memorandum accompanying Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies to

21 consider environmental justice under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although it

22 is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission has voluntarily committed to undertake

23 environmental justice reviews (NRC 2004b). The staff examined the geographic distribution of

24 minority and low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of the North Anna site. Minority

25 populations exist in several counties within 80 km (50 mi) of NAPS, and all minority block

26 groups are more than 16 km (10 mi) from NAPS. Census block groups containing low-income

27 populations are concentrated in the City of Richmond. Also, Henrico and Chesterfield Counties,

28 to the southeast between approximately 65 and 80 km (40 and 50 mi) from the North Anna site,

29 have low-income populations. Other areas of low-income populations include Buckingham

30 County southwest of the site and Charlottesville.

31

32 The description of the local demography for use in the environmental justice analysis is not

33 affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a).

34
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-20 July 2006

1 2.11 Related Federal Projects

2

3 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

4 context.

5

6 The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

7 issuance of an ESP to Dominion. Any such activities could result in cumulative environmental

8 impacts and the opportunity for a Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for

9 preparation of the EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)). After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity

10 of the NAPS site, the staff determined that there were no Federal project activities that would

11 make it desirable for another Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for preparation

12 of the EIS. During the course of preparing the draft EIS, NRC consulted with the FWS and the

13 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service as

14 required by Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA.

15

16 The description of related Federal projects is not affected by the changes presented in ER

17 Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a).

18

19 2.12 References

20

21 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

22 Protection Against Radiation.”

23

24 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

25 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

26

27 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

28 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

29

30 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

31 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”

32

33 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

34 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

35

36 59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

37 Minority and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32. February 16, 1994. 

38

39 Ahlman T. and J. Mullin. 2001. Cultural Resource Assessment, North Anna Power Station,

40 Louisa County, Virginia. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia.

41
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-21 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. North Anna Early Site Permit

2 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Glen Allen, Virginia.

3

4 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005. Letter to the U.S. Army Corps of

5 Engineers regarding confirmation of wetlands delineation. November 16, 2005, Glen Allen,

6 Virginia.

7

8 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

9 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

10

11 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

12 NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

13 dated May 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

14

15 MacCord H.A., Sr. 1981. An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the North Anna –

16 Louisa 230 kV Line, Louisa County, Virginia. The Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond,

17 Virginia.

18

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

20

21 Saunders J.R., Jr. 1976. An Initial survey of the North Anna – Louisa Transmission Line,

22 Louisa County, Virginia. Report on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,

23 Richmond, Virginia.

24

25 Trapp H., Jr. and M.A. Horn. 2000. Ground Water Atlas of the United States, Segment 11,

26 Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. In

27 U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-L, Washington, D.C.

28

29 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

30 Continuation of Construction and the Operation of Units 1 and 2 and Construction of Units 3

31 and 4, North Anna Power Station. Washington, D.C.

32

33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. Threatened and Endangered Species System

34 (TESS) Listings by State and Territory as of 03/01/2004. Virginia. Accessed at

35 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=VA on March 1, 2004.

36

37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.111 – Methods for

38 Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases

39 from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.

40
Affected Environment

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 2-22 July 2006

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

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Regarding North Anna Power Station,

3 Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory

4 Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

5

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

7 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site, NUREG-1811 Draft, Office of Nuclear

8 Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

9

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of

11 Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register,

12 August 24, 2004, Washington, D.C.

13

14 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Authorization to Discharge Under

15 the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Law,

16 Virginia Electric and Power Company, North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Permit No.

17 VA0052451, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond,

18 Virginia.

19

20 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004. Geographic Search. 

21 Fish and Wildlife Information Service. Accessed at www.vafwis.org/perl/vafwis.pl/vafwis.login. 

22 (Note: This is a protected website that is accessible only through VDGIF authorization.)

23

24 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1986. Section 316(a) Demonstration for North

25 Anna Power Station: Environmental Studies of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River.

26 Virginia Power Corporate Technical Assessment, Water Quality Department, Richmond,

27 Virginia.

28

29 Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCo). 2001. Application for License Renewal for North

30 Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Appendix E, Environmental Report – Operating License

31 Renewal Stage. Richmond, Virginia.

32

33 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2005a. Annual Radiological Environmental

34 Operating Report North Anna Power Station - January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004.

35 Richmond Virginia.

36

37 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2005b. Annual Radiological Effluent Release

38 Report for the North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. Richmond,

39 Virginia.

40

41 Virginia State Corporation Commission. 1969. Order of June 12, 1969, Case No. 18869,

42 p. 353, Richmond, Virginia.
Affected Environment

July 2006 2-23 NUREG-1811, SDEIS 

1 Voigt E. 2003. Field Inspection, Early Site Permit (ESP) Project, North Anna Power Station,

2 Louisa County, Virginia. Letter report from Louis Berger Group to Dominion Resources

3 Services, Richmond, Virginia.

4

5 Woods A.J., J.M. Omernik, and D.D. Brown. 1999. Level III Ecoregions of Delaware, Maryland,

6 Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. National Health and Environmental Effects Research

7 Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon. Accessed at

8 http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm on March 1, 2004.

9

July 2006 3-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

2

3

4 This chapter was changed to modify certain sections to reflect information necessary to support

5 the description of the plant parameter envelope aspects related to changes proposed in

6 Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. Section summaries are provided for context.

7

8 The proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) site is located in Louisa County in

9 predominately rural northeastern Virginia, and is within the current North Anna Power Station

10 (NAPS) boundaries. The site is situated approximately 64 km (40 mi) northwest of Richmond,

11 Virginia. The approach Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) used to identify the key

12 plant parameters and site characteristics needed to assess the environmental impacts of the

13 proposed action in Revision 3 of its application (Dominion 2004a) was described in the Draft

14 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP

15 Site (Draft EIS), which was published in November 2004 (NRC 2004a). In Revision 6 to the ER

16 (Dominion 2006), Dominion proposed a change in plant parameters related to the cooling

17 system for proposed Unit 3 and maximum power output for both proposed Units 3 and 4

18 (referred to hereafter as Units 3 and 4), affecting both the safety and the environmental portions

19 of the application.

20

21 Changes to Revision 6 of the ER are reflected in this section, particularly for site layout and

22 plant parameters affected by changes in the maximum power level and the proposed cooling

23 system for Unit 3. This Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) relies

24 on abbreviated descriptions from the Draft EIS published in November 2004 for discussion of

25 the site layout, existing facilities, and other portions of the Draft EIS that remain relevant.

26

27 3.1 External Appearance and Site Layout

28

29 This section was changed to reflect the addition of a combination wet and dry cooling tower

30 system for Unit 3 and to reference the change in proposed power output as presented in

31 Revision 6 of the ER.

32

33 The proposed North Anna ESP site, most of which has been previously disturbed, is located

34 within the existing NAPS site in an area adjacent to the existing units (Figure 3-1). NAPS

35 consists of two operational pressurized water reactors (PWRs) furnished by Westinghouse

36 Electric Company, a shared turbine building, a switchyard, intake and discharge structures, and

37 support buildings. NAPS is located on the shore of Lake Anna, an impoundment created in

38 1971 by constructing a dam on the main stem of the North Anna River to create a source of

39 cooling water for NAPS. The Lake Anna reservoir is divided into Lake Anna, which serves as

40 the cooling water source for NAPS Units 1 and 2, and the Waste Heat Treatment Facility

41 (WHTF), which receives the heated discharge. The existing units use a spray pond for an

42 ultimate heat sink. A radioactive waste disposal system, a fuel-handling system, an
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-2 July 2006

1 independent spent fuel storage installation, auxiliary structures, and other onsite facilities

2 necessary for a complete operating nuclear power plant also exist on the NAPS site. With the

3 exception of a few support buildings that may be relocated, existing structures at the NAPS site

4 would remain unchanged with the addition of new units. The ESP site characteristics are listed

5 in Appendix I, Table I-2 of this document.

6

7 For purposes of the ESP application, a specific plant design has not been selected for the

8 proposed new Units 3 and 4; instead, a set of plant-parameter values was chosen for the staff’s

9 evaluation of the development of the North Anna ESP site. This plant parameter envelope

10 (PPE) is based on the addition of two new power generating units, each of which would be a

11 stand-alone unit with its own support systems. Appendix I, Table I-2 lists the PPE values used

12 by the staff. Dominion states that the new units would share ancillary support structures such

13 as maintenance facilities, office centers, and wastewater and water treatment plants. Each new

14 unit would represent a portion of the total generation capacity to be added, and may consist of

15 one or more reactors or reactor modules. These multiple reactors or modules (the number of

16 which may vary depending on the reactor type selected) would be grouped into distinct

17 operating units. The nuclear generating capacity to be added would not exceed

18 4500 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)) per unit, or up to a total of 9000 MW(t) for two units. For the

19 cooling systems, Dominion has proposed using combination wet and dry cooling towers for

20 Unit 3 and dry cooling towers for Unit 4. The proposed location for the cooling towers is

21 illustrated in Figure 3-1.

22

23 3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope

24

25 This section was changed to reflect modifications to the ESP parameter values relating to the

26 higher power output and the Unit 3 cooling system as presented in Revision 6 of the ER.

27

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

29 associated facilities, but should provide sufficient values for parameters for the reactor or

30 reactors and the associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can be made. 

31 Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a PPE as a surrogate for a nuclear power plant

32 and its associated facilities.

33

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

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

36 The PPE values are surrogates for actual reactor design information. Analysis of environmental

37 impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the selection of a reactor

38 design until the construction permit (CP) or combined construction and operating license

39 (combined license or COL) stage. The PPE reflects the value of each parameter that it

40 encompasses rather than the characteristics of any specific reactor design.

41
July 2006 3-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Figure 3-1. Proposed Major ESP Structures (Units 3 and 4) in Relation to Existing Units 1 and 2 Structures 31

Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-4 July 2006

1 In its North Anna ESP application, Dominion used a composite of values from seven reactor

2 designs to develop the PPE for the ESP application. The values in this EIS are not

3 design-specific; rather, they are used to determine the environmental impacts of a reactor

4 design that falls within the values used in this report. The reactor designs used to develop the

5 PPE include the following five light-water reactor and two gas-cooled reactor types: 

6

7 • Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor (ACR-700) – This reactor, developed by Atomic

8 Energy Canada Limited, is an evolutionary extension of the CANDU 6 plant that using very

9 slightly enriched uranium fuel and light-water cooling.

10

11 • Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by General Electric

12 Company, is a standardized plant that has been certified under the NRC requirements in

13 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Appendix A. The ABWR is

14 fueled with slightly enriched uranium and uses light-water cooling.

15

16 • Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (AP1000) – This is an earlier version of the AP1000

17 reactor design, using slightly enriched uranium and light-water cooling. This design is not

18 the AP1000 that has been certified by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D; therefore,

19 this design is referred to as the “surrogate AP1000.”

20

21 • Surrogate Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This surrogate reactor is

22 based on a design developed by General Electric Company, is fueled with slightly enriched

23 uranium and uses light-water cooling. Dominion revised its application to reflect a higher

24 power level value of 4500 MW(t) (Dominion 2006). The ESBWR design certification

25 application is currently under review by the NRC.

26

27 • International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) next generation PWR – This reactor is

28 under development by a consortium led by Westinghouse Electric Company and is a

29 modular light-water reactor.

30

31 • Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) – This reactor, developed by General

32 Atomics, is a modular helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor.

33

34 • Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) – This reactor, developed by PBMR (Pty) Ltd., is a

35 modular graphite-moderated, helium-cooled gas turbine reactor.

36

37 Revision 6 of the ESP application addresses changes to the Unit 3 cooling system and the PPE

38 power level for Units 3 and 4. PPE values were adjusted to reflect the change to the cooling

39 system for Unit 3 and the higher power level and other parameter changes associated with the

40 power level increase.
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

July 2006 3-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Dominion would not be required to use any of these designs if it elects to proceed with a CP or

2 COL application; however, a CP or COL applicant referencing an ESP would have to address

3 whether the characteristics of the reactor ultimately selected fall within the values of the design

4 parameters specified in the ESP.

5

6 Review Approach

7

8 NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000), and review

9 standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (NRC 2004b), provide

10 guidance to the NRC staff to help ensure a thorough, consistent, and disciplined review of any

11 ESP application. The staff’s June 23, 2003 response to comments received on draft RS-002

12 (NRC 2003) provide additional insights into the staff’s approach to the review of an application

13 employing the PPE approach.

14

15 Because PPE values were used as a surrogate for design-specific values, the staff expected

16 Dominion to provide information sufficient for the staff to develop a reasonable independent

17 assessment of potential impacts to specific environmental resources. In some cases, the

18 design-specific information called for in the ESRP were not provided in the Dominion ESP

19 application because it did not exist or was not available. Therefore, the NRC staff could not

20 apply the ESRP guidance in those review areas. In such cases, the NRC staff used its

21 experience and judgment to adapt the review guidance in the ESRP and to develop

22 assumptions necessary to evaluate impacts to certain environmental resources to account for

23 this missing information. These assumptions are discussed in the appropriate sections of

24 this SDEIS.

25

26 Because the Dominion PPE values do not reflect a specific design, they were not reviewed by

27 the NRC staff for correctness. However, the NRC staff made a determination that the

28 application was sufficient to enable the staff to conduct its required environmental review and

29 that the PPE values are not unreasonable for consideration by the staff when making its finding

30 on the application in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18. During its environmental review, the staff

31 used its judgment to determine whether Dominion provided information sufficient for the staff to

32 perform its independent assessment of the environmental impacts of construction and operation

33 of a new nuclear unit or units. Dominion expects that the PPE values will bound the design

34 characteristics of a reactor or reactors that might be constructed at the North Anna ESP site. 

35 At the COL stage, as required by 10 CFR 52.79, the applicant must, in addition to the

36 information and analysis otherwise required, submit information sufficient to demonstrate that

37 the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP. If actual reactor

38 characteristics do not fall within the PPE values on which the staff based its estimate of the

39 potential environmental impacts resulting from constructing and operating one or more new

40 nuclear units at the ESP site, the staff will consider whether the difference between the actual

41 characteristics and the PPE value is significant.

42
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-6 July 2006

1 Based on discussions with Dominion (NRC 2006), ER Revision 6 Table 3.1-1 provides

2 information from various reactor designs that were used to develop the bounding site-specific

3 PPE values contained in ER Table 3.1-9. So the values in ER Table 3.1-1 are generic values

4 and not site-specific values. Therefore, the site-specific values in ER Table 3.1-9 differ from the

5 generic values in ER Table 3.1-1. ER Tables 5.4-6 and 5.4-7 provide bounding PPE values for

6 the radionuclide activities. Therefore, the PPE values provided in ER tables 3.1-9, 5.4-6, and

7 5.4-7 are used in the staff’s analysis unless specifically noted otherwise. The PPE values used

8 by the staff are provided in Appendix I of this SDEIS.

9

10 Throughout the North Anna ESP environmental report, Dominion (2006) provides:

11

12 (1) Statements of plans to address certain issues in the design, construction, and operation of

13 the facility

14

15 (2) Statements of planned compliance with current laws, regulations, and requirements

16

17 (3) Statements of plans for future activities and actions that it will take should it decide to

18 apply for a CP or COL

19

20 (4) Descriptions of Dominion’s estimate of the environmental impacts resulting from the

21 construction and operation of a new nuclear unit or units on the North Anna ESP site 

22

23 (5) Descriptions of Dominion’s estimates of future activities and actions of others and the

24 likely environmental impacts of those activities and actions that would be expected should

25 Dominion decide to apply for a CP or COL.

26

27 The activities described include, but are not limited to, such actions as:

28

29 & Considering the results of testing and monitoring during the development of a CP or

30 COL application

31

32 & Complying with NRC regulations and those of other agencies, including obtaining

33 appropriate permits from other agencies

34

35 & Taking actions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (e.g., best management

36 practices)

37

38 & Addressing certain issues at the CP or COL stage that were not addressed in the ESP

39 application.

40
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

July 2006 3-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Some of these future actions are those that Dominion would be required to implement because

2 they are currently required by law, and others are actions that Dominion has indicated that it

3 would implement without the legal obligation to take such actions. 

4

5 The staff performed its evaluation of the impacts of constructing and operating one or more new

6 nuclear units at the ESP site assuming that these activities and actions would be undertaken by

7 Dominion and others during future licensing activities. As discussed previously, the staff

8 developed assumptions necessary to evaluate impacts to certain environmental resources to

9 account for missing detailed information. In addition to other sources of information obtained

10 independently, the staff considered future activities and actions, estimates of expected

11 environmental impacts that were identified by Dominion in its ER, and the PPE values listed in

12 Appendix I when developing the inputs and assumptions used in the NRC staff’s independent

13 review of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating one or more new units on the

14 North Anna ESP site. The staff has identified missing information with respect to particular

15 resources, the staff’s assumptions in evaluating such resources, and any resulting limitations in

16 the staff’s conclusions or the environmental impacts to particular resources, where appropriate. 

17 In addition, as a result of the staff’s environmental review of the Dominion ESP application, the

18 staff determined that conditions or limitations on the ESP may be necessary in specific areas, in

19 accordance with 10 CFR 52.24. Proposed permit conditions are set forth in individual EIS

20 sections for particular resources.

21

22 3.2.1 Plant Water Use

23

24 This section was changed to remove references to the once-through cooling system previously

25 described in the Draft EIS.

26

27 This SDEIS assesses the impacts of plant water use based on the values of design parameters

28 provided by Dominion in ER Revision 6. At the ESP stage, the staff’s review of the design

29 parameters is limited to an evaluation of whether the parameter values are not unreasonable. 

30 At the COL stage, a COL applicant referencing the ESP is required to demonstrate that the

31 specific plant design would fall within the design parameters in the ESP. The following sections

32 describe both the consumptive and non-consumptive water uses of proposed Units 3 and 4 and

33 the associated plant water treatment systems.

34

35 3.2.1.1 Plant Water Consumption

36

37 This section was changed to reflect the water consumed by the closed-cycle, combination wet

38 and dry cooling system for Unit 3 as presented in Revision 6 of the ER.

39

40 This section describes plant water consumption demands, excluding those demands that are

41 part of the normal and ultimate heat sink cooling system. Consumptive water demands
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-8 July 2006

1 associated with the cooling systems are discussed in Section 3.2.2. Non-cooling system related

2 water demands are relatively small compared to the consumptive cooling demands of Unit 3. 

3

4 Units 3 and 4 would have identical demands for potable water, demineralized water, and fire

5 protection water. In its ER Revision 6 (Table 3.3-1), Dominion states that the normal water

6 demands for these systems are 41.3 L/s (655 gpm) per unit (Dominion 2006). These demands

7 could increase up to a maximum of 210 L/s (3340 gpm) when the fire protection system is

8 operating at full capacity. Potable water would be provided from groundwater wells, whereas

9 the demineralized water and fire protection water would be supplied from Lake Anna.

10

11 3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment

12

13 This section was not affected by changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER except to refer to

14 Unit 3 along with Unit 4 in relation to makeup water treatment.

15

16 Because no specific design has been selected, the water treatment systems for the proposed

17 Units 3 and 4 are not specified. Currently, Lake Anna is the source for Units 1 and 2 condenser

18 cooling and service water. This water is not treated. Makeup water for the proposed Units 3

19 and 4 and both ultimate heat sink systems would require treatment with biocides, antiscalants,

20 and dispersants. Treatment of makeup water for ultra-pure water systems, such as the

21 condensate and primary cooling systems, would employ technologies such as reverse osmosis

22 and ultra-filtration. The water quality of effluents from any water treatment would be regulated

23 by a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit for the units.

24

25 3.2.2 Cooling System

26

27 This section was changed to reflect the revision from a once-through system to a closed-cycle,

28 combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 as presented in Revision 6 of the ER.

29

30 The following sections provide detailed descriptions of the operational modes and the

31 components of the cooling water systems for the proposed Units 3 and 4. Non-cooling system

32 related water consumption, including potable, demineralized, and fire protection water demands

33 are discussed in Section 3.2.1.

34

35 The plant would primarily use wet towers to cool Unit 3 during periods of relative water surplus,

36 which are defined as periods when the water surface elevation of Lake Anna is at or above

37 elevation 76.2 m (250 ft) above mean sea level (MSL). In Revision 6 of the Dominion ER, this

38 cooling mode for Unit 3 is termed the Energy Conservation (EC) mode. During periods when

39 the elevation of Lake Anna is below 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL for a period of seven or more

40 consecutive days, excess heat generated by Unit 3 operation would be dissipated using a dry

41 cooling tower, assuming suitable atmospheric conditions exist at the site. If atmospheric

42 conditions were such that Unit 3 dry cooling towers could not completely cool the circulating
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

July 2006 3-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 water, Dominion would employ wet towers to dissipate the remaining excess heat. The dry

2 cooling towers would be designed so that they would be capable of removing at least one-third

3 of the excess heat from Unit 3 under worst-case atmospheric conditions. Dominion terms this

4 cooling mode for Unit 3 as the Maximum Water Conservation (MWC) mode.

5

6 The two proposed units employ considerably different cooling systems with vastly different

7 water needs (Dominion 2006). The proposed Unit 3 would use a closed-cycle, combination wet

8 and dry cooling tower system. A conceptual diagram of this approach is illustrated in

9 Figure 3-2. Unit 4 would use a dry cooling system that transfers heat directly from the

10 condenser to an air cooled heat exchanger without the use of Lake Anna cooling water. There

11 was no change to the Unit 4 cooling system in Revision 6 of the ER, which was evaluated in the

12 Draft EIS. Therefore, the Unit 4 dry cooling system is not evaluated in this SDEIS, and

13 discussion of Unit 4 dry cooling is for context purposes only.

14

15 The heat from the turbine generator is transferred to the cooling water in the surface condenser. 

16 The cooling water passes through the dry cooling tower and, in the MWC mode, transfers one

17 third of the heat to the atmosphere. Cooling water leaving the dry towers would then pass

18 through the wet towers to remove the balance of condenser/heat exchanger rejected heat by

19 spraying the water into a forced or induced air stream. After passing through the cooling

20 towers, the cooled water would be recirculated back to the surface condenser to complete

21 the closed-cycle cooling water loop. Make-up water to the circulating water system and

22 service water cooling system would be obtained from Lake Anna. Blowdown (recirculating

23 water removed from the cooling system to reduce the buildup of contaminants, such as

24 dissolved solid) from the cooling systems would be discharged to the existing plant WHTF

25 discharge canal.

26

27 3.2.2.1 Description and Operational Modes

28

29 This section was changed to reflect the operating modes of the closed-cycle, combination wet

30 and dry cooling system for Unit 3 as presented in Revision 6 of the ER.

31

32 The operating modes for the proposed Units 3 and 4 under normal operating and

33 emergency/shutdown conditions are described in the following paragraphs. In Revision 6 to the

34 ER, Dominion states that the minimum lake level for operation of the proposed units would be

35 an elevation of 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL.

36

37 Unit 3 Normal Cooling

38

39 Dominion states that the bounding thermal power generated by Unit 3 would be 4500 MW(t),

40 and that the bounding heat rejection rate to the environment would be 3020 MW

(1.03 x 1010 41 Btu/hr). Excess heat generated by the unit would be dissipated through the use of

42 a series of closed-cycle cooling towers that can operate in two modes: EC and MWC modes. 
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-10 July 2006

1

2

3 Figure 3-2. Conceptual Closed Loop Cooling Water Diagram

4

5
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

July 2006 3-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The EC mode of rejecting excess heat generated by Unit 3 would be employed when surplus

2 water is available from Lake Anna. Surplus water would be considered available when

3 (1) the lake level elevation of Lake Anna is at or above 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL or (2) the lake level

4 elevation has fallen below elevation 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL for a period of less than seven

5 consecutive days.

6

7 In the EC mode, excess heat generated by Unit 3 would be dissipated by closed-cycle wet

8 cooling towers. Makeup water would be supplied from Lake Anna at a maximum flow rate of

9 1405 L/s (22,268 gpm). The blowdown flow rate and the related evaporation rate associated

10 with the wet cooling towers would vary depending on thermal output from the unit and

11 environmental conditions. In its PPE, Dominion states that the maximum evaporation rate

12 would be 1053 L/s (16,695 gpm) and the maximum blowdown discharge would be 351 L/s

13 (5565 gpm) in the EC mode.

14

15 The MWC mode of rejecting excess heat generated by Unit 3 would be employed when water

16 levels in the lake drop below elevation 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL for a period of one week or more. 

17 Under favorable meteorological conditions, the entire excess heat load from Unit 3 would be

18 dissipated using closed-cycle dry cooling towers. These towers would be sized so that under

19 the worst-case conditions (i.e., full power operation and a hot and humid atmosphere at tower

20 level), at least one-third of the maximum Unit 3 excess heat would be dissipated via the dry

21 tower system. The remaining excess heat would be dissipated by the wet tower system. 

22 Therefore, although the MWC mode uses less water than the EC mode, it is possible that up to

23 two-thirds of the total heat load would be dissipated by wet cooling.

24

25 In the MWC mode, the maximum makeup flow rate from Lake Anna to the wet tower system

26 would be 971 L/s (15,384 gpm). The maximum blowdown discharge and evaporation rate from

27 the wet towers are 245 L/s (3844 gpm), and 728 L/s (11,532 gpm), respectively. 

28

29 Unit 4 Normal Cooling

30

31 During normal operation, the proposed Unit 4 would use a system of closed-loop dry cooling

32 towers. The makeup water flow rate to the circulating water system would be negligible (on the

33 order of 0.06 L/s [1 gpm]). No blowdown would be generated by these towers.

34

35 Ultimate Heat Sink

36

37 For safety-related cooling, an ultimate heat sink (UHS) would be constructed to provide water

38 for reactor cooling and safety-related components of Units 3 and 4. The same UHS design

39 would be used for each unit. Each UHS would be composed of a mechanical draft cooling

40 tower with a 71.6 m wide by 107 m long by 15.2 m deep (235 ft wide by 350 ft long by

41 50 ft deep) engineered underground basin constructed beneath each tower (Dominion 2004b). 

These basins would be large enough to store a water volume of 1.16 x 105 m3 (3.06 x 107 42 gal),
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-12 July 2006

1 which is adequate to hold a 30-day supply of emergency cooling water (Dominion 2006). 

2 During periods when the ultimate heat sink cooling towers are in operation, the towers would

3 withdraw a maximum makeup flow of 110 L/s (1700 gpm) from each basin. The blowdown from

4 the UHS towers would be discharged into the WHTF. 

5

6 During periods of normal plant operation, a negligible volume of makeup water would be used to

7 offset any water losses from the UHS basins. This water would originate from Lake Anna

8 (Dominion 2006).

9

10 3.2.2.2 Component Descriptions

11

12 This section was changed to reflect the components of the closed-cycle, combination wet and

13 dry cooling system for Unit 3 as presented in Revision 6 of the ER.

14

15 The following sections describe the intake, discharge, and heat dissipation systems for

16 proposed Units 3 and 4. Pursuant to Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, an

17 applicant for a CP or COL referencing an ESP for the North Anna ESP site would be required to

18 obtain approval from the Commonwealth of Virginia by documenting plant design and

19 conducting site-specific analyses regarding the impacts of the thermal discharges and operation

20 of the intake systems on the Lake Anna aquatic environment.

21

22 Intake System

23

24 The proposed location of the intake structure for Unit 3 is shown in Figure 3-1. Any makeup

25 water required for Unit 4 could be obtained from the Unit 3 intakes. The location of the intake

26 would be in the same approximate location as the intakes planned for the two additional power

27 reactor units proposed at the time that NAPS Units 1 and 2 were licensed. The size of the

28 intake structure originally proposed for Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2004a) was intended to support

29 once-through cooling of proposed Unit 3. In Revision 6 of the ER, Dominion reduced the size of

30 the proposed intake structure to support Unit 3 operation to 21 m (70 ft) long and 21 m (70 ft)

31 wide because of the reduced need for cooling water. The intake system proposed for ESP

32 Unit 3 would consist of a structure next to the lake with trash racks, traveling screens, and pump

33 bays, similar to the design currently in use by Units 1 and 2. As a result of the smaller intake

34 structure, Dominion expects no major modifications to the shoreline or the existing intake

35 channel. As previously proposed, the cofferdam would still be removed to allow water access

36 from Lake Anna.

37

38 Discharge System

39

40 Blowdown discharge from the wet towers associated with Unit 3 would enter the WHTF via the

41 discharge canal currently used by the existing units. The PPE maximum blowdown discharge

42 from Unit 3 would be 351 L/s (5565 gpm). There would be no blowdown discharge from Unit 4. 
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

July 2006 3-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The discharge canal and WHTF canal system were designed to convey approximately

2 230,000 L/s (8000 cfs), and the maximum flow rate from the existing units is approximately

3 120,000 L/s (4300 cfs). The discharge canal and WHTF system could therefore easily

4 accommodate the extra water discharged by the proposed units. The licensee may combine

5 the blowdown flow from Unit 3 with the discharge from the existing NAPS units and use the

6 current Unit 1 and 2 discharge structure, or construct a separate discharge structure in the

7 vicinity of the partially completed discharge structure planned for the two additional power

8 reactors proposed at the time NAPS Units 1 and 2 were licensed (see Figure 3-1).

9

10 Heat Dissipation Systems

11

12 The normal cooling needs of Unit 3 would be provided by a closed-cycle, combination wet and

13 dry towers. The percentage of excess heat dissipated by the dry towers would depend on the

14 availability of water from Lake Anna and ambient environmental conditions. If excess water

15 were available, Unit 3 would be cooled entirely by use of the wet towers. Under times of relative

16 drought and favorable meteorological conditions, the majority of the Unit 3 waste heat would be

17 dissipated by the dry towers. 

18

19 The normal cooling needs of Unit 4 would be provided solely by a closed-cycle dry tower

20 system. Unit 4 would have a negligible consumptive water demand on Lake Anna.

21

22 Wet cooling tower systems rely primarily on evaporative heat transfer to the atmosphere to

23 dissipate the rejected thermal load. Dry cooling tower systems rely entirely on sensible heat

24 transfer between the fluid circulating in the condenser loop and the ambient air. Dry towers are

25 completely closed systems and therefore use negligible amounts of makeup water and produce

26 negligible blowdown water. Dry cooling towers use large fans to keep air flowing over their

27 radiators, so there is an associated high energy cost that significantly reduces plant efficiency. 

28 The efficiency penalty of dry cooling towers can exceed 12 percent (EPA 2001). Dominion’s

29 combination wet and dry cooling system has an energy efficiency penalty of 1.7 to 4 percent

30 (Dominion 2006).

31

32 For safety-related cooling, the UHS for each of the proposed Units 3 and 4 would provide water

33 to the reactor cooling systems and safety-related components. As proposed, both plants would

34 use the same UHS design, which would be composed of a mechanical draft cooling tower with

35 an engineered basin constructed underground beneath it (Dominion 2006). The basin would

36 have a storage capacity adequate to hold a 30-day supply of emergency cooling water.

37
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-14 July 2006

1 3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Management System

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER with the

4 exception that it now reflects the revised plant parameter envelope value of 4500 MW(t) for the

5 core thermal power level for one unit (9000 MW(t) for two units). This section is provided solely

6 for context.

7

8 Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect

9 and treat the radioactive materials that are produced as a by-product of operating the proposed

10 Units 3 and 4 on the North Anna ESP site. These systems would process radioactive liquid,

11 gaseous, and solid effluents to maintain releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as

12 reasonably achievable (ALARA) before being released to the environment.

13

14 Dominion did not identify specific radioactive waste management systems for the North Anna

15 ESP site. The PPE concept was used to provide an upper bound on liquid radioactive effluents,

16 gaseous radioactive effluents, and solid radioactive waste releases (Dominion 2006) (See

17 Appendix I).

18

19 Adequate design information to estimate liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents was available

20 for four of the seven reactor designs considered in establishing PPE values. The four reactors

21 were LWRs and included the certified ABWR, the surrogate AP1000 PWR, the ACR-700

22 light-water-cooled, heavy-water moderated reactor, and the surrogate ESBWR. If a different

23 reactor design is selected at the COL stage, the applicant would have to demonstrate that the

24 design is bounded by the PPE values.

25

26 3.2.4 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

27

28 This section is not affected by the changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER. This section is

29 provided solely for context.

30

31 Dominion describes the nonradioactive waste systems for the proposed Units 3 and 4 in

32 Section 3.6 of its ER (Dominion 2006). The description of the systems was not affected by

33 Revision 6 to the ER.

34
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

July 2006 3-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 3.3 Power Transmission System

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in Revision 6 of the ER with the

4 exception that it now reflects the revised plant parameter envelope value of 4500 MW(t) for the

5 core thermal power level for one unit (9000 MW(t) for two units). This section is provided solely

6 for context.

7

8 In its ER, Dominion indicates the existing transmission system (three 500-kV lines and one

9 230-kV line) has the capacity to handle the output from the existing Units 1 and 2 plus the

10 anticipated output from the proposed Units 3 and 4 (Dominion 2006). No additional construction

11 of transmission lines would be expected for Units 3 and 4.

12

13 3.4 References

14

15 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

16 Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

17

18 Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251,

19 et seq.

20

21 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit

22 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia, July 25, 2005.

23

24 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter Response to Request for

25 Additional Information Regarding Safety Portion of ESP Application, No. 04-318, Glen Allen,

26 Virginia, August 2, 2004.

27

28 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

29 Applications – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

30

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Technical Development Document for

32 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. EPA-821-R-01-036,

33 Washington, D.C.

34

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

36 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

37 Washington, D.C. Available at 

38 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/.

39
Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 3-16 July 2006

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Response to Comments on Draft RS-002,

2 Processing Applications for Early Site Permits. Available at 

3 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML031710698.

4

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

6 (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811 Draft, Office of

7 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

8

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Processing Applications for Early Site

10 Permits. RS-002, Washington, D.C. Available at 

11 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML040700236.

12

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. June 7, 2006, Summary of

14 Teleconferences with Dominion on June 2 and June 5, 2006, Regarding the North Anna Early

15 Site Permit Application. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession

16 No. ML061580174.

17

18
July 2006 4-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 4.0 Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

2

3

4 This chapter of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was changed to

5 incorporate additional information necessary to support the analysis of construction impacts

6 related to changes proposed in Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. Section summaries are

7 provided for context.

8

9 This chapter examines the environmental impacts of construction associated with potential site

10 preparation activities and construction of the proposed North Anna Power Station (NAPS)

11 Units 3 and 4 as described in the application for an early site permit (ESP) submitted by

12 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). As part of its application, Dominion submitted

13 an Environmental Report (ER) and a site redress plan (Dominion 2006). The ER provides the

14 plant parameter envelope (PPE) as the basis for the environmental review. The parameters

15 included in the PPE and their values are listed in Appendix I. The site redress plan allows for

16 specific site preparation activities to be conducted with approval of an ESP. These activities

17 evaluated are those permitted by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.25(a)

18 and 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). In the event the ESP application is approved and Dominion conducts

19 site preparation activities but does not build the plant, Dominion would be required to implement

20 its site redress plan.

21

22 The approach Dominion used to identify the environmental impacts of construction in Revision 3

23 of its application (Dominion 2004) is described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

24 (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site (Draft EIS) published in

25 November 2004 (NRC 2004a). The changes described in Revision 6 to the application relate to

26 two specific issues and their ramifications for other aspects of the environmental analysis. 

27 These two issues are (1) a change in the cooling system proposed for Unit 3 to a closed-cycle,

28 combination wet and dry cooling system and (2) an increase in the thermal power level in the

29 PPE for proposed Units 3 and 4 (hereafter referred to as Units 3 and 4). The change in the

30 cooling system from a once-through system to a closed-cycle system is relevant to this chapter. 

31 Unlike the once-through cooling system for Unit 3 previously evaluated in the Draft EIS and

32 which only involves intake and discharge structures, the combination wet and dry cooling

33 system would involve the construction of an intake structure and cooling towers. The intake

34 structure for the new system would be smaller than that of the once-through cooling system. 

35 The size of the construction workforce and construction duration to build the proposed cooling

36 towers falls within the parameters analyzed in the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a). The change in the

37 maximum power level does not affect this chapter.

38

39 This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 4.1 through 4.9 discuss the changes in the

40 construction impacts, if any, resulting from differences between the information in ER Revision 3

41 and ER Revision 6. For those sections in which there is no change in analysis as a result of ER

42 Revision 6, brief summaries of the topics and the impact levels determined in the Draft EIS are

43 provided solely for context. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, impacts have been evaluated
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-2 July 2006

1 and conclusions have been made; in addition, an impact category level of potential adverse

2 impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to each resource area. 

3 Negligible impacts are listed as SMALL impacts. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where

4 appropriate, is presented in Section 4.10, followed by a description of the site redress plan in

5 Section 4.11. A summary of construction impacts is presented in Section 4.12. Full citations for

6 the references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 4.13. Cumulative impacts of

7 construction and operation are discussed in Chapter 7. The technical analyses in this chapter

8 support the results, conclusions, and recommendations in Chapters 9 and 10.

9

10 The staff relied on the mitigation measures described in the ER and in Section 4.10 of the Draft

11 EIS in reaching its conclusions on the significance of the adverse impacts. The staff relied on

12 the infrastructure upgrades planned by the counties, cities, and towns, such as road and school

13 expansions, in evaluating the significance of the impacts. Failure to implement such

14 infrastructure upgrades could result in a larger impact in the affected resource areas.

15

16 Changes in this chapter are limited to impacts related to the construction of the proposed

17 combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3.

18

19 4.1 Land-Use Impacts

20

21 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

22 for context.

23

24 This section provides information regarding land-use impacts associated with site preparation

25 activities and construction of the proposed closed-cycle cooling system for Unit 3 at the North

26 Anna ESP site. This section and its subsections are not affected by the changes presented in

27 ER Revision 6.

28

29 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

30

31 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

32 for context.

33

34 The ESP site is located entirely within the existing NAPS site, which is zoned for industrial use

35 by Louisa County. All construction activities for proposed Units 3 and 4, including

36 ground-disturbing activities, would occur within the existing NAPS site boundary. According to

37 Dominion (2006), approximately 52 ha (128 ac) would be affected on a long-term basis as a

38 result of permanent facilities. An additional 27.5 ha (67.9 ac) would be disturbed on a

39 short-term basis as a result of temporary activities and construction of temporary facilities and

40 laydown areas. Dominion states that it would conduct any ground-disturbing activities in
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 accordance with Federal, State and local regulatory requirements (Dominion 2006). The

2 planned power block area is relatively level. Undulating surfaces in the area of the planned

3 cooling towers would be leveled to accommodate the towers and would be contained within the

4 land area previously evaluated before the change to the Unit 3 cooling system design. 

5 Dominion has submitted a site redress plan, which was evaluated in Section 4.11 of

6 the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a).

7

8 Based on the counties’ comprehensive land-use plans for the surrounding vicinity, the site

9 redress plan, and its independent review, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of

10 construction did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is

11 not warranted.

12

13 4.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

14

15 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

16 for context.

17

18 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that, based on the evaluation provided by

19 Dominion, no additional electrical transmission lines or rights-of-way would be needed to

20 transmit the power generated by the proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4 to the regional power

21 grid (Dominion 2006). Even with the change in cooling system for Unit 3 and the higher power

22 level, construction would be limited to onsite work, and no additional land beyond that

23 previously evaluated would be needed to connect the new units to the grid.

24

25 Because construction would be limited to onsite work and no additional land would be needed

26 to connect the new units to the grid, the staff concludes that land-use impacts resulting from

27 construction in transmission line rights-of-way did not change. The impact level category would

28 still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

29

30 4.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

31

32 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

33 for context.

34

35 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that some minor air quality impacts would be

36 expected to occur during construction at the North Anna ESP site. The likely sources of air

37 quality impacts would be fugitive dust emissions from general construction activities and the

38 potential for elevated ambient air quality levels caused by emissions from the vehicles used by

39 the workforce and from construction equipment. 

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-4 July 2006

1 4.2.1 Construction Activities

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that all construction activities would be

7 conducted in accordance with Virginia Administrative Codes 9 VAC 5-50 (Visible and Fugitive

8 Dust Emissions) and 9 VAC 5-40-5680 (Emission Standard for Mobile Sources – Vehicles). 

9 Even with the change in cooling system for Unit 3, the type of general construction activities is

10 not expected to be different from that previously evaluated.

11

12 Based on its independent evaluation of the requirements set forth in Virginia Administrative

13 Codes and measures of dust control plans identified in the ER, the staff concludes that air

14 quality impacts from construction, both onsite and beyond the plant boundary, would be

15 temporary and did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and further

16 mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted. 

17

18 4.2.2 Transportation

19

20 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

21 for context.

22

23 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that during construction, workers traveling to

24 and from the site could impact the local ambient air quality levels because of emissions from

25 vehicles both during normal operation and during periods of traffic congestion when vehicles are

26 stopped with their engines idling. Dominion indicated that it would develop and implement a

27 construction traffic management plan to mitigate the impact of vehicular traffic on air quality

28 (Dominion 2006). Even with the change in cooling system for Unit 3, the size of the

29 construction workforce is not expected to be different from that previously evaluated.

30

31 Based on the mitigation identified by Dominion in its ER to develop a traffic management plan

32 and its own independent review, the staff concludes that the impacts on the local air quality from

33 the increase in vehicular traffic related to construction activities would be temporary and did not

34 change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the

35 actions stated above is not warranted. 

36
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 4.3 Water-Related Impacts

2

3 Changes to this section reflect construction impacts on water resources from the closed-cycle,

4 combination wet and dry cooling system.

5

6 Revision 6 to Dominion’s ER proposes the use of a combination wet and dry cooling tower

7 system to dissipate heat from Unit 3. The proposed cooling for Unit 4 remains a dry cooling

8 tower system. For the proposed Unit 3, the makeup water flowrate from Lake Anna for the

9 cooling tower would be considerably less than the estimated flowrate for the initially proposed

10 once-through design. The potential impacts on water resources expected to result from

11 constructing proposed Unit 3 are primarily from construction of the intake structures. No intake

12 structure is required for Unit 4.

13

14 Water-related impacts involved in the construction of a nuclear power plant are similar to

15 impacts that would be associated with any large industrial construction project. Prior to initiating

16 construction, including any site preparation work, Dominion would be required to obtain the

17 appropriate permits regulating alterations to the hydrological environment. These permits would

18 likely include:

19

20 & Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. This permit would be issued by the U.S. Army

21 Corps of Engineers (ACE), which governs impacts of construction activities on wetlands

22 and management of dredged material.

23

24 & Clean Water Act Section 401 certification. This certification would be issued by the

25 Commonwealth of Virginia and would ensure that the project does not conflict with water

26 quality management programs in the Commonwealth.

27

28 & Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

29 (NPDES) construction and industrial storm water permit. This permit would regulate

30 point source storm water discharges. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

31 (EPA) 1990 Phase 1 Storm Water regulation (40 CFR 122.26) established requirements

32 for storm water discharges from various activities including construction activities

33 disturbing an area of at least 2.0 ha (5.0 ac). EPA has delegated the authority for

34 administering the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to

35 the Commonwealth of Virginia.

36

37 & Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Section 307 Consistency Determination (and

38 15 CFR Part 930). Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act

39 [16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)] requires that applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an

40 activity in a coastal zone are to provide to the licensing agency a certification that the

41 proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the State’s coastal zone
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-6 July 2006

1 program. While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administers the

2 CZMA, the authority to concur in or object to the consistency determination has been

3 delegated to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ).

4

5 4.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

6

7 Changes to this section reflect construction impacts on water resources from the closed-cycle,

8 combination wet and dry cooling system intake structure and intake channel.

9

10 Unlike Dominion’s initial proposal for once-through cooling for Unit 3 considered in the

11 Draft EIS, the current proposal to use a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system

12 for Unit 3 would lead to significantly less alteration of the hydrological regime. To support the

13 once-through cooling proposed for Unit 3, Dominion in Revision 3 of the ER (Dominion 2004)

14 proposed a cooling water intake structure that was approximately 46 m (150 ft) long and 61 m

15 (200 ft) wide and would have housed the trash racks, traveling screens, and intake pumps. The

16 intake channel would have extended from the intake structure toward the west slope of the

17 intake cove, and construction would have resulted in the removal or reshaping of the shoreline

18 to accommodate the intake structure and to reduce the intake approach velocity.

19

20 Dominion proposes a 21 m (70 ft) long and 21 m (70 ft) wide intake structure to support the

21 combination wet and dry cooling tower. Dominion expects no modifications to the shoreline or

22 the existing intake channel. As previously proposed, the existing cofferdam would still be

23 removed to allow water access from Lake Anna. Implementing best management practices

24 (BMPs) for dredging would minimize the sediment that would enter the lake during removal of

25 the cofferdam. Any impacts of dredging would be localized and temporary. Before initiation any

26 shoreline modification or dredging activities, Dominion would be required to obtain a 404 permit

27 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE).

28

29 Because the impacts of hydrological alterations resulting from construction activities would be

30 localized and temporary, the staff concludes that the impacts of hydrologic alterations would be

31 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

32

33 4.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

34

35 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

36 for context.

37

38 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the quantity of water used for

39 construction activities at the ESP site would be similar to other large industrial construction

40 projects. Potable water supplies for the construction workforce would be necessary. Water for

41 various standard construction activities, such as dust abatement, would be provided from Lake
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.

July 2006 4-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Anna. Groundwater dewatering systems may preclude the use of existing onsite wells to supply

2 water during construction, particularly potable water needs. If additional water is needed, water

3 could be imported from offsite during periods when the dewatering system is active.

4

5 Based on these considerations and because they would be localized and temporary, the staff

6 concludes that water-use impacts during construction did not change. The impact level

7 category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not

8 warranted.

9

10 4.3.3 Water-Quality Impacts

11

12 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

13 for context.

14

15 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that water-quality impacts for the

16 construction activities would be similar to those associated with other large industrial

construction projects. Construction best management practices (BMP)(a) 17 are generally used to

18 ensure that accidental spills and storm water runoff will have minimal impact on surface and

19 groundwater quality. If Dominion were to apply for and receive a construction permit (CP) or a

20 combined license (COL) referencing an ESP for the North Anna site, or if it were to conduct site

21 preparation activities under such an ESP, an NPDES permit would be required from the

22 Commonwealth of Virginia before construction activities could commence. In view of the ability

23 of the current standard engineering construction practices to limit water quality impacts and the

24 localized and temporary nature of any impacts, the staff concludes that water-quality impacts

25 caused by construction activities did not change. The impact level category would still be

26 SMALL, and that further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

27

28 4.4 Ecological Impacts

29

30 Changes to this section reflect construction impacts to ecological resources from the

31 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and intake structure and channel.

32

33 This section describes the potential impacts of construction of the closed-cycle, combination

34 wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 on the ecological resources at the North Anna ESP site. 

35 The section is divided into three subsections: Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts, Aquatic
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-8 July 2006

1 Ecosystem Impacts, and Threatened and Endangered Species. Although the amount of land

2 use needed for the cooling towers would be greater than the amount of land needed for

3 once-through cooling, the amount of land identified in the PPE already incorporated the area in

4 which the cooling towers would be built. 

5

6 4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystem Impacts

7

8 Changes to this section reflect the terrestrial impacts from the construction of the closed-cycle,

9 combination wet and dry cooling system.

10

11 The total area of the North Anna ESP site is approximately 81 ha (200 ac) of which

12 approximately 49 ha (120 ac) have been developed for industrial use. No additions to the area

13 of construction (the plant footprint) in the PPE were made as a result of the change proposed

14 for Unit 3 cooling. Construction activities are not expected to have noticeable impacts on

15 ecological resources within the developed portions of the ESP site. Construction of Units 3

16 and 4 would result in the removal of approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of forested habitat within the

17 site. The North Anna ESP site does not contain any old growth timber or unique or sensitive

18 plant species or communities. In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that

19 construction activities would not noticeably reduce the local or regional diversity of plants or

20 plant communities.

21

22 There are no important terrestrial animal species or habitats (as previously evaluated by the

23 NRC [NRC 2000]) on the North Anna ESP site. A few small wetland areas and two intermittent

24 streams exist on the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2006). Dominion has mapped these

25 wetlands, and has provided the information to the ACE for review, confirmation, and evaluation

26 of appropriate permitting. Mitigation measures will be developed as appropriate during the ACE

27 review. Watercourses and wetlands would be avoided to the extent practicable during any

28 construction. To minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife, Dominion states that it would

29 adhere to Commonwealth of Virginia permit conditions which could restrict the timing of certain

30 construction activities (Dominion 2006). 

31

32 In anticipation of construction, topsoil would be removed from the construction site footprint,

33 stored, rolled, and seeded, if necessary, to minimize erosion. Some disturbed areas may be

34 graveled, paved, or compacted to prevent erosion. These and other soil preparation activities

35 would minimize impacts to the aquatic environment from earth-moving activities. When

36 construction activities are completed, areas that have been temporarily disturbed would be

37 graded and contoured, covered with topsoil, and seeded with native vegetation

38 (Dominion 2006).

39

40 Land clearing associated with construction would be conducted according to Federal and State

41 regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, and construction and other established
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 BMPs (e.g., directed drainage ditches and silt fencing would be employed). Fugitive dust

2 emissions would be minimized by watering the access roads and construction site as

3 necessary. Therefore, impacts from dust on terrestrial ecosystems would be minimal.

4

5 The use of the combination wet and dry cooling systems introduces additional structures and,

6 therefore, the potential for avian collisions. Collisions with utility structures are not a biologically

7 significant source of mortality for thriving populations of birds with good reproductive potential

8 (EPRI 1993). The staff previously reviewed monitoring data concerning avian collisions at

9 nuclear power plants with large cooling towers and determined that the overall avian mortality is

10 low (NRC 1996). No avian collisions with existing structures at the NAPS site have been

11 reported (Dominion 2006). The number of construction-related bird collisions with onsite

12 structures is expected to be inconsequential.

13

14 The staff reviewed the potential impacts of constructing Units 3 and 4 on terrestrial ecological

15 resources, including loss of habitat, loss of wetlands, noise, dust emissions, and avian

16 collisions. Based on its independent review and the mitigation measures identified, the staff

17 concludes that the impacts of construction-related activities on terrestrial ecological resources

18 did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond

19 the actions stated above is not warranted.

20

21 4.4.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts

22

23 Changes to this section reflect aquatic impacts from the construction of the closed-cycle,

24 combination wet and dry cooling system intake structure and the intake channel.

25

26 Construction of the new cooling water intake structure and channel for Units 3 and 4 would be

27 the primary source of construction impacts on the aquatic environment. Construction would

28 involve modifications to an existing partially completed intake structure constructed in the 1970s

29 for two power reactor units that were proposed at the time the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 were

30 licensed. Section 3.2.2 provides a description of the proposed plant cooling water use and

31 structures including a flow diagram in Figure 3-2.

32

33 The cooling water intake structure proposed in ER Revision 3 (Dominion 2004) to support

34 once-through cooling of Unit 3 was approximately 46 m (150 ft) long and 61 m (200 ft) wide and

35 would have housed the trash racks, traveling screens, and intake pumps. In ER Revision 6

36 (Dominion 2006), Dominion proposes to reduce the size of the intake structure to 21 m (70 ft)

37 long and 21 m (70 ft) wide because of a reduced demand for water. The screen and pump

38 layout are illustrated in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Because the structure would be smaller than

39 originally proposed, Dominion expects no modifications to the shoreline or short intake channel. 

40 As previously proposed, the cofferdam would still be removed to allow water access from

41 Lake Anna.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-10 July 2006

1

2

3

4 Figure 4-1. Proposed Layout of Screenwell/Pump Intake for the North Anna ESP Site
July 2006 4-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1234567

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

89

1011

Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-12 July 2006

1 A temporary loss of benthic habitat and the displacement or loss of benthic organisms would be

2 expected as a result of construction activities (Dominion 2006). Fish and benthic organisms

3 inhabiting the intake channel and the lake near the intake channel may temporarily migrate from

4 the area during cofferdam removal. To minimize the impacts to benthic and fish populations in

5 Lake Anna, Dominion states it would conduct facility construction and environmental protection

6 activities in accordance with State regulations and permit requirements. Prior to any in-water

7 activities associated with the construction of the intake structure, Dominion would be required to

8 obtain a Section 404 permit from the ACE. The permit may place restrictions on any activities

9 conducted in Lake Anna during the proposed construction. These restrictions would further

10 lessen any impact to benthic or aquatic communities. 

11

12 As a matter of practice, VDEQ would likely require that sedimentation and erosion-control BMPs

13 or effective stormwater management practices or both would be used to maintain water quality

14 and protect aquatic resources in the construction area. After construction is completed, benthic

15 and aquatic organisms would be expected to repopulate the area.

16

17 The staff assessed the potential impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on aquatic ecological

18 resources including removing or modifying the existing partially competed intake structure,

19 constructing a new intake structure, and removing the cofferdam. The applicant is expected to

20 follow sedimentation and erosion control BMPs and to comply with the VDEQ stormwater

21 management plan as well as any restrictions or requirements contained in the ACE Section 404

22 permit. No planned construction activities would be expected to impact the fisheries or any of

23 the biological communities of the North Anna River. Any impacts to the aquatic resources in

24 Lake Anna in the vicinity of the intake channel would be minor and temporary. Accordingly, the

25 staff concludes that the impact of construction-related activities on aquatic ecological resources

26 would be SMALL, and that further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

27

28 4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

29

30 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6. However, additional

31 information is provided about eagles.

32

33 No Federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur at or near the North

34 Anna ESP site except the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The closest known bald

35 eagle nesting site is located more than 4 km (2.5 mi) from the North Anna ESP site. In the

36 Commonwealth of Virginia, a 0.25-mile (0.4-km) buffer zone is usually preserved to limit

37 construction activities (FWS and VDGIF 2000). Dominion follows these bald eagle nesting

38 guidelines. None of the three Federally or State-listed mussel species known to exist in the

39 region has been found in Lake Anna, the North Anna River, or other local streams. The staff

40 reviewed the potential impacts of construction of Units 3 and 4 on threatened and endangered

41 species. It is unlikely that any threatened or endangered species exist on the North Anna ESP
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 site; consequently, construction activities associated with the cooling system changes or the

2 increased power would not have an adverse effect on threatened or endangered species. The

3 staff concludes that the impacts of construction-related activities on threatened or endangered

4 species would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond maintaining an adequate buffer zone is

5 not warranted.

6

7 4.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

8

9 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6. The total number of

10 construction workers is not affected by changes to the cooling system or the power level

11 increase.

12

13 This section evaluates the social and economic impacts to the surrounding region as a result of

14 constructing Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. The evaluation assesses impacts of

15 construction and demands placed by the larger workforce on the surrounding region. 

16 Construction activities are assumed to last up to 5 years and employ up to 5000 workers. The

17 evaluation also assesses the visual impacts of constructing the new cooling system design.

18

19 Dominion expects the workforce to be maintained for most of the construction period. This

20 construction workforce would be in addition to the 720 personnel currently employed at the site

21 (Dominion 2006). Although more extensive construction activities would be undertaken to build

22 the combination wet and dry cooling towers than was proposed for the once-through cooling

23 system, the PPE estimate of workers still bounded the workforce needed for the change to the

24 cooling system design. Therefore, the workforce would not change from that previously

25 evaluated, and the conclusion did not change as a result of the change in cooling system and

26 higher power level. 

27

28 4.5.1 Physical Impacts

29

30 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

31 for context.

32

33 Construction activities at the North Anna ESP site may cause temporary and localized physical

34 impacts including, but not limited to, noise, odor, vehicle exhaust emissions, and fugitive dust. 

35 Dominion does not expect significant vibration or shock impacts during construction because of

36 the strict control of such activities onsite (Dominion 2006). General construction activities would

37 not change appreciably as a result of the changes to the Unit 3 cooling system or the higher

38 power level.

39
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-14 July 2006

1 4.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006), Dominion stated that no additional workers would be needed

7 for the additional cooling tower construction beyond the 5000 construction workers proposed in

8 ER Revision 3 (Dominion 2004), which was previously evaluated in the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a).

9

10 Dominion identified mitigation measures such as training workers, developing a fugitive dust

11 plan, and complying with the conditions specified in State and local permits. Based on its

12 review of this information, the staff concludes that the overall physical impacts to workers and

13 the local population did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and

14 further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted. 

15

16 4.5.1.2 Buildings

17

18 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

19 for context.

20

21 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that construction activities are not expected

22 to impact any offsite buildings. The buildings most exposed to shock and vibration from pile

23 driving would be those located on the NAPS site; however, Dominion has constructed the onsite

24 buildings to safely withstand any shock and vibration impacts resulting from construction

25 activities (Dominion 2006). Construction activities would not change appreciably because of the

26 changes to the Unit 3 cooling system or the higher power level.

27

28 Because the nearest offsite building is about 910 m (3000 ft) from the North Anna ESP site, the

29 staff concludes that the physical impacts to offsite buildings did not change. The impact level

30 category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

31

32 4.5.1.3 Roads

33

34 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

35 for context.

36

37 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the transportation network in Louisa

38 County and in the ESP site vicinity is well developed. In ER Revision 6, Dominion stated that

39 no new public roads would be required as a result of construction activities, and that no public

40 roads would be altered (e.g., widened) as a result of construction activities; nevertheless, it did

41 identify several potential mitigation actions to relieve traffic congestion (Dominion 2006). While
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Dominion stated that no public roads would need to be altered because of construction of new

2 facilities, local officials believe this would need to be evaluated prior to the start of construction. 

3 Dominion states that a new access road on the NAPS site would support construction activities

4 and would be private and fully contained within the existing NAPS site boundary. The changes

5 to the cooling system for Unit 3 and the higher power level are not expected to change

6 construction impacts on roads or the need for roads in the area from those previously

7 evaluated.

8

9 Based on its independent review, the staff concludes that the overall physical impacts to local

10 roadways would be temporary and did not change. The impact level category would still be

11 SMALL, provided that mitigation actions, such as traffic control and management measures that

12 Dominion identified are undertaken.

13

14 4.5.1.4 Aesthetics

15

16 Changes to this section reflect aesthetic impacts from the construction of the closed-cycle,

17 wet and dry cooling system.

18

19 In the Draft EIS (2004a), the staff determined that from a visual perspective, construction

20 activities at the ESP site would generally not be visible from points outside the NAPS boundary

21 until the structures at the site approach completion. The new combination wet and dry cooling

22 towers for Units 3 and 4 are expected to be approximately 46 m (150 ft) tall, which is less than

23 the 71 m (234 ft) PPE height value for the tallest potential containment building. These

24 structures may be visible above the treeline by offsite viewers. The current North Anna

25 structures are already visible from Lake Anna and from other selected locations; it is not

26 expected that the visual impact would be appreciably different than the current visible structures

27 in those locations. Recreational users of Lake Anna would be able to observe construction

28 activities occurring on the NAPS site; however, such activities would take place on a site zoned

29 “industrial” and already containing NAPS Units 1 and 2.

30

31 Because visual impacts of construction, such as water turbidity from localized dredging and

32 fugitive dust, would be temporary and would be controlled pursuant to State regulations, and the

33 points from which they could be observed from the lake would be limited, the staff concludes

34 that the visual impacts of construction on Lake Anna and the surrounding area would be

35 SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted.

36
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The multiplier effect describes the situation in which each dollar spent on goods and services by a

construction worker becomes income to the recipient who saves some but re-spends the rest on

consumption. This re-spending becomes income to someone else, who in turn saves part and

re-spends the rest. The number of times the final increase in consumption exceeds the initial dollar

spent is called the “multiplier.”

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-16 July 2006

1 4.5.2 Demography

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (2004a), the staff determined that increases in population directly attributable to

7 the construction workforce for Units 3 and 4 would be small because of the large workforce

available in the region. Some new jobs may result from the multiplier effect(a) 8 attributable to the

9 construction workforce, but these increases, when compared to the total population base in the

10 region, would be minimal as well. Because Dominion does not expect to employ additional

11 people above the 5000-person workforce previously evaluated for the construction of Units 3

12 and 4 before the change to the Unit 3 cooling system, the staff concludes that the demographic

13 impacts did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not

14 warranted.

15

16 4.5.3 Community Characteristics

17

18 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

19 for context.

20

21 This section evaluates the social and economic impacts on the communities of the surrounding

22 region as a result of constructing Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. The evaluation

23 assesses impacts of construction and demands placed by the workforce on the surrounding

24 region. Dominion does not expect to employ additional people above the 5000-person

25 workforce previously evaluated for the construction of Units 3 and 4 before the change to the

26 Unit 3 cooling system.

27

28 4.5.3.1 Economy

29

30 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

31 for context.

32

33 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the impacts on the economy of

34 constructing Units 3 and 4 would generally be positive within the region. The scale of this

35 beneficial impact would vary throughout the region, with Louisa County receiving the greatest
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-17 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 benefit. The changes to the Unit 3 cooling system would not alter the construction impacts on

2 the economy. Based on the positive aspects of the proposed construction on the regional

3 economies and the workforce availability, the staff concludes that the impacts on the economy

4 did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE

5 BENEFICIAL, and mitigation is not warranted.

6

7 4.5.3.2 Transportation

8

9 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

10 for context.

11

12 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the principal impacts to the

13 transportation system resulting from construction of Units 3 and 4 would be on the roads leading

14 to and from the NAPS site. The impacts could include potential congestion on some of the

15 major Federal highways and State roads leading to the NAPS site and crowding and congestion

16 at the entrance to NAPS during shift changes. To alleviate this potential problem, Dominion

17 plans to develop, in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation, a traffic

18 management plan as a construction mitigation measure (Dominion 2006). Because Dominion

19 does not expect to employ additional people above the 5000-person workforce previously

20 evaluated for the construction of Units 3 and 4 before the change to the Unit 3 cooling system,

21 the staff concludes that the transportation impacts did not change. The impact level category is

22 still SMALL to MODERATE, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not

23 warranted.

24

25 4.5.3.3 Taxes

26

27 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

28 for context.

29

30 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff reviewed the income taxes generated on wages and

31 salaries of Units 3 and 4 construction workers and Dominion corporate profits as well as sales

32 and use taxes. These taxes represent beneficial sources of income for the Commonwealth,

33 some of which would benefit the counties in the region. Property tax paid by contractors and

34 Dominion would directly benefit Louisa County. Because Dominion does not expect to employ

35 additional people above the 5000-person workforce previously evaluated for the construction of

36 Units 3 and 4 before the change to the Unit 3 cooling system, the staff concludes that the

37 impacts on income, sales and use taxes, and corporate profits did not change. The impact level

38 category is still SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL, and mitigation is not warranted.

39
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-18 July 2006

1 4.5.3.4 Recreation

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that construction at the North Anna ESP site

7 would result in limited visual impacts on users of Lake Anna or viewers from points outside the

8 site boundaries. Water-quality impacts of construction of a new water intake structure would be

9 subject to applicable Federal and State regulations, and any noticeable effects would be

10 transitory. Impacts on recreational users of Lake Anna as a result of these activities would be

11 minimal. Congestion on roads around Lake Anna could be exacerbated with the addition of the

12 construction workforce. Because Dominion does not expect to employ additional people above

13 the 5000-person workforce previously evaluated for the construction of Units 3 and 4 before the

14 change to the Unit 3 cooling system, the staff concludes that the recreational impacts did not

15 change. The impact level category would still be SMALL to MODERATE, and mitigation is not

16 warranted.

17

18 4.5.3.5 Housing

19

20 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

21 for context.

22

23 Dominion states in its ER that the majority of the construction workforce would come from within

24 the region (Dominion 2006). A large majority of the workforce is likely to reside already within

25 the 80-km (50-mi) radius around the NAPS site; consequently, there should be little or no impact

26 on housing. In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that if current trends persist,

27 adequate rental housing would be available within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of NAPS for those

28 workers moving into the area to establish residency. Because Dominion does not expect to

29 employ additional people above the 5000-person workforce previously evaluated for the

30 construction of Units 3 and 4 before the change to the Unit 3 cooling system, the staff concludes

31 that the impact to housing did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and

32 mitigation is not warranted.

33

34 4.5.3.6 Public Services

35

36 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

37 for context.

38

39 Public services that may be affected by construction activities include water supply and waste

40 treatment facilities; police, fire, and medical facilities; and social and related services. In the

41 Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that public services are likely to be managed
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-19 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 based on demands and opportunities. Dominion does not expect to employ additional people

2 above the 5000-person workforce previously evaluated for the construction of Units 3 and 4

3 before the change to the Unit 3 cooling system. Based on the current availability of water and

4 waste disposal, medical, and social services and additional taxes that would likely compensate

5 for the possible need for additional services in some areas, the staff concludes that the impact

6 on the demand for public and related services as a result of construction did not change. The

7 impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

8

9 4.5.3.7 Education

10

11 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

12 for context.

13

14 A large majority of the workforce is likely to reside already within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of the

15 NAPS site. In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the workers moving into the

16 area to establish residency are likely to locate to the larger population areas because of

17 localized shortages of available housing. Dominion does not expect to employ additional

18 people above the 5000-person workforce previously evaluated for the construction of Units 3

19 and 4 before the change to the Unit 3 cooling system. Based on the availability of educational

20 facilities in Henrico, Spotsylvania, Orange, and Louisa Counties and the City of Richmond and

21 assuming that the housing pattern follows past experience, the staff concludes that the impact

22 of construction on educational resources did not change. The impact level category would still

23 be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

24

25 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

26

27 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

28 for context.

29

30 All construction activities for proposed Units 3 and 4, including ground-disturbing activities,

31 would occur within the existing NAPS site boundary. According to Dominion, the area that

32 would be affected on a long-term basis as a result of permanent facilities is approximately 52 ha

33 (128 ac). An additional 27.5 ha (67.9 ac) would be disturbed on a short-term basis as a result of

34 temporary activities and facilities and laydown areas (Dominion 2006). Dominion states that it

35 would conduct any ground-disturbing activities in accordance with Federal, State and local

36 regulatory requirements (Dominion 2006). The planned power block area is relatively level. 

37 Undulating surfaces in the area of the planned cooling towers would be leveled to

38 accommodate the towers.

39

40 Dominion states that it does not expect to disturb additional land beyond that previously

41 evaluated in the construction of Units 3 and 4 before the change to the cooling system. In the
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. The staff should consider multi-racial individuals in a separate minority category, in

addition to the aggregate minority category (NRC 2004b).

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-20 July 2006

1 Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that there is a well-managed cultural resources

2 program at the NAPS site, which includes the existence of written procedures to provide

3 immediate reaction and notification in the event of inadvertent discovery of historic and cultural

4 resources, and its cultural resource analysis and consultation. Based on the foregoing, the staff

5 concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural resources did not change. The

6 impact level category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the existing practice

7 is not warranted.

8

9 4.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

10

11 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

12 for context.

13

14 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

15 addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) 16 or low-income populations. In the

17 Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices through

18 which the population could be disproportionally impacted by construction of Units 3 and 4 that

19 would result in those population being aversely affected. Dominion states that it does not

20 expect to employ additional people above the 5000-person workforce previously evaluated for

21 the construction of Units 3 and 4 before the change to the cooling system. Based on its

22 independent review, the staff concludes that offsite impacts of construction of proposed Units 3

23 and 4 at the NAPS site to minority and low-income populations did not change. The impact

24 level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

25

26 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

27

28 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

29 for context.

30

31 The changes described in ER Revision 6 include the construction of additional cooling towers

32 (Dominion 2006). This additional construction activity is still expected to be completed within

33 the construction period previously assumed before the change to the cooling system.
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-21 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 4.8.1 Public Health

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 Dominion expects that individuals living near the North Anna ESP site would not experience any

7 physical impacts greater than those that would be considered an annoyance or nuisance. In the

8 Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that prior public notification would be provided in

9 advance of atypical or noisy construction activities and that measures to minimize fugitive dust

10 and odors would be implemented. Even with the change in cooling system for Unit 3, the type

11 of construction activities and duration of construction are not expected to be different from that

12 previously evaluated. Based on these mitigation measures, the State and local permits and

13 authorization, and its independent review, the staff concludes that the nonradiological health

14 impacts to the local population from construction did not change. The impact level category

15 would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is not warranted.

16

17 4.8.2 Occupational Health

18

19 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

20 for context.

21

22 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff previously evaluated impacts of 5000 construction

23 workers per year, assumed to work for 2080 hours per year per worker for the 5 to 7 year span

24 of construction. Dominion does not expect to employ additional people above the 5000-person

25 workforce previously evaluated for the construction of Units 3 and 4 before the change to the

26 Unit 3 cooling system. In addition, the additional construction activity is still expected to be

27 completed within the construction period previously assumed. Even with the change in cooling

28 system for Unit 3, the type of construction activities and duration of construction are not

29 expected to be different from that previously evaluated. 

30

31 In general, human health risks for construction workers and personnel working onsite would be

32 expected to be dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, asphyxiation). 

33 Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the

34 average U.S. industrial rates. In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that Dominion

35 would implement mitigation measures that include training and use of personal protective

36 equipment and practices to minimize fugitive dust and odors. The staff assumes adherence to

37 NRC, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and State safety standards, practices,

38 and procedures during construction activities. Based on the mitigation measures identified

39 above, State and local permits and authorizations, and its independent review, the staff
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-22 July 2006

1 concludes that the overall nonradiological impacts to workers from construction activities did not

2 change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the

3 actions stated above is not warranted.

4

5 4.8.3 Noise Impacts

6

7 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

8 for context.

9

10 Large construction projects involve many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing

11 noise from construction activities are generally limited to worker health and safety. Even with

12 the change in cooling system for Unit 3, the type of construction activities and duration of

13 construction are not expected to be different from that previously evaluated. In the Draft EIS

14 (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that activities associated with construction of Units 3 and 4

15 at the North Anna ESP site would generate noise levels typical of larger construction projects. 

16 Mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts include equipment inspection and maintenance,

17 conducting certain activities during the daytime, and responding to local concerns. Considering

18 the temporary nature of construction activities and the remote location of the North Anna ESP

19 site, the staff concludes that the noise impacts from construction did not change. The impact

20 level category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated above is

21 not warranted.

22

23 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

24

25 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

26 for context.

27

28 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff evaluated health impacts to construction workers and

29 the public. It is expected that health risks to workers would be dominated by occupational

30 injuries at rates below the average U.S. industrial rates.

31

32 Based on the mitigating actions, including operating the construction equipment within local

33 noise and air quality limits and implementing a dust control plan, and its independent review, the

34 staff concludes that the impacts of construction on nonradiological health did not change. The

35 impact level category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the actions stated

36 above is not warranted.

37
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-23 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 The changes described in ER Revision 6 include the construction of additional cooling towers

7 (Dominion 2006). This additional construction activity is still expected to be completed within

8 the construction period previously assumed before the change to the cooling system.

9

10 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures

11

12 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

13 for context.

14

15 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the method used to estimate the dose

16 from direct exposure was acceptable. The two principal sources of direct radiation exposure at

17 the construction site from NAPS Units 1 and 2 are (1) the boron recovery tank and (2) the

18 low-level contaminated storage area, both of which are located south of the currently operating

19 Units 1 and 2. Another source of direct radiation is the independent spent fuel storage

20 installation (ISFSI), which is located south of the construction site. The staff reviewed the

21 potential locations for exposures and recent records of dose rates, the locations of

22 thermoluminescent dosimeters, the method to estimate doses to members of the public in

23 controlled areas, and other recent data. The direct radiation exposure to workers would not be

24 expected to change because of changes to the Unit 3 cooling system design and its

25 construction.

26

27 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents

28

29 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

30 for context.

31

32 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff reviewed data from the North Anna Units 1 and 2

33 radioactive effluent reports for recent years and determined that the method to estimate dose to

34 workers from gaseous effluents was acceptable. The staff also reviewed data for the Annual

35 Radiological Effluent Report for 2005 (VEPCo 2006) and finds that the releases previously

36 evaluated are still representative of the typical releases for the operating units. The radiation

37 exposure to workers from gaseous effluents would not be expected to change because of

38 changes to the Unit 3 cooling system design and its construction.

39
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-24 July 2006

1 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a) the staff reviewed data from the North Anna Units 1 and 2

7 radioactive effluent reports for recent years and determined that the method to estimate dose to

8 workers from liquid effluents was acceptable. The staff also reviewed data from the Annual

9 Radiological Effluent Report for 2005 (VEPCo 2006) and finds that the releases previously

10 evaluated are still representative of the typical releases from the operating units. The radiation

11 exposure to workers from liquid effluents would not be expected to change because of changes

12 to the Unit 3 cooling system design and its construction.

13

14 4.9.4 Total Dose to Workers

15

16 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

17 for context.

18

19 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the method used to estimate the total

20 dose to workers from the three pathways (direct radiation, gaseous effluents, and liquid

21 effluents) was acceptable. The estimated annual dose to a construction worker of 0.24 mSv

22 (24 mrem) is primarily from the direct exposure pathway, with doses from liquid and gaseous

23 effluents as a small component of the total dose. This estimate is well within both the dose

24 limits to individual members of the public found in 10 CFR 20.1301 of 1 mSv (100 mrem) in a

25 year and occupational dose limits to workers found in 10 CFR 20.1201 of 0.05 Sv (5 rem). The

26 total dose to workers would not be expected to change because of the changes to the Unit 3

27 cooling system design and its construction. 

28

29 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts

30

31 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

32 for context.

33

34 Based on its independent review, the staff found that the doses to the public and to construction

35 workers to be well within NRC exposure limits designed to protect the public health, even if

36 workers exceed the 2080 hr/yr occupancy factor, and concludes that the impacts of radiological

37 exposures to the public and to construction workers did not change. The impact level category

38 would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

39
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-25 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 4.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

2 Construction Activities

3

4 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

5 for context.

6

7 In its evaluation of environmental impacts during construction activities for the proposed new

8 North Anna units, the staff relied on the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.10 of the

9 Draft EIS (NRC 2004a). This is not expected to change because of the changes to the Unit 3

10 cooling system design and its construction.

11

12 4.11 Site Redress Plan

13

14 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

15 for context.

16

17 The changes described in ER Revision 6 are related to the change in the cooling system

18 proposed for NAPS Unit 3 to a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and to an

19 increase in the thermal power level. The increase in the thermal power level has no bearing on

20 site preparation activities. The change in the cooling system, while it can result in the

21 construction of additional structures as part of site preparation, is already included within the

22 scope of the site preparation activities originally proposed and previously evaluated by the staff

23 in the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a). Therefore, if Dominion receives an ESP and builds the additional

24 cooling towers or if no applicant for a CP or COL references the ESP, or does not receive a CP

25 or COL, Dominion would have to redress the area including these facilities. Consequently, this

26 section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6.

27

28 4.12 Summary of Construction Impacts

29

30 Changes to this section reflect the summary of construction impacts from the proposed project

31 presented in ER Revision 6.

32

33 Impact level categories denoted in Table 4-1 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE were

34 assigned to each resource area based on the staff’s evaluation and conclusions regarding

35 expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. A brief statement explains the basis for the

36 impact level. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from Dominion for the local

37 economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community, and are noted as such.

38
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-26 July 2006

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

2 for Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP Site

3

4 Category Comments Impact Level

5 Land-use impacts --

6 Construction activities would take place within The site and vicinity

existing site boundaries.

SMALL

7 No new transmission line rights-of-way would Transmission line rights-of-way

be needed.

SMALL

8 Construction activities would be conducted in Air quality impacts

accordance with applicable Virginia

administrative codes, and dust and emissions

would be minimized through a dust control

plan.

SMALL

9 Water-related impacts --

10 Hydrological alterations

11

Impacts would be localized and temporary. 

Construction activities would be conducted in

accordance with applicable VDEQ

administrative codes and ACE permit

processes; hydrological impacts would be

minimized though application of best

management practices.

SMALL

12 Minimal water usage during construction. SMALL Water use

13 Construction would be conducted using best Water quality

management practices to control spills and

storm water runoff.

SMALL

14 Ecological impacts --

15 No important terrestrial species would be Terrestrial ecosystems

affected by construction at the NAPS site.

SMALL

16 Construction impacts to benthic habitats would Aquatic ecosystems

be temporary.

SMALL

17 Threatened and endangered

18 species

There are no Federally listed species in the

vicinity. Impacts to State-listed species would

be minor.

SMALL

19 Socioeconomic impacts --

20 Physical impacts

21 Construction takes place within existing plant Workers/local public

boundaries, so impacts to the public would be

minimal. Impacts to workers would be

mitigated with training and protective

equipment.

SMALL
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-27 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 4-1. (contd)

2

3 Category Comments Impact Level

4 Construction would not affect any offsite Buildings

buildings, and onsite buildings were

constructed to withstand vibration from

construction activities.

SMALL

5 Growth would put pressure on local road Roads

systems, but traffic control and management

measures would protect any local roads during

construction.

SMALL

6 Construction activities would be temporary, Aesthetics

and observation points would be limited

because of site location.

SMALL

7 Percentage of construction workers relocating Demography

to the region would be small. Most would

already live within the region.

SMALL

8 Community characteristics

9 Economic impacts of construction overall are Economy

beneficial to local economies, in this case

ranging from small to moderately beneficial.

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

10 Planned upgrades and traffic management Transportation

plans would reduce temporary construction

transportation impacts. Impacts could be

moderate in some areas without planned

upgrades.

SMALL to

MODERATE

11 Depends on residence location; generally, Taxes

impacts are beneficial, especially for property

taxes and employment, ranging from small to

large (Louisa County).

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

12 Visual impacts of construction would be limited Recreation

and temporary. Recreational use of Lake

Anna would be expected to increase, and

traffic mitigation would keep impacts small. 

Impacts could be moderate if mitigation

measures are not undertaken.

SMALL to

MODERATE
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 4-1. (contd)

Category Comments Impact Level

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-28 July 2006

1 Adequate housing is available in Henrico and Housing

Spotsylvania Counties and in the City of

Richmond to handle construction workers. If

more construction workers than expected

locate in Orange and Louisa Counties, the

impact could be moderate.

SMALL

2 Public services are adequate for any Public services

temporary influx of workers resulting from

construction at the NAPS site.

SMALL

3 If Louisa County builds new schools to Education

accommodate the temporary influx of

construction workers, then all counties would

have room for additional students. If no

additional school capacity is added then the

impact in Louisa County could be moderate. 

SMALL

4 Proposed construction area is previously Historic and cultural resources

disturbed, and Dominion has a well-managed

cultural resource program in place at NAPS.

SMALL

5 No unusual resource dependencies in the Environmental justice

area.

SMALL

6 Emission controls and remote location of the Nonradiological health impacts

NAPS site would keep nonradiological health

impact small.

SMALL

7 Exposures to workers would be below annual Radiological health impacts

occupational and public dose limits.

SMALL

8

9 4.13 References

10

11 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

12 Protection Against Radiation.”

13

14 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

15 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

16

17 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

18 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

19
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 4-29 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

2 Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

3

4 15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Part

5 930, “Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.”

6

7 40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122,

8 “EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.”

9

10 Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251,

11 et seq.

12

13 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

14

15 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. North Anna Early Site Permit

16 Applications – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

17

18 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005a. North Anna Early Site Permit

19 Applications – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 4, Glen Allen, Virginia.

20

21 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005b. North Anna Early Site Permit

22 Applications – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 5, Glen Allen, Virginia.

23

24 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

25 Applications – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

26

27 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility

28 Structures. International Workshop. EPRI TR-103268, EPRI, Palo Alto, California.

29

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS and

31 VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Accessed at

32 http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf on March 23, 2004.

33

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

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

36

37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan: 

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

39 Vol. 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

40
Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 4-30 July 2006

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

2 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Draft, Office of Nuclear

3 Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington D.C.

4

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

6 Office Instruction Change Notice. LIC-203, Revision 1, Procedural Guidance for Preparing

7 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues, May 24, 2004,

8 Appendix D, Environmental Justice Guidance and Flow Chart, Washington, D.C.

9

10 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 9 VAC 5-50 (Visible and Fugitive Dust Emissions).

11

12 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 9 VAC 5-40-5680 (Emission Standards from Mobile

13 Sources - Vehicles).

14

15 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2006. Annual Radioactive Effluent Release

16 Report for the North Anna Power Station – January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. 

17 Richmond, Virginia.

18

19
July 2006 5-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.0 Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

2

3

4 This chapter of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was changed to

5 incorporate new information and analysis of operational impacts related to changes proposed in

6 Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. Section summaries are provided for context.

7

8 This chapter examines the environmental impacts of operations associated with changes to the

9 early site permit (ESP) application as submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

10 (Dominion) in its April 2006 Environmental Report (ER) Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a). The

11 changes described in Revision 6 to the ER relate to two specific issues and their ramifications

12 for other aspects of the environmental analysis. These two issues are (1) a proposed change in

13 the cooling system for proposed Unit 3 and (2) a higher power level for proposed Units 3 and 4

14 (hereafter referred to as Units 3 and 4). Both changes are relevant to this chapter.

15

16 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North

17 Anna ESP Site (Draft EIS) evaluated the environmental impacts of the ESP application in which

18 Dominion initially proposed using once-through cooling for Unit 3 (NRC 2004a). In its ER

19 Revision 6, Dominion proposes replacing the once-through cooling system with a closed-cycle

20 combination wet and dry cooling system capable of functioning in two modes: (1) an Energy

21 Conservation (EC) mode in which cooling is primarily through the use of wet towers and power

22 output is conserved, and (2) a Maximum Water Conservation (MWC) mode in which water is

23 conserved but more power is expended to support part of the cooling using the dry towers. As

24 described in the Draft EIS, the proposed cooling system for Unit 4 is a dry cooling system,

25 which reduces water consumption but increases energy consumption for operation.

26

27 The second change is an increase in reactor power level from a maximum of 4300 MW(t) to

28 4500 MW(t) per unit. This change is intended to align with the new maximum power designated

29 for the economic simplified boiling water reactor (ESBWR) by the manufacturer of this reactor

30 design (GE Nuclear 2005).

31

32 This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.11 discuss the changes in the

33 operational impacts during the 40-year operating period, if any, resulting from differences

34 between the information in ER Revision 3 (Dominion 2004a) and ER Revision 6

35 (Dominion 2006a). For those sections in which there is no change in analysis as a result of the

36 revisions in ER Revision 6, brief discussions of the topics and the impact levels determined in

37 the Draft EIS are provided solely for context. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal

38 Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, impacts have been evaluated and conclusions have been made;

39 in addition, an impact category level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE or

40 LARGE) has been assigned to each affected resource area. Negligible impacts are listed as

41 SMALL impacts. The staff’s determination of the significance of the impacts is based on the

42 assumption that the mitigation measures identified in the ER or activities planned by various
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-2 July 2006

1 State and county governments, such as infrastructure upgrades, as discussed throughout this

2 chapter, are implemented. Failure to implement these measures or activities could result in a

3 change to the impacts considered by the staff. A summary of these impacts is presented in

4 Section 5.12. The references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 5.13. The technical

5 analyses in this chapter support the results, conclusions, and recommendations discussed in

6 Chapters 9 and 10.

7

8 Changes in this chapter of the Supplement to the Draft EIS (SDEIS) are limited to impacts

9 related to the operation of the proposed combination wet and dry cooling system and changes

10 to the radiological health and postulated accidents from the proposed higher power level. 

11

12 5.1 Land-Use Impacts

13

14 This introductory section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is

15 provided solely for context.

16

17 This section provides information regarding land-use impacts associated with operation of the

18 proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. This section and its subsections are not

19 affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6.

20

21 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity

22

23 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

24 for context.

25

26 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that some offsite land-use changes can be

27 expected as a result of operational activities for Units 3 and 4. Possible changes include the

28 conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments (e.g., apartment

29 buildings, single family condominiums and homes, and manufactured home parks) and retail

30 development to serve plant workers. Property tax revenue from the new plants could also lead

31 to additional growth and land conversions in Louisa County as a result of infrastructure

32 improvements (e.g., new roads and utility services). However, any growth could be managed

33 because all counties surrounding the North Anna ESP site have comprehensive land-use plans

34 in place as required by the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2223. The change in Unit 3 cooling system

35 and higher power level for Units 3 and 4 would not change expected offsite land-use previously

36 evaluated.

37

38 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of operation did not

39 change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation is not warranted. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.1.2 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way and Offsite Areas

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that any two of three existing 500-kV

7 transmission lines along with an existing 230 kV line would be expected to have sufficient

8 capacity to carry the total output of both existing units and two new units. The existing lines are

9 expected to have sufficient capacity to handle any output change resulting from the proposed

10 higher power level. Dominion indicated that it would perform a system study (load flow)

11 modeling these lines with the new units’ power contribution at the construction permit (CP) or

12 combined license (COL) stage (Dominion 2006a).

13

14 Because no additional electrical transmission lines or rights-of-way would be needed, the staff

15 concludes that land-use impacts to other offsite areas did not change. The impact level

16 category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

17

18 5.2 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts

19

20 Changes to this section reflect meteorological and air quality impacts from the closed-cycle,

21 combination wet and dry cooling system.

22

23 Dominion’s proposed change from once-through cooling for Unit 3 to a closed-cycle,

24 combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 results in changes to certain aspects of the

25 analysis of meteorological impacts. Lake Anna would provide the makeup water to the wet

26 cooling towers. Because warm, moist air would be emitted to the atmosphere from the

27 operation of the wet cooling towers, elevated plumes would at times extend above the cooling

28 towers and be visible off site. There would also be the potential for fogging and icing at ground

29 level as the plume loses buoyancy and for drift deposition on the local surroundings. In

30 addition, there is the potential for ice buildup on the transmission lines and other structures

31 within the plant boundary. The greatest impacts would occur during conditions of high humidity

32 and low ambient temperature when the Unit 3 circulating water system is operating in the EC

33 mode. Micro-climatic impacts would include an increase in humidity in the vicinity of the towers

34 as well as a slightly reduced level of solar radiation in areas in the shadow of the plume,

35 consistent with wind direction frequency. 

36

37 The SACTI (Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts) system of computer programs,

38 initially written and assembled by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) (ANL 1984) for the

39 Electric Power Research Institute was used to estimate the impact of operating the cooling

40 towers. The version used by Dominion is dated November 1, 1990. A brief description of the

41 application and limitations of the SACTI code regarding aesthetic aspects of the cooling tower
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-4 July 2006

1 plume is included Section 5.5.1.4. The input meteorological data used to estimate the impacts

2 encompassed the period of 1998 through 2000. It included data collected onsite as well as site

3 representative data collected at the National Weather Service sites in Richmond, Virginia, and

4 Dulles Airport in Northern Virginia. For this analysis, the cooling towers were assumed to be

5 operating in the EC mode, which results in the greatest evaporation rates from the towers and,

6 therefore, the greatest level of impacts (Dominion 2006a).

7

8 The results of the staff’s independent analysis indicated that for all seasons, the plume would

9 extend to a maximum height of 980 m (3200 ft) and to a length of 4900 m (16,000 ft) from the

10 tower. The annual duration of plume fogging (i.e., the plume remaining at the ground level)

11 would be about 70 hr (excluding hours of natural fog), with a majority of fogging occurring at

12 about 300 m (1000 ft) to the south-southeast from the cooling towers. Fogging would, however,

13 occur as far as 1600 m (5200 ft) from the tower. Fogging is estimated to occur during all

14 seasons except summer. The analysis indicates that icing is unlikely to occur in conjunction

15 with ground-level fogging (Dominion 2006a). 

16

17 Deposition of salts from cooling tower drift would occur in all directions from the towers out to

18 1525 m (5000 ft), but would occur predominately in the areas to the north through northeast as

19 well as to the south through southeast of the towers. The maximum estimated amount of

deposition would be 12.6 kg/km2 20 /month at 175 m (575 ft) north-northeast of the cooling towers. 

21 The vast majority of the drift deposition would occur within 300 m (1000 ft) of the towers. 

22 Significant chemical interaction of the cooling tower plume and pollutants emitted onsite or in

23 the vicinity of the plant is not anticipated. Generally, the approach to minimize the potential for

24 contact with cooling tower drift is to limit parking or work activities in the vicinity of the cooling

25 towers. The impacts of salt deposition on terrestrial resources are discussed in Section 5.4.1.1.

26

27 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that air quality impacts from routine releases

28 other than the cooling system would be limited to nonradiological pollutants emitted during the

29 operation of auxiliary boilers and emergency generators, and emissions from onsite service

30 vehicles. Impacts of transmission lines on air quality were reviewed elsewhere by the NRC in

31 the Generic Environmental Impact Statement of License Renewal at Nuclear Plants

32 (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996). With regard to air quality impacts for criteria pollutants, given the

33 relatively large distance from the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I areas (see the

34 Clean Air Act, Section 169A, and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P) and the short time duration of any

35 emissions, the resulting impacts on local ambient air quality levels or visibility in the Class I

36 areas are estimated to be negligible. 

37

38 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that the impacts would be SMALL from other

39 potential sources of air quality impacts. The staff concludes that the potential impacts of

40 releases from vehicles, auxiliary boilers, emergency generators, cooling systems, and

41 energized transmission lines would still be SMALL, and mitigation beyond those normally taken

42 in the operation of plant equipment is not warranted.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.3 Water-Related Impacts

2

3 Changes to this section reflect water resource impacts from the closed-cycle, combination wet

4 and dry cooling system.

5

6 Dominion’s proposed change from once-through cooling for Unit 3 to a closed-cycle,

7 combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 results in changes to the analysis of

8 water-related issues. The dry closed-cycle cooling system for dissipation of heat for Unit 4 was

9 unchanged from the original proposal. In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that

10 the Unit 4 cooling system would use a maximum of 0.06 L/s (1 gpm) of water and, therefore,

11 would have negligible water-related impacts on Lake Anna, the Waste Heat Treatment Facility

12 (WHTF), or the North Anna River. Therefore, only the water-related impacts of proposed Unit 3

13 on Lake Anna, the WHTF, and the North Anna River are considered in the following sections.

14

15 After the Draft EIS was issued, VEPCo modified procedures for the existing Units 1 and 2. 

16 Previously, the procedures called for plant shutdown when the lake level falls to 74.4 m (244 ft)

17 above mean sea level (MSL). The new limit for plant shutdown is 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL

18 (Dominion 2006a).

19

20 During normal operation at full power, and based on Dominion’s Plant Parameter Envelope

21 (PPE) values, the primary cooling system for each proposed unit would reject 3020 MW

(1.03 x 1010 22 Btu/hr) to the environment. Unit 3 would reject this heat load to the atmosphere via

23 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling towers. Unit 3 would employ a cooling tower

24 system that can function in different modes which consume different amounts of water

25 depending on the meteorological and water supply conditions. During times of relative water

26 abundance, the Unit 3 cooling system would operate in the EC mode, which increases water

27 consumption while decreasing energy consumption. During times of limited water availability,

28 i.e. whenever the lake level elevation of Lake Anna falls below 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL for a period

29 of seven or more consecutive days, the Unit 3 cooling system would operate in the MWC mode,

30 which reduces water consumption while increasing energy consumption. The maximum water

31 withdrawal rates in EC and MWC modes are 1405 and 971 L/s (22,268 and 15,384 gpm),

32 respectively. During full load operation, the maximum blowdown rates in EC and MWC modes

33 are 351 and 245 L/s (5565 and 3844 gpm), respectively. (Blowdown is the removal of

34 recirculating water from the cooling system to reduce the buildup of contaminants, such as

35 dissolved solids.) 

36

37 Management of water resources involves balancing the tradeoffs among various and often

38 conflicting uses. The water uses at Lake Anna and the North Anna River downstream of Lake

39 Anna include recreation, visual aesthetics, fishery management, and a variety of consumptive

40 uses of water, such as municipal water supplies and industrial uses (e.g., cooling water for

41 power generation). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of

42 Engineers (ACE), and the Commonwealth of Virginia have jurisdiction for regulating water use
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-6 July 2006

1 and water quality through Federal and State laws. Water resource management incorporates

2 the uncertainty of projections of the future supply and demand for water that results from natural

3 climate variability and man-made demands. The ability to manipulate the water supply to

4 balance periods of excess supply with periods of excess demand is limited by the available

5 water infrastructure. While the water supply is regularly being replenished by precipitation,

6 conflicts over water resources typically grow along with population.

7

8 Both Dominion and the staff independently analyzed changes in the water supply available from

9 Lake Anna that would result from operating proposed Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP site. In

10 performing their respective analyses, Dominion and the staff employed different approaches

11 and relied on different data sources. These approaches are briefly described below; however, a

12 more complete description of the Dominion analysis can be found in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 of

13 the ER (Dominion 2006a). A more complete description of the staff’s analysis can be found in

14 Appendix K of this SDEIS.

15

16 The staff has reviewed long-term precipitation and evaporation data from Richmond, Virginia, to

17 characterize typical-year and critical-year conditions. Based on annual values, precipitation

18 exceeds evaporation during typical-year conditions. Using average monthly estimates,

19 however, evaporation exceeds precipitation by more than 20 percent in June. Over a typical

20 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 21 /s

22 (40 cfs) from Lake Anna would result in decreases in lake level elevation during the months of

23 July, August, and September. Therefore, Lake Anna lake level elevations would decline during

24 both typical- and critical-years during those months. Historical summer flows in the North Anna

25 River near Partlow, Virginia, before construction of North Anna Dam were much smaller than

even the minimum release of 0.57 m3 26 /s (20 cfs) established under the Lake Level Contingency

27 Plan. Because the inflows typically exceed the regulated outflows to Lake Anna, it is therefore

28 reasonable to expect that Lake Anna would experience lake level elevation decreases during

29 the late summer months.

30

31 During the period from October 2001 through December 2002, an extreme drought occurred in

32 the region extending from Georgia to northern Virginia. As a result of this climatic anomaly,

33 Lake Anna experienced the lowest lake level elevations and lowest estimated inflows in its

34 history. During this period of drought, Dominion implemented the Lake Level Contingency Plan

35 (a condition of the North Anna Power Station (NAPS) Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination

36 System [VPDES] permit issued by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality [VDEQ]), and

releases from Lake Anna Dam were reduced from the normal minimum of 1.1 m3 37 /s (40 cfs) to

0.57 m3 38 /s (20 cfs). Low water conditions were quickly alleviated when normal precipitation

39 levels returned to the region. This period of extreme drought was considered as the critical

40 period in the analyses of both the applicant and the staff.

41
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Both the staff’s assessment and Dominion’s water budget model of Lake Anna are based on a

2 simplified representation of the conservation of mass for the lake. The principle of conservation

3 of mass can be restated specifically for water as the change in storage of water at any time is

4 equal to the water inflow less the water outflow. In both water budget assessments, changes in

5 lake storage over time were equal to the differences between the inflows and the outflows. 

6 Inflows included the drainage from the basin upstream of the lake and the precipitation

7 occurring directly on the lake. Outflows included both natural and induced (i.e., forced because

8 of operation of Units 1, 2, and 3) evaporation and releases from the dam. Groundwater can

9 either flow from the aquifer into Lake Anna, or Lake Anna water can recharge the aquifer. 

10 Based on groundwater elevation measurements, the only time Lake Anna is expected to

11 recharge the adjacent aquifer would be after refilling the lake following an extended period of

12 low lake elevations. The change in storage is reflected by a change in the pool elevation.

13

14 The staff and Dominion made different assumptions to estimate the inflow to Lake Anna. 

15 Because of the limited record of tributary flow measurements, there is no direct means to

16 estimate the total inflow into Lake Anna from its tributaries. The outflow from Lake Anna Dam

17 was estimated by Dominion from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge downstream from

18 the dam at Partlow, Virginia. Dominion did not use precipitation data in its water budget

19 analysis as it assumed that the sum of precipitation, groundwater, and tributary inflows offset

20 the imbalance between the estimated evaporative losses and dam releases and the changes in

21 lake water volume. The change in lake water volume was based directly on observed records

22 of lake level elevation.

23

24 Dominion’s historical evaporation estimates were based on calculations using a lake

25 temperature model developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ho and Adams 1984). 

26 The staff found that relatively small errors in the pool elevation measurements using this model

27 can result in significant errors in the precipitation, groundwater, and tributary inflow estimate. 

28 For example, an error of only 2.5 cm (1 in.) between daily lake elevation measurements

translates into an error of about 14 m3 29 /s (500 cfs); this can also result in negative inflow

30 estimates that are inconsistent with conservation of mass principles. The occurrence of

31 negative inflow estimates was reduced by Dominion by smoothing (i.e., using weekly averages

32 instead of daily values). Dominion’s discussions and conclusions are based on the weekly

33 averaged results.

34

35 The staff estimated inflows from the watershed upstream of Lake Anna using data from the

36 adjacent Little River drainage basin adjusted for differences in the size of the drainage areas. 

37 The rationale for using an adjacent drainage basin is that too few of the tributaries flowing into

38 Lake Anna are gauged for the observed data set to be useful in constructing an inflow

39 sequence. The staff also determined that it would not use the North Anna River discharges

40 downstream from North Anna Dam to directly estimate the inflows to Lake Anna because they

41 are heavily influenced by consumptive losses from Units 1 and 2 and flow regulation resulting

from unrecorded dam operations. The Little River drainage is 277 km2 (107 mi2 42 ) and is adjacent
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-8 July 2006

1 to the North Anna drainage; measurements from Little River span from October 1961 to the

2 present. Based on a review of streamflow records from USGS Gauge 01671100 (Little River

3 near Doswell, Virginia), the staff selected the period from June 2000 through April 2003 as the

4 critical water period. The direct precipitation to the lake was based on precipitation records from

5 the National Weather Service meteorological station at the Richmond, Virginia, airport.

6

7 The staff estimated lake outflows based on the current operating rules for Lake Anna Dam. 

8 Releases were generally performed to maintain a lake level elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. 

9 Under this condition, the staff calculated flow over the dam based on lake level. When the lake

10 level elevation dropped below 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL because inflows were inadequate to offset

11 the natural and induced evaporative losses, the release was maintained at the normal minimum

flow of 1.1 m3 12 /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 13 /s (20 cfs) immediately. Once inflows and

14 outflows were calculated, the staff calculated the rate of evaporation from the Lake Anna

15 reservoir, factoring in the difference between the flows.

16

17 Because makeup water for ultimate heat sink (UHS) cooling towers for Units 3 and 4 would be

18 stored in an engineered basin and is much less than the water demand during normal

19 operation, the water demand when operating in UHS mode was considered to be bounded by

20 the water demand for normal operations.

21

22 5.3.1 Hydrological Alterations

23

24 Changes to this section reflect water-related impacts from the closed-cycle, combination wet

25 and dry cooling system.

26

27 The Unit 3 operational activity identified by the staff that would result in a detectable

28 hydrological alteration in Lake Anna is when the lake elevation is below 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL

29 and the wet cooling towers are operating. Discharges to the North Anna River downstream of

30 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 31 /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 32 /s (20 cfs) when the lake is below

33 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL).

34

35 When the lake elevation is above 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL, no hydrological effect would be

36 detectable in the lake because water available for the Unit 3 cooling system would have

37 otherwise been discharged from the North Anna Dam. The operation of Unit 3 would also result

38 in a net decrease of water available to the North Anna River equal to the consumptive water

39 loss (see also Section 5.3.2).

40

41 The staff’s independent water budget analysis assumed the NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the

42 proposed Unit 3 would operate continuously. In non-drought years, the projected incremental
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 decline of the lake level attributable to Unit 3 was relatively minor. The staff determined that the

2 operation of Unit 3 would decrease the fraction of time that the lake level elevation was above

3 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL by 5 percent, from 94 percent to 89 percent of the time. With the operation

4 of Unit 3, the fraction of time the lake would be at or below elevation 75.0 m (246 ft) MSL would

5 increase by 0.9 percent, from 1.1 percent to 2.0 percent. The staff also analyzed the

6 differences in lake level elevation between the baseline (Units 1 and 2 in operation) and

7 proposed (addition of the ESP Unit 3) scenarios to examine the impacts of Unit 3 on

8 downstream flows. Considering the entire simulation period, including the critical drought

9 period, the incremental decline in lake level elevation resulting from the operation of Unit 3 was

10 less than 7.6 cm (3 in.) 70 percent of the time, less than 15 cm (6 in.) 86 percent of the time,

11 and less than 30 cm (1 ft) 94 percent of the time.

12

13 The lowest lake level elevations and greatest incremental decrease are projected to occur

14 during the month of October. When modeling lake level elevations during the critical period of

15 record, specifically targeting the minimum elevation occurring during early October 2002, the

16 staff analyzed the minimum lake level elevations for the following scenarios:

17

18 ! Units 1 and 2 (baseline conditions): 74.74 m (245.2 ft)

19 ! Units 1 and 2 plus Unit 3 (proposed conditions): 74.22 m (243.5 ft)

20

21 While the addition of Unit 3 would cause further declines in the level of Lake Anna, the staff’s

22 analysis of long-term conditions using the water budget model indicates that the lake level

23 elevation would not drop below 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL during periods of normal or above average

24 precipitation. During low-water conditions, the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the proposed

25 Unit 3 would be allowed to operate until the elevation of the lake reaches 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL. 

26 Both the staff and Dominion estimate that during the critical period (June 2000 through

27 April 2003), the elevation of the lake would have remained above 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL had Unit

28 3 been operating.

29

30 Dominion also evaluated the impacts of raising normal operating lake level 15 to 30 cm

31 (6 to 12 in.) above 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL on shoreline areas, if VDEQ elects to consider such

32 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 33 /s (20 cfs) minimum

34 instream flow (Dominion 2006a). The staff’s independent assessment (described in

Appendix K) estimated that the frequency of 0.75 m3 35 /s (20 cfs) flows would be unchanged if the

36 normal lake level were raised 25 cm (10 in.). Dominion conducted map reconnaissance,

37 helicopter flyovers, and ground-truthing from boats and concluded that there would be some

38 shifting of wetland areas, particularly in gradually sloping uplake tributary areas if lake levels

39 were raised. In addition, Dominion concluded that raising the lake level could increase localized

40 flooding potential and downstream flows, and would likely affect use of some residential and

41 marina boat ramps and docks, including those at Lake Anna State Park.

42
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-10 July 2006

1 Information on operational practices and procedures was not provided in the ESP application. 

2 The operation of the cooling system presented in the application was not unreasonable for

3 analysis purposes to assess hydrologic impacts. The actual procedures controlling the

4 operation of the cooling system will be determined by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the

5 required Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,

6 which is not needed until the COL stage. Based on the staff’s independent assessment

7 described above and detailed in Appendix K, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation

8 on hydrological effects would be SMALL, and that mitigation is not warranted.

9

10 5.3.2 Water-Use Impacts

11

12 Changes to this section reflect water-use impacts from the closed-cycle, combination wet and

13 dry cooling system.

14

15 Lake Anna, which was created as a source of cooling water for NAPS, has become a popular

16 recreation area, and the dam provides downstream flood control. The lake is not used as a

17 source of potable or industrial water, except for NAPS Units 1 and 2. The existing NAPS units

18 are the largest users of water in the region, and the addition of a third unit would add to this use. 

19 Most of the water used at NAPS for Units 1 and 2 is drawn directly from Lake Anna for

20 condenser cooling. This use is non-consumptive, and the water is entirely returned to the lake

21 albeit at a warmer temperature. Although there is no consumptive use of water between the

22 intake and discharge, the elevated discharge temperature induces increased evaporative losses

23 from the remainder of the WHTF and Lake Anna resulting in a consumptive use of water.

24

25 Hanover County, one of four downstream counties, has identified a need for additional water

26 (Hanover County Department of Public Utilities 2004). The downstream users identified by

27 Hanover County are the county itself, the Doswell Limited Partnership Power Plant,

28 Paramount’s King’s Dominion Amusement Park, and the Bear Island Paper Company. To meet

its future projected demand, Hanover County proposes to withdraw 1.3 m3 29 /s (46 cfs) from the

30 North Anna River (Dominion 2005a). However, this diversion target withdrawal exceeds the

1.1 m3 31 /s (40 cfs) minimum discharge limit currently specified in the North Anna Lake Level

32 Contingency Plan (the “Lake Level Contingency Plan”) for minimum releases during normal

33 conditions. The Lake Level Contingency Plan allows the flow to be further reduced to a

minimum of 0.57 m3 34 /s (20 cfs) during drought conditions. This potential conflict over water use

35 (which exists regardless of whether Unit 3 is ever constructed) falls within the regulatory

36 authority of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

37

38 Unlike the existing NAPS units, the majority of the water withdrawn from Lake Anna for Unit 3

39 condenser cooling would be consumed by the wet towers. Although there is some blowdown

40 from the wet towers, the discharge rate to the WHTF would be small (the full load maximum

41 would be 351 L/s (5565 gpm). Consumption of water by the wet towers would reduce the

42 overall volume of water in the lake, thereby impacting the quantity of water released at North

43 Anna Dam.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1

2 Because the North Anna Dam discharge rate is directly related to the Lake Anna surface level

3 elevation, the lake level elevation analysis discussed above was used to estimate the impact on

4 downstream flows in the North Anna River. The net total discharge from North Anna Dam

5 would be reduced if Unit 3 operates as proposed. The staff determined that the fraction of time

the dam would discharge 0.57 m3 6 /s (20 cfs) increased from approximately 6 percent (Units 1

7 and 2 only) to 11 percent.

8

9 Because water supply generally exceeds demand, as indicated above, the staff concludes that

10 the water supply provided by Lake Anna is adequate to meet Unit 3 and current downstream

11 water demands except during periods of severe drought. Operation of Unit 3 would

12 approximately double the duration of periods during drought conditions when the Lake Level

13 Contingency Plan would be applied (i.e., when the lake level elevation would be below 75.6 m

14 [248 ft] MSL).

15

16 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that during normal water years the water use

17 impacts, including impacts on downstream users, would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

18 warranted. During severe droughts, however, the impact to the water level could be temporarily

19 MODERATE. Given the infrequent and temporary nature of the severe drought conditions, the

20 fact that the minimum operational lake level elevation is 73.8 m (242 ft) MSL, and that lake level

21 would return to normal with normal precipitation; further mitigation other than ceasing or

22 derating operation is not warranted. 

23

24 Although the staff concludes that the impact of proposed Unit 3 operation on downstream water

25 users would be SMALL for most years and MODERATE during drought years, the staff

26 considered mitigation in the form of increasing the reservoir storage capacity.

27

28 The staff evaluated changing the normal elevation of Lake Anna to mitigate the impact of

29 consumptive water use associated with operation of Unit 3 on downstream flows during drought

30 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 31 /s (20 cfs) discharge flows from the Lake Anna

32 Dam as the current normal lake elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL with only NAPS Units 1 and 2

33 operating. Any decisions to change the normal lake elevation would be made by VDEQ.

34

35 5.3.3 Water Quality Impacts

36

37 Changes to this section reflect water treatment processes for the closed-cycle, combination wet

38 and dry cooling system. 

39

40 The discharged waste heat from operation of Unit 3 is not expected to appreciably change the

41 water temperature of Lake Anna because the maximum blowdown flow rate (i.e., 351 L/s

42 [5565 gpm] in EC mode and 245 L/s [3844 gpm] in MWC mode) is insignificant relative to the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-12 July 2006

1 combined discharges from Units 1 and 2 of 123,000 L/s (1,934,300 gpm). Because the Unit 3

2 cooling tower would consume water, the volume of water in Lake Anna would be reduced

3 (compared to operation of only Units 1 and 2 alone) when the lake level elevation is below

4 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. However, assuming the heat rejection rate from operations of Units 1

5 and 2 remains constant, the reduced volume of water in the lake caused by Unit 3 operations

6 would result in an increase of average lake water temperature. Dominion addressed the rise in

7 lake temperatures caused by Unit 3 operations in section 5.2.2.1.3 of the ER, and found that the

8 average temperature rise in Lake Anna would be less than 0.06(C (0.1(F). The staff concurs

9 with the assessment.

10

11 The thermal impacts of Units 3 and 4 would be negligible because a temperature increase of

12 0.06(C (0.1(F) is insignificant. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the thermal

13 impacts of the proposed new units is SMALL, and that mitigation is not warranted.

14

15 Because a specific design has not been selected, the ultimate water treatment systems for

16 proposed Units 3 and 4 have not been specified. Currently, raw cooling water from Lake Anna

17 used for condenser cooling and service water at NAPS Units 1 and 2 is not treated. Makeup

18 water for Unit 3, and the UHS systems for both Units 3 and 4 would be treated with biocides,

19 antiscalants, and dispersants. Treatment of makeup water for ultrapure water systems, such as

20 the condensate and primary cooling systems, would employ technologies such as reverse

21 osmosis and ultrafiltration.

22

23 The agency responsible for regulating the impacts on water quality of discharges into Lake

24 Anna is VDEQ. The water quality impact of effluents from Units 1 and 2 is regulated by a

25 VPDES permit that minimizes the impact on Lake Anna’s water quality. Although Dominion

26 provided a chemical composition of Unit 3 blowdown in its PPE (Appendix I), the concentrations

27 of other waste streams that would discharge to the WHTF from operation of Unit 3 were not

28 defined.

29

30 An applicant for a CP or COL referencing an ESP for the North Anna ESP site would need to

31 provide information on the chemical effluents to the NRC. Based on its review, the staff

32 concludes that the issue of water quality impacts at the North Anna ESP site is not resolved.

33

34 5.4 Ecological Impacts

35

36 Changes to this section reflect ecological impacts from the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet

37 and dry cooling system.

38

39 Dominion has proposed that Unit 3 would be cooled using a closed-cycle, combination wet and

40 dry cooling system, and Unit 4 would be cooled using a closed-cycle system with dry cooling

41 towers. The potential impacts of new operating units on the hydrology of Lake Anna, shoreline
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 vegetation, habitats, and the associated terrestrial and aquatic ecology both of Lake Anna and

2 downstream are addressed in the following sections.

3

4 5.4.1 Terrestrial Ecosystems

5

6 Changes to this section reflect the terrestrial ecological impacts from the closed-cycle,

7 combination wet and dry cooling system.

8

9 This section discusses the impacts of the terrestrial ecosystems in the ESP site vicinity and

10 along the NAPS transmission line rights-of-way from the cooling systems associated with

11 operating the proposed new units at the North Anna ESP site. Closed-cycle heat dissipation

12 systems associated with nuclear power plants have the potential to impact terrestrial ecosystem

13 resources through salt drift, vapor plumes, icing, noise, and avian collisions with tall structures

14 (e.g., cooling towers). Each of these topics is discussed below.

15

16 5.4.1.1 Cooling Tower Impacts on Terrestrial Ecological Resources

17

18 Changes to this section reflect terrestrial ecological impacts from the closed-cycle, combination

19 wet and dry cooling system.

20

21 Salt Drift

22

23 Salt deposition can cause vegetation stress, either directly by deposition of salts onto foliage or

24 indirectly from accumulation of salts in the soil. An order-of-magnitude approach is typically

25 used to evaluate salt deposition on plants, because plant species sensitivities vary and

26 tolerance levels are not well documented. In this approach, deposition of sodium chloride at

27 rates up to 1 to 2 kg/ha/mo is not considered to be damaging to plants, while deposition rates

28 approaching or exceeding 10 kg/ha/mo during the growing season could cause leaf damage in

29 many species (NRC 2000a). All of the predicted deposition rates, both within and beyond the

30 site boundaries, are less than 1 kg/ha/mo. 

31

32 No important terrestrial species or habitats are known to exist within the vicinity of the proposed

33 cooling towers. Important species as defined by the NRC (1999) include Federally or

34 State-listed threatened or endangered species, commercially or recreationally valuable species,

35 species essential to the maintenance and survival of rare or commercially valuable species, and

36 those that perform critical ecological functions or are biological indicators of ecosystem health. 

37 Important habitats include any wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, preserves, or habitats identified by

38 State or Federal agencies as unique, rare, or of priority for protection; wetlands and floodplains;

39 and land areas identified as critical habitat for species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

40 Service (FWS) as threatened or endangered.

41
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-14 July 2006

1 Because salt deposition rates are estimated to be less than 1 kg/ha/mo at all directions and

2 distances from the towers and there are no important terrestrial species or habitats likely to be

3 affected by salt deposition, the staff concludes that salt deposition impacts would be SMALL,

4 and mitigation is not warranted .

5

6 Vapor Plumes and Icing

7

8 The environmental impact of the operation of the wet cooling towers was evaluated by Dominion

9 using the SACTI computer model (ANL 1984), a suite of analytical tools developed by Argonne

10 National Laboratory to describe fogging, icing, salt deposition, and visible plumes from

11 traditional (e.g., non plume-abated) wet cooling towers. The model was developed specifically

12 for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for use in licensing power plants with

13 mechanical- or natural-draft cooling tower systems, has been verified with field data, and has

14 been used for many years. The SACTI program calculates the fogging, icing, salt deposition,

15 and plume height and length without consideration of water-saving techniques or features that

16 could be part of the design of the towers and result in a reduction of the size of the vapor plume. 

17 Using a combination of atmospheric data from the NAPS site and National Weather Service

18 data from Richmond, Virginia, for the period 1998 to 2000, Dominion used the SACTI model to

19 calculate seasonal cooling tower plume characteristics (Dominion 2006a, b).

20

21 Dominion modeled vapor plumes and icing potential based on hourly temperature and relative

22 humidity data recorded from 1996 to 2000 in Richmond, Virginia; this modeling predicted that

23 operation of the new cooling towers would result in approximately 70 additional hours of fogging

24 per year and no additional icing. Vapor plumes (i.e., fog) produced by the cooling system would

25 have a minimal impact on the vision of flying birds, and would be unlikely to adversely affect

26 vegetation. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of vapor plumes on

27 terrestrial resources would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. Similarly, because no

28 icing was predicted by the model, the staff concludes that the impacts of icing would be SMALL,

29 and mitigation is not warranted.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.4.1.2 Noise

2

3 Changes to this section reflect noise impacts from the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

4 cooling system.

5

6 Maximum noise levels from the operation of the reactors and dry cooling towers would be

7 similar to current noise levels to which local species are adapted. Current noise levels at NAPS

8 are occasionally as high as 100 decibels (measured at the security fence during outages), but

9 they are typically less than 80 to 85 decibels, which is the threshold at which birds and small

10 mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Even with all combinations of wet and

11 dry cooling towers in operation, noise levels from the cooling towers would be less than

12 65 decibels at the exclusion area boundary (Dominion 2006a). There are no important

13 terrestrial species or important habitats in the vicinity of the site. Based on the foregoing, the

14 staff concludes that the noise impacts to terrestrial ecological resources would be SMALL, and

15 no mitigation is warranted.

16

17 5.4.1.3 Avian Collisions

18

19 Changes to this section reflect impacts to birds from collisions with the structures comprising the

20 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system.

21

22 As discussed in the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the dry cooling towers proposed for Unit 4 heat

23 dissipation are expected to be approximately 46 m (150 ft) tall, which is considerably less than

24 the 71 m (234 ft) maximum value for the tallest building in the power block. The mechanical

25 draft towers that may be used in the combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 would be

26 approximately 24 m (80 ft) tall. Nevertheless, for purposes of analyzing environmental impacts,

27 Dominion’s evaluation of avian collisions were based on a maximum structure height of 55 m

28 (180 ft) for the cooling tower and 70 m (230 ft) for the maximum structure. No avian collisions

29 with existing NAPS structures have been recorded, and the cooling towers would produce

30 operational noise and air movements that would further decrease the likelihood of bird

31 collisions. In view of the above, it is likely that bird collisions with the new towers would be rare. 

32 The North Anna ESP site is not within a major migratory bird concentration area along the

33 Atlantic flyway (VDCR 2004). Dominion maintains a migratory bird protection program,

34 including protection of nests and reporting of bird (especially raptor) strikes and other events

35 (Dominion 2001a). Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that impacts to birds from

36 collisions with heat dissipation structures would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

37
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-16 July 2006

1 5.4.1.4 Shoreline and Riparian Habitat

2

3 Changes to this section reflect shoreline ecological impacts related to the closed-cycle,

4 combination wet and dry cooling system.

5

6 The increased water use and evaporation resulting from the addition of one new unit using wet

7 cooling towers could increase the amount of shoreline exposed along Lake Anna or affect the

8 length of time that the additional shoreline is exposed, as discussed in Section 5.3, above. This

9 increased shoreline exposure could lead to alterations of the shoreline vegetation or enhance

10 the introduction or spread of undesirable vegetation.

11

12 The staff evaluated the potential impacts of station operation on wetlands along the shoreline

13 and upper reaches of Lake Anna using a hydrological assessment as discussed in

14 Section 5.3.2, above, and in Appendix K. The maximum annual drawdown in most years would

15 not differ greatly from that resulting from the operation of the existing units alone. The fraction

16 of time that lake level would be at or below 75.0 m (246 ft) MSL would increase from 1 percent

17 with two units operating to approximately 2 percent of the time with the addition of Unit 3. The

18 surface elevation would be above 75.6 m (248 ft) MSL approximately 88 percent of the time with

19 three operating units compared with approximately 94 percent of the time with the existing two

20 operating units. The normal pool elevation is 76.2 (250 ft) MSL. The staff determined that the

21 difference between the lake level with and without Unit 3 would be less than 7.6 cm (3 in.)

22 approximately 69 percent of the time, less than 15 cm (6 in.) approximately 85 percent of the

23 time, and less than 30 cm (1 ft) approximately 94 percent of the time. All of the periods for

24 which the difference in the lake surface elevation with and without Unit 3 was predicted to be

25 greater than 30 cm (1 ft) would have occurred during the two major drought events of 1980 to

26 1981 and 2001 to 2002.

27

28 Differences in surface elevations that fluctuate between 0 and 15 cm (0 and 6 in.) are likely to

29 have no discernable effect on shoreline vegetation or wetlands. During the occasional periods

30 when there are greater differences in the surface elevation, there could be noticeable temporary

31 changes in the shoreline and wetland vegetation. Upper areas may dry out, and lower, normally

32 inundated areas may develop stands of wetland vegetation over time. However, the increased

33 drawdown is expected to be temporary, and even if the additional drawdown lasts for a year or

34 more, any observable changes would not be detectable within a relatively short time after the

35 water level returns to normal. Riparian and wetland vegetation is adapted to survive fluctuating

36 water levels and periodic drought conditions without detectable long-term effects. Therefore,

37 the staff concludes that the impacts to shoreline vegetation and habitats would be SMALL, and

38 mitigation is not warranted.

39

40 The VDEQ identified the possibility of raising the lake level 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) to mitigate

41 the impact on North Anna River downstream flows (Dominion 2006a). Dominion evaluated this

42 potential option in Revision 6 of the ER. Dominion stated:
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-17 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Dominion evaluated shoreline areas in an effort to assess, in general, various

2 impacts of potentially raising normal operating lake level 6 inches to 12 inches

3 above 250 ft. MSL, in the event a Virginia permitting agency process determined

4 the need for such an action. [Note: Raising normal operating lake level is not

5 being proposed to demonstrate site suitability. And though not currently

6 proposed, Virginia DEQ could require an increase in lake level to mitigate

7 impacts on down-river flows. Increasing the lake level by approximately 7 inches

8 would eliminate changes in the frequency and duration of the 20 cfs minimum

9 instream flow.]

10

11 On May 3, 2006, the staff toured Lake Anna with the applicant (NRC 2006b) and discussed the

12 option of raising the lake level between 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) to mitigate the impacts on

13 downstream flows. If the lake level were raised 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.), it could impact dock

14 owners and could affect near-shore wetlands, especially the upper reaches of the lake where

15 the tributary streams are enter the North Anna River and in the areas uplake of the North Anna

16 Dam. In areas of relatively steep banks, there would be little affect on wetlands. In the area

17 below the State Road 208 bridge, the change to the wetlands would be most evident due to the

18 gradual slope of the shoreline. The net effect of raising the lake level would be to shift the

19 wetlands, but it would not result in a significant gain or loss of wetlands. The authority to raise

20 the lake level resides with the Commonwealth of Virginia.

21

22 Evaporative losses resulting from the operation of the wet cooling system for Unit 3 could cause

23 decreased flows downriver. Reduced flows could alter the riparian vegetation and habitat for

24 riparian and wetland species along the North Anna River. The staff’s hydrological analysis

25 demonstrates that the fraction of time that weekly average outflow from the North Anna Dam

would be at or below 1.1 m3 26 /s (40 cfs) would increase from approximately 63 percent of the time

27 with NAPS Units 1 and 2 operating to 66 percent with the addition of Unit 3 (Dominion 2006a). 

The analysis also predicted that the fraction of time that the outflow would be at 0.57 m3 28 /s

29 (20 cfs) would increase from 6 percent under current two-unit operations to approximately

30 11 percent of the time with the addition of Unit 3. Under the scenario with just NAPS Units 1

31 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 32 /s (20 cfs). With the addition of Unit 3, the

33 model predicted an additional seven such periods during the 1978 to 2003 modeling period. In

almost all cases, the 0.57 m3 34 /s (20 cfs) average weekly outflow conditions commenced in

35 October, lasted for approximately two weeks to several months, and then returned to higher

36 outflow levels by the end of January.

37

38 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 39 /s (20 cfs) conditions for over 14 months during the 2002

40 drought under both of the modeled conditions (i.e., the baseline with NAPS Units 1 and 2

41 operating and the proposal with Unit 3 operating as well). Low flow would have commenced in

42 early October 2001 with three units operating rather than in late October with two units
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-18 July 2006

1 operating, and would have lasted until mid- to late December 2002 with three units operating

2 rather than early December with just two units. Therefore, although low outflow conditions in

3 the North Anna River were modeled to occur at a noticeably higher fraction of the time with the

4 addition of Unit 3 compared to current conditions, in all but two cases these low-flow periods

5 occurred during portions of the year when the riparian vegetation would have either stopped

6 growing or would already be dormant and is, therefore, not likely to adversely affect growth or

7 reproduction.

8

9 Therefore, it is not likely that a period of reduced outflow approximately every few years would

10 noticeably affect the riparian vegetation downstream. The staff’s analysis identified 2 out of

25 years when the 0.57 m3 11 /s (20 cfs) outflow conditions would have commenced during August. 

12 Low outflow during the growing season could have short-term effects on riparian vegetation;

13 however, riparian vegetation is adapted to survive periodic fluctuations in water level and

14 drought conditions without detectable long-term effects. The staff’s analysis determined that

there would be periods of reduced i.e., (0.57 m3 15 /s [20 cfs]) outflow during the growing season

16 approximately once a decade. Therefore, the changes in the flow regime are not expected to

17 noticeably change the quantity, distribution, or characteristics of the riparian or wetland

18 vegetation and habitats along the North Anna River between the North Anna Dam and the

19 confluence with the South Anna River. Therefore, the staff concludes that impacts of the

20 additional units on downstream riparian habitats would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

21 warranted.

22

23 5.4.1.5 Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

24

25 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

26 for context.

27

28 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff previously evaluated Dominion’s procedures to ensure

29 that Dominion staff could identify and avoid rare and sensitive plant species in the NAPS

30 transmission line rights-of-way or would modify mechanical and herbicide treatment practices

31 used to avoid adverse impacts. In its analysis of the application to renew the operating licenses

32 for NAPS Units 1 and 2, the staff determined that continued operation and maintenance of the

33 transmission lines rights-of-way would not adversely impact terrestrial resources (NRC 2002b). 

34 Based on the foregoing and because there would be no new lines or alterations of the existing

35 rights-of-way, the staff concludes that the operational impacts of Units 3 and 4 on terrestrial

36 ecological resources did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and

37 mitigation is not warranted.

38
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-19 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.4.1.6 Summary of Terrestrial Ecosystems Impacts

2

3 Changes to this section reflect terrestrial ecological impacts from the closed-cycle, combination

4 wet and dry cooling system.

5

6 The staff considered potential impacts to terrestrial ecological resources of operating the

7 proposed Units 3 and 4, including salt drift; fogging; icing; noise; avian collisions; changes to

8 shoreline, riparian, and wetland habitat; and transmission line rights-of-way. Based on its

9 analysis and independent review, the staff concludes that the operational impacts of Units 3

10 and 4 operations on terrestrial ecological resources would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

11 warranted.

12

13 5.4.2 Aquatic Impacts

14

15 Changes to this section reflect aquatic ecological impacts from the closed-cycle, combination

16 wet and dry cooling system.

17

18 This section discusses the impacts on the Lake Anna and the North Anna River aquatic

19 ecosystems from the cooling systems associated with operating the proposed new units at the

20 North Anna ESP site. The potential impacts to the aquatic environment are expected to be

21 related solely to the operation of Unit 3. Unit 4 is expected to use a closed-cycle, dry cooling

22 system that uses almost no cooling water. Therefore, this analysis focuses on Unit 3

23 operational impacts.

24

25 5.4.2.1 Intake System

26

27 Changes to this section reflect intake structure for the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

28 cooling system and its associated impacts on the aquatic ecology in Lake Anna.

29

30 The existing cooling water system for NAPS Units 1 and 2 is a once-through design that

31 withdraws water from the Lake Anna reservoir. At maximum capacity, Units 1 and 2 withdraw

32 122,000 L/s (1,934,300 gpm), or about 2.8 percent of the total Lake Anna volume per day

(3.76 x 108 m3 33 at 76.2 m MSL [305,000 ac ft at 250 ft MSL]). Each unit uses four circulating

34 water pumps to withdraw condenser cooling water from Lake Anna, and the water is withdrawn

35 through screens located in a cove north of the station. Each screen well contains four individual

36 bays, and each bay is equipped with a trash rack, a traveling screen, and a vertical,

37 motor-driven, circulating water pump. The trash racks consist of 1.3-cm (0.5-in.) wide by 8.9-cm

38 (3.5-in.) thick vertical bars spaced 10.2 cm (4.0 in.) on center. Water flows through the trash

39 racks at about 0.2 m/s (0.69 ft/s) (VEPCo 1985). Traveling screens in the front of the cooling

40 water pumps filter the water and protect the pumps from damage and clogging. The traveling

41 screens, constructed of 14-gauge wire with 9.5-mm (0.37-in.) square openings are designed to

42 rotate once every 24 hr or whenever a predetermined differential pressure exists across the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-20 July 2006

1 screens. Debris collected at the trash racks is removed by mechanical rakes. Debris and fish

2 collected in the wire baskets are disposed of as solid waste (VEPCo 1985). After passing

3 through the plant, water is returned to the WHTF, which is separated from the main part of the

4 lake by a series of dikes. 

5

6 The cooling water intake system can affect aquatic communities by either impingement or

7 entrainment. Impingement occurs when swimming organisms are not strong enough to escape

8 the cooling water intake current and are caught or stuck on the screens (i.e., impinged). 

9 Impinged organisms are generally fish, but can occasionally include other semi-aquatic animals

10 such as amphibians (e.g., frogs, turtles, and salamanders), waterfowl (e.g., ducks and coots), or

11 mammals (e.g., muskrats). The screens are periodically cleaned using a spray wash system to

12 remove impinged organisms. Impingement mortality varies with species, but is considered to be

13 100 percent because NAPS Units 1 and 2 do not have a fish return system.

14

15 Entrainment is the passage of organisms through the traveling screens into the cooling water

16 system. Entrained organisms are generally small and include phytoplankton, zooplankton, and

17 fish eggs and larvae. As these entrained organisms pass through the cooling water system,

18 they are subjected to a variety of stresses that may result in mortality. Impacts to the entrained

19 organisms include physical damage from contact with pumps, pipes, and condensers;

20 pressure-related damage from passage through pumps; damage from shear associated with

21 complex water flows; damage from exposure to elevated temperatures in the condenser

22 passage; and potential exposure to toxic chemicals added to the cooling water system. 

23 Entrainment mortality varies by species, but is considered to be 100 percent for closed-cycle

24 cooling systems similar to the one proposed for Unit 3.

25

26 Dominion originally proposed a once-through cooling system for Unit 3, with a cooling water

27 intake structure approximately 46 m (150 ft) long and 61 m (200 ft) wide to house the trash

28 racks, traveling screens, and intake pumps (Dominion 2004a). Shoreline contouring and

29 channel dredging were expected to occur and would have posed a potential source of

30 temporary impacts on the reservoir ecosystem in the immediate vicinity during construction

31 activities. In ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a), Dominion proposes to reduce the size of the

32 intake structure to support the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system to 21 m

33 (70 ft) long and 21 m (70 ft) wide because of a reduced demand for water. Assessments of

34 impact described in this SDEIS assume that Unit 3 withdraws water from a new intake structure

35 and that the maximum water withdrawal associated with Unit 3 would be 1400 L/s (49.6 cfs). 

36 This represents a 1.4 percent increase in water withdrawal from Lake Anna compared to the

37 current water withdrawal of about 120,000 L/s (4300 cfs) to support Units 1 and 2. Because

38 Unit 4 employs a closed-cycle, dry cooling system, water use is negligible compared to the

39 other three units and is not considered in this impact assessment.

40
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-21 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.4.2.2 Impingement

2

3 Changes to this section reflect impingement losses resulting from the reduced circulating water

4 flow rate of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system.

5

6 In 1985, Virginia Power (VEPCo) published Impingement and Entrainment Studies for North

7 Anna Power Station, 1978-1983 (VEPCo 1985). This document described the study design and

8 results associated with work conducted under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act in

9 compliance with the NAPS Environmental Technical Specifications and the then existing

10 VPDES permit under Special Conditions: Environmental Studies (“the Section 316(b) study”). 

11 The objective of the Section 316(b) study was to examine the effects of impingement and

12 entrainment associated with the cooling water intake system supplying Units 1 and 2 to

13 determine whether NAPS operations adversely affect fish populations in the Lake Anna

14 reservoir.

15

16 During the study years (1979 to 1983), an average of just over 47,400 fish representing

17 34 species were collected annually for each full year. Results for 1978 were not included in the

18 analysis because sampling occurred only from April to December. During each sampling

19 episode, traveling screens were washed to ensure all fish were collected, and decayed fish or

20 fish assumed to have been dead for more than 24 h were discarded. The remaining fish were

21 identified by species and counted, and up to 50 individuals of each species were weighed and

22 measured. By relating the number of fish impinged to the sampling duration and measured

23 intake flow, it was possible to estimate daily, monthly, and yearly impingement values for

24 species of interest.

25

26 The Section 316(b) study results were based on the operating conditions that existed at that

27 time and the intake configurations and specifications described in ER Revision 6 and the Draft

28 EIS (NRC 2004a). The study found that six fish species accounted for 99 percent of all fish

29 impingements (Table 5-1). The gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum, was the species most

30 commonly impinged, and accounted for 61 percent of the observed impingements during the

31 study period (Table 5-1). More than 80 percent of the total impingements occurred from

32 January to April (Table 5-2).

33

34 Concurrent with the study, cove rotenone sampling in Lake Anna was conducted from 1979 to

35 1983 to determine the impact of the estimated impingements on species biomass. This cove

36 rotenone sampling determined that gizzard shad impingements associated with the

37 once-through cooling system used for Units 1 and 2 represented 0.32 percent of the total lake

38 biomass of that species. Impingement impacts for the other representative important fish

39 species (RIS) expressed as the biomass lost to impingement ranged from 0.02 percent for the

40 bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, to 3.8 percent for the black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus,

41 (Table 5-1).

42

43
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-22 July 2006

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

2 (Dominion 2006a)

3

4

5 Common Name Scientific Name

Percent of Total

Impingement

Estimated Percent of Lake

Anna Total Biomass by

Species

6 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 61 0.32

7 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 16 3.8

8 Yellow perch Perca flavescens 16 1.4

9 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 4 0.02

10 White perch Morone americana 1 0.1

11 Striped bass Morone saxatilis 1 no data

12

13 Table 5-2. Estimated Mean Monthly Impingement of RIS

14

15

16 Month

Estimated Mean Impingement per Month (all species)

Existing Units(a)

(1979-1983)

Unit 3 Combination Wet and 

Dry Cooling System(a)

17 16,012 310 January

18 30,873 811 February

19 93,955 3258 March

20 15,702 480 April

21 4364 117 May

22 1560 37 June

23 1034 20 July

24 1680 30 August

25 2166 37 September

26 4454 101 October

27 5360 123 November

28 5280 116 December

29 182,440 5440 Yearly Total

30 (a) ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006)

31

32 To assess the impacts of impingement associated with the closed-cycle, combination wet and

33 dry cooling system proposed for Unit 3, the staff compared estimates of impingement

34 associated with existing Units 1 and 2 derived from the Section 316(b) study to the losses

35 predicted for Unit 3 proposed combination wet and dry cooling system design

36 (Dominion 2006a). To assess impingement losses for Unit 3, Dominion used an intake flow rate

37 of 1723 L/s (27,309 gpm) in their calculations. This represents a maximum flow rate through the

38 intake and results in a conservative (environmentally protective) estimate of losses. Typically,
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-23 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 normal plant cooling tower makeup water needs are expected to be 971 L/s (34.3 cfs). In

2 developing its estimate of impingement losses for Unit 3, Dominion assumed the current

3 fish distribution and composition would be the same as that observed during the Section 316(b)

4 study, that a new cooling water system would operate at 100 percent pumping capacity, and

5 that the intake screen mesh size and flow velocity for Unit 3 would be the same as that of the

6 existing units. 

7

8 Because the water use associated with the closed-cycle combination wet and dry cooling

9 system is much less than that of NAPS Units 1 and 2, impingement rates resulting from Unit 3

10 would be significantly less than current impingement rates (Table 5-2). Based on the

11 information provided by Dominion in ER Revision 6, adding the Unit 3 combination wet and dry

12 cooling system to the existing once-through cooling system for Units 1 and 2 employed at NAPS

13 would increase average yearly impingement from Lake Anna from 182,440 to 187,880

14 individuals, or approximately 1 percent. Moreover, these estimates are probably conservative

15 because of the flow estimates used for Unit 3 intake flow. Accordingly, the staff concludes that

16 there would be a negligible decrease in fish biomass in Lake Anna. 

17

18 The Section 316(b) study conducted at NAPS from 1978 to 1983 concluded that impingement

19 associated with the once-through cooling system employed by Units 1 and 2 had not resulted in

20 significant impacts to the fish communities of Lake Anna. Subsequent monitoring since that

21 time (VEPCo 2002) has shown that fish populations in the reservoir are healthy and diverse. 

22 Because the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system proposed for Unit 3

23 increases the total cooling water withdrawal from Lake Anna by approximately 1 percent and

24 would result in a minimal increase in impingement and fish biomass loss relative to the current

25 Unit 1 and 2 operations, the staff concludes that the impacts of impingement would be SMALL. 

26 Although the staff concludes that the impacts of impingement to the Lake Anna fishery would be

27 small, further mitigation could reduce losses if the intake through screen flow velocity were

28 designed to be less than 0.15 m/s (0.5 ft/s), as recommended by the EPA Section 316(b).

29

30 5.4.2.3 Entrainment

31

32 Changes to this section reflect entrainment losses resulting from the reduced circulating water

33 flow rate of the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system.

34

35 The Section 316(b) study described above also considered entrainment. Entrainment samples

36 were collected once a week in front of the intake forebays from 1979 to 1983. Sampling was

37 conducted from March through July of each year, which encompassed the spawning periods of

38 certain reservoir fish species (e.g., the bluegill, L. macrochirus; the yellow perch, Perca

39 flavescens; the black crappie, P. nigromaculatus; the white perch, Morone americana; and the

40 largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides (VEPCo 1985). An average of 1318 fish larvae were

41 collected annually in the entrainment samples. Entrainment samples did not contain fish eggs

42 because most of the species in the reservoir produce demersal (near the lake bottom) adhesive
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-24 July 2006

1 eggs that are not generally entrained. For purposes of the Section 316(b) study and as a

2 conservative estimate of impact, Dominion assumed 100 percent mortality for all larval fish

3 entrained (VEPCo 1985).

4

5 As previously described in Section 5.4.2.2, the staff analysis was based on the Section 316(b)

6 study results and the intake configurations and specifications described in ER Revision 6 and

7 the Draft EIS. The Section 316(b) study results determined that the larvae of five species

8 accounted for the majority of larval entrainment, with the largest entrainment abundances

9 associated with the larvae of gizzard shad (D. cepedianum) at 65 percent (Table 5-3). Larvae

10 of white perch (M. americana) accounted for 15 percent of the entrainment abundances during

11 the study, and larvae of sunfish (family Centrachidae) accounted for 13.3 percent of the

12 entrainment abundances. Larvae of the yellow perch and black crappie accounted for less than

13 6 percent of entrainment abundances (Table 5-3). Based on the duration of entrainment

14 sampling, sampling gear used, and the measured flow, total larval entrainment was calculated

15 by month and by year for each species during the study period (Table 5-4). 

16

17 Because larval abundance in Lake Anna is not known, it was not possible to determine the

18 percentage of larvae entrained based on the actual abundance in the lake. The adult equivalent

19 model of Goodyear (1978) was used with the following assumptions to assess the population

20 impacts caused by the loss of fish larvae from entrainment by the existing NAPS units: 

21 (1) 100 percent mortality of entrained larvae; (2) stock populations are at equilibrium, and the

22 total lifetime fecundity produces two adults; (3) no compensatory mechanisms are operating;

23 and (4) 75 percent of the eggs produced by the entrained species survive to the larval stage. 

24 The model estimated the number of adult fish that would have resulted from the larvae had they

25 not been lost to entrainment, and also provided an estimate of the potential percent reduction in

26 the adult fish population as a consequence of entrainment. Predicted reductions in fish

27 populations ranged from 0.01 percent for black crappie in 1978 and 1979 and sunfish in 1982,

28 to 4.13 percent for gizzard shad in 1980. Dominion concluded that reductions of this magnitude

29 would not be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the reservoir fish populations for

30 those species, especially when viewed in concert with other population mechanisms such as

31 natural compensation (VEPCo 1985). The analysis from the adult equivalent model provided a

32 conservative estimate of entrainment impact by the existing units, primarily as a result of

33 assumptions used in the analysis (VEPCo 1985).

34

35 To assess the impacts of entrainment for the proposed closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

36 cooling system, the staff compared estimates of entrainment from the Section 316(b) study for

37 the existing units to calculate entrainment losses predicted for Unit 3. As described above,

38 Dominion used an intake flow rate of 1723 L/s (27,309 gpm; 60.8 cfs) to estimate entrainment

39 for Unit 3. This represents a maximum flow rate through the intake and results in a

40 conservative (environmentally protective) estimate of losses. Typically, normal plant cooling 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-25 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

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

2 (Dominion 2006a)

3

4 Common Name Scientific Name Estimated Percent of Total Entrainment

5 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 65.7

6 White perch Morone americana 15.0

7 Sunfishes Lepomis sp. 13.3

8 Yellow perch Perca flavescens 4.9

9 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1.0

10

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

12

13

14 Month

Estimated Mean Entrainment per Month (all species)

Existing Units(a)

(1978-1983)

Unit 3

 Combination Wet and Dry(a)

15 223,513 5251 March

16 10,600,874 272,335 April

17 71,160,116 1,644,107 May

18 55,855,069 1,204,313 June

19 11,521,058 230,416 July

20 149,390,630 3,354,224 Yearly Total

21 (a) ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006)

22

23 tower makeup water needs are 971 L/s (34.3 cfs). Dominion assumes the fish larvae

24 distribution and composition has remained the same as in the Section 316(b) study, that a new 

25 cooling water system would operate at 100 percent efficiency, and that the intake screen mesh

26 size and flow velocity for the new unit would be the same as that of the existing units.

27

28 Because the water use associated with the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

29 system is much less than that of the once-through cooling system for Units 1 and 2, entrainment

30 at Unit 3 would be significantly less than at the existing units (Table 5-4). Based on the

31 information provided by Dominion in ER Version 6 (Dominion 2006a), adding the Unit 3 cooling

32 system to the existing once-through cooling system for Units 1 and 2 would increase yearly

33 entrainment from about 149,400 larvae to about 152,800, or approximately 1 percent. 

34 Moreover, these estimates are likely conservative because of the high intake flow estimates

35 used for Unit 3. Accordingly, the staff concludes that there would be a negligible loss of larval

36 fish in the North Anna fish communities.

37
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-26 July 2006

1 Based on the results of the Section 316(b) study and a comparison of entrainment abundances

2 expected to occur using the Unit 3 closed-cycle combination wet and dry cooling system, as

3 described above, the staff concludes that the impacts of entrainment of Unit 3 operations

4 superimposed on Units 1 and 2 would be negligible. The fish populations most susceptible to

5 larval entrainment represent a balanced community in Lake Anna. Over the years fishery

6 management of the reservoir has matured and changed to meet the demands for public fishing

7 through species additions (i.e., threadfin shad, Dorosoma petenense, and annual stockings of

8 striped bass, M. saxatilis, and walleye Stizostedion vitreum). Overall, the abundance and

9 quality of the fisheries have remained healthy and balanced despite increased fishing pressure

10 and shoreline property development. Because of the thriving populations of game fish and the

11 forage species that support them, the staff concludes that the additional entrainment resulting

12 from the operation of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system would

13 represent a minor increase in entrainment, and the impacts on aquatic species in Lake Anna

14 would be SMALL.

15

16 Although the staff concludes the impacts of entrainment for Unit 3 would be SMALL, it

17 considered further mitigation by employing 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) mesh screening on the traveling

18 screen intakes associated with Unit 3. Replacing the existing 9.5-mm (0.37-in.) mesh screening

19 with 1.0-mm (0.04-in.) mesh would physically exclude the entrainment of most larvae and eggs

20 from Lake Anna. However, these organisms would be impinged on the screens because they

21 have little or no motility and cannot avoid the intake. These life forms would experience

22 mortality rates of close to 100 percent because they are fragile and are unable to escape from

23 the surface of the screens. The use of fine mesh screen technology to reduce entrainment is

24 typically employed in riverine environments where a sweeping current is present because of

25 downstream flow. A sweeping current naturally removes surface debris and impinged

26 organisms. Such sweeping flows are not present in the North Anna reservoir. Therefore, the

27 staff concludes that the use of fine-mesh screening would not significantly reduce the already

28 small entrainment losses predicted for Unit 3 operation, and mitigation is not warranted. 

29

30 5.4.2.4 Aquatic Thermal Impacts

31

32 Changes to this section reflect aquatic impacts from thermal discharge from the closed-cycle,

33 combination wet and dry cooling system.

34

35 This section discusses the potential thermal impacts to the aquatic resources of Lake Anna from

36 the discharge of heated blowdown water from the proposed Unit 3 combination wet and dry

37 cooling system. This water would enter the existing canal, mix with the water released from the

38 NAPS Units 1 and 2 cooling system, pass into the WHTF, and ultimately flow back into Lake

39 Anna and the North Anna River. Fish and other aquatic flora and fauna could be affected if

40 there are rapid changes in water temperatures above or below their tolerance range. The staff

41 evaluated the thermal impacts on the lake’s ecosystem and described the water-use impacts of

42 the cooling system for an additional unit. Except where more detailed data were available, the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-27 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 design parameter values from the PPE (Appendix I) were used as the basis for the analysis and

2 evaluation of the Unit 3 discharge system. The staff described the physical attributes of the

3 discharge system in Section 3.2.2.

4

Currently, cooling water from NAPS Units 1 and 2 is discharged at a rate of 120 m3 5 /s (4246 cfs)

6 into the WHTF at a temperature of approximately 8(C (14(F) above intake ambient conditions. 

7 The water flows through a series of lagoons and connecting canals and returns to Lake Anna at

8 Dike 3, which is just above the North Anna Dam. Waste heat is transferred to the atmosphere

9 mostly by evaporation, conduction, and back radiation, and only a small fraction of waste heat is

10 transported downstream via the North Anna Dam. Dominion estimates that with both NAPS

11 Units 1 and 2 operating, the cooling water residence time in the WHTF is approximately 7 days,

12 and that about one-half of the waste heat is dissipated in that time. Virtually all of the remaining

13 heat is dissipated to the atmosphere from the surface of Lake Anna either by evaporation or

14 radiation. The general characteristics of Lake Anna include a more riverine environment

15 upstream to a lacustrine environment downstream. Thus, the middle and lower portions of the

16 lake are generally stratified during the summer and mixed or weakly stratified in winter.

17

18 Cold Shock

19

20 Cold shock occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as

21 fish in a power plant’s discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This is

22 more likely to occur if a single-unit power plant shuts down suddenly in winter. It is less likely to

23 occur at a multiple-unit plant, because a sudden temperature decrease is moderated by the

24 heated discharge from the remaining unit or units that continue to operate. Cold shock

25 mortalities at U.S. nuclear power plants are relatively rare and typically involve small numbers of

26 fish (NRC 1996).

27

28 Winter kills of fish have occurred in Lake Anna associated with cold weather and unusually cold

29 water temperatures, but plant operations were not a factor (NRC 2004a). During February and

30 March 1979, large numbers of gizzard shad were killed or stunned when Lake Anna water

31 temperatures fell below 2.2(C (36(F) (VEPCo 1985). These fish drifted into the existing units’

32 intake and were observed in impingement samples. The susceptibility of gizzard shad and

33 threadfin shad to winter kills is well known, and limited threadfin shad kills have occurred during

34 severe winters. The threadfin shad is native to the Gulf slope of the United States, peninsular

35 Florida, and Central America, and was introduced as a forage fish to a number of Virginia

36 impoundments in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Because this

37 species is subject to cold kills when water temperatures drop below 8.9(C (48(F), it is able to

38 overwinter in northern latitude impoundments only when waters are heated by power plant

39 effluents (Olmsted and Clugston 1986).

40

41 As noted above, incidents of cold shock in receiving waters of nuclear power plants are

42 infrequent, and even more infrequent at multiple-unit plants. Because the maximum blowdown
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-28 July 2006

1 discharge temperature is 37.8(C (100(F), and the maximum blowdown flow rate is 351 L/s

2 (12.4 cfs), the addition of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system

3 represents a minor contribution of water and heat to the existing discharges associated with

4 NAPS Units 1 and 2. Thus, the presence of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

5 cooling system would have little or no impact on increasing the number of fish acclimated to

6 elevated water temperature. Moreover, the presence of multiple units at a site reduces the

7 effect of cold shock because it is unlikely that all units would cease operation simultaneously. 

8 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of operation from cold shock on

9 aquatic resources would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted

10

11 Heat Stress

12

13 As described in the Draft EIS, the thermal tolerance for aquatic organisms is defined in different

14 ways (NRC 2004a). Some definitions relate to the temperature that causes fish to avoid the

15 thermal plume, other definitions relate to the temperature that fish prefer for spawning, and

16 others relate to the temperatures (upper and lower) that may kill individual fishes. Some of

17 these tolerances are termed preferred temperatures, upper avoidance temperatures, and lethal

18 temperatures. A list of these tolerances for several important species found in the reservoir was

19 compiled in ER Revision 3 (Dominion 2004a) and is discussed in the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a).

20

21 In Section 5.3, the staff describes its independent assessment of the incremental impacts of the

22 proposed Unit 3 on the water temperatures within Lake Anna. The negligible increase in flow

23 and heat load from Unit 3 relative to the existing flow and heat load from Units 1 and 2 would

24 result in a negligible increase in the temperature and associated heat stress that fish in Lake

25 Anna would experience. Although temperature-related fish kills have been reported in the lake

26 and may continue to occur, it is unlikely that the operation of the Unit 3 closed-cycle,

27 combination wet and dry cooling system would result in increased mortality beyond that

28 observed during two unit operation, given the minor flow and thermal inputs to the WHTF and

29 lake. Additionally, many fish found in the lake are prolific, exhibit a high reproductive potential,

30 and compensate to offset losses. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes the thermal

31 impacts on the fish populations of the discharge of waste heat from Unit 3 into Lake Anna would

32 be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

33

34 5.4.2.5 Striped Bass

35

36 Changes to this section reflect impacts to the striped bass population from thermal discharge

37 from the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system.

38

39 Striped bass, M. saxatilis, are well adapted to residence in fresh water, and are often chosen for

40 the development of a recreational fishery in inland reservoirs. Considered a cool-water species,

41 striped bass become less mobile as the water warms and seek out thermal refuges where water

42 temperature is less than 26°C (79°F) and dissolved oxygen levels are at least 3 or 4 mg/L
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-29 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 (Cheek et al. 1985). Because striped bass are sensitive to changes in temperature and

2 vulnerable to thermal stress, some reservoir populations are susceptible to summer die-offs

3 because of elevated lake temperatures and diminished dissolved oxygen levels. In reservoirs

4 similar to Lake Anna in the southern United States, striped bass are generally found in deeper,

5 colder water during the summer months, and tend to congregate near the thermocline. The

6 striped bass fishery in Lake Anna is supported by stocking; there is no evidence that this

7 species spawns in Lake Anna or the North Anna River. Spawning has been documented in the

8 Pamunkey River during the months of April and May.

9

10 Impacts to Striped Bass Populations in Lake Anna

11

12 Evidence suggests that unusually high air temperatures and low rainfall in summer (e.g., the

13 drought conditions that occurred in central Virginia from 2001 to 2002) can reduce striped bass

14 habitat in some portions of Lake Anna. The closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

15 system proposed for Unit 3 would contribute less than 1 percent to the current discharge flow of

16 heated water to the discharge canal and WHTF, and the maximum temperature of the

17 blowdown water (38(C [100(F]) would be within the range of temperatures currently observed in

18 the discharge canal in July and August of 37.0( to 39.1(C (98.6( to 102.4(F) (Dominion 2006a). 

19 Unit 4 would use dry cooling only and would not have thermal impacts on the lake.

20

21 Based on the above, the staff determined that waste heat input to Lake Anna from the Unit 3

22 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system would not appreciably contribute to the

23 thermal heating that already occurs in Lake Anna because of natural and anthropogenic

24 (derived from human activities) inputs. Lake Anna currently is stratified during the summer and

25 is mixed or weakly stratified in winter; this pattern would not change with the operation of Unit 3. 

26 Although NAPS Units 1 and 2 operations during extended drought periods decrease striped

27 bass habitat, there is no evidence indicating that suitable habitat would be eliminated in the

28 mid-lake and upper-lake areas. Because Unit 3 would not significantly contribute to the current

29 thermal inputs to Lake Anna, the staff concludes that the thermal impacts to striped bass from

30 the operation of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and the Unit 4

31 dry cooling system would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

32

33 Impacts to Other Striped Bass Populations in the Vicinity of the ESP Site

34

35 Striped bass are known to occur in the North Anna River downstream of the dam, but these fish

36 are believed to have passed through or over the dam from Lake Anna. Striped bass are known

37 to occur and spawn successfully in the Pamunkey River, but they are unlikely to venture above

38 the fall line during their spawning migrations (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Because of the

39 distance downstream from the dam to the spawning area on the Pamunkey River (river km 119

40 [mi 74]), the waste heat discharged from Units 1 and 2 is not detectable and does not affect

41 anadromous striped bass populations or known spawning habitat downstream of the dam. 

42 Because the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and the Unit 4 dry
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-30 July 2006

1 cooling system would not significantly contribute to the current thermal inputs to the WHTF or

2 the lake from the operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2, the staff concludes that the thermal impacts

3 to striped bass in the North Anna/Pamunkey Rivers would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

4 warranted.

5

6 Lake Anna Striped Bass Recreational Fishery

7

8 The staff distinguishes between the striped bass fishery and the population of striped bass

9 inhabiting the reservoir: the striped bass fishery encompasses all aspects of the activity,

10 business, or practice of catching striped bass in the reservoir and includes the fish, the anglers,

11 and all related activities, such as boating, tackle sales, and guide services. In the Draft EIS

12 (NRC 2004a), the staff identified three major factors affecting the striped bass population in the

13 reservoir. These factors are (1) the VDGIF stocking strategy, (2) Unit 1 and 2 operations and

14 their effect on water temperatures, and (3) recreational fishing pressure. As described above,

15 the effects of NAPS Units 1 and 2 operations would not noticeably change with the addition of a

16 Unit 3 operation with a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system because this

17 system minimally increments the existing thermal inputs to the WHTF or the lake from the

18 operations of Units 1 and 2. Because the Lake Anna striped bass population is sustained

19 through stocking, and suitable striped bass habitat is expected to continue to exist in Lake

20 Anna, and in view of the minimal heat input to the WHTF or the lake from Unit 3, the staff

21 concludes that the heat stress impact on the striped bass and associated fishery from Unit 3

22 operations would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the restocking actions stated above

23 is not warranted.

24

25 5.4.2.6 Downstream Impacts

26

27 This section was added to reflect the impacts to the North Anna River from changes in the water

28 levels for the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and for dam operating

29 levels.

30

31 In the Draft EIS, the staff indicated that the streamflow in the North Anna River downstream of

32 the Lake Anna Dam is influenced by the flow attenuation impact of the lake and policies

33 governing the release from the dam (NRC 2004a). Based on streamflow data collected

34 downstream from Doswell, Virginia (approximately 32 km [20 mi] downstream of the North Anna

35 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 36 /s (149 cfs)

37 during August (USGS 2006).

38

39 Because of the large surface area of the lake, small increases in lake elevations can quickly

40 accommodate significant upstream flood flows. The downstream flow from the dam is less

41 variable than it was prior to impoundment. Under normal operating conditions, release gates on

42 the dam are operated to maintain a steady lake level elevation of 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. For lake

43 levels less than 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL, the Lake Level Contingency Plan is followed in
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-31 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 accordance with Part I.F of the VPDES permit (VDEQ 2001). This plan requires a normal

minimum water release rate from the Lake Anna dam of 1.1 m3 2 /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 3 /s (20 cfs). 

4 These minimum flow requirements are established to maintain instream flows and water quality

5 in the North Anna River downstream of the dam, and in the Pamunkey and York Rivers further

6 downstream. Steady low-flow releases from the dam can persist for several months, particularly

7 in the drier summer period, and under conditions of extreme drought (e.g., the drought occurring

8 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 9 /s

10 (40 cfs) would be reestablished.

11

12 The VDEQ identified the possibility of raising the lake level 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) to mitigate

13 the impact on North Anna River downstream flows (Dominion 2006a). The authority to raise the

14 lake level resides with the Commonwealth of Virginia.

15

16 While the staff concludes that the incremental heat load from Unit 3 would cause undetectable

17 changes in lake temperature, the evaporative losses from the cooling towers could result in

18 consumptive water losses that may noticeably impact lake levels and downstream flows. The

19 staff performed an independent review of water budget impacts of the operation of Unit 3

20 incremental declines in reservoir water levels and downstream discharges. The results in

21 Table 5.5 indicate that the fraction of time that the lake would be below 75.6 m (248 ft) would

22 increase from about 6 percent for NAPS Units 1 and 2 (baseline) to 11 percent for NAPS Units 1

23 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 24 /s

(40 cfs) to 0.57 m3 25 /s (20 cfs) as the lake level declines below 75.6 m (248 ft), the fraction of time

26 that the lake level is between 76.2 m (250 ft) and 75.6 m (248 ft) is essentially the same

27 between the baseline (57 percent) and the proposed (55 percent).

28

29 As set forth below, the impacts to aquatic ecology during low-flow conditions would likely be

30 greatest in the reach of the North Anna River extending from the dam to the confluence with the

31 South Anna River. To quantify the impacts to instream flows in the North Anna River, Dominion

32 calculated Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) using a standard methodology described in

33 ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a). The IHA analysis concluded that the Pamunkey River flow

34 downstream of the North Anna River would be reduced by 0.5 to 5 percent for all flow regimes,

35 but that river flow during the months of April and May would be sufficient to support striped bass

36 spawning. Dominion concluded that the biological impacts of the Unit 3 closed cycle,

37 combination wet and dry cooling system to the general aquatic community of the North Anna

38 River and striped bass spawning and rearing areas in the Pamunkey would be indistinguishable

39 from the effects of operations of NAPS Units 1 and 2.

40
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-32 July 2006

1 Table 5-5. Fraction of Time at Various Lake Level Elevation (with associated downstream

2 releases)

3

4 Lake level Elevation

5 (ft)

North Anna Dam 

Discharge (cfs)

NAPS Existing

Units 1 and 2

NAPS Existing Units 

1 and 2 plus Unit 3

6 Follows rating curve (>40 cfs) 37% 33% At or above 250 ft

7 40 cfs 57% 55% Between 250 and 248 ft

8 20 cfs 6% 11% At or below 248 ft

9 20 cfs 1% 2% At or below 246 ft

10 245.2 ft 243.5 ft Minimum elevation

11

12 The existing biological communities in the North Anna River and the waters downstream of the

13 North Anna River experience a wide variation in seasonal and even daily water temperatures,

14 and most resident species are able to tolerate potentially harmful conditions that exist because

15 of low-flow conditions, anthropogenic impacts, and other physical or chemical stressors. 

16 Although the blowdown water from Unit 3 would contain biocides, antiscalants, and dispersals,

17 the concentrations of these chemicals in the blowdown water would not be expected to be high

18 enough to affect species downstream of the dam. Moreover, the use and concentrations of

19 anti-fouling chemicals would be regulated by Dominion’s NPDES permit, which establishes

20 discharge criteria to protect sensitive aquatic communities. Because the incremental waste

21 heat transported to the North Anna River would be small, it is not expected to adversely affect

22 the aquatic communities of the North Anna River nor is it expected to influence the

23 temperatures of the Pamunkey or York Rivers or the Chesapeake Bay. Although flow over the

24 North Anna Dam could be reduced by up to 5 percent during some parts of the year, sufficient

25 water is expected to be available in the North Anna River to support downstream spawning of

26 striped bass in the Pamunkey River. The lowest flow regimes are likely to occur during the

27 months from June to December when striped bass are not spawning and are less likely to be

28 adversely affected by lower water levels.

29

30 A preliminary analysis of American shad, Alosa sapidissima, data by VDGIF suggests that a

31 correlation may exist between flow and year class strength. This could result in the need to

32 modify the water releases at the North Anna Dam during certain periods of the year. 

33 Modifications to water release would be under the jurisdiction of the VDEQ.

34

35 Operation of Unit 3 could result in consumptive water use resulting from evaporative loss from

36 the cooling towers. Based on the water budget modeling conducted by the staff, the loss of

37 water from Lake Anna reservoir for the operation of Unit 3 would increase the fraction of time

38 that the reservoir would be at or below 75.6 m (248 ft) from 6 percent for the baseline

39 (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 40 /s

41 (20 cfs) and result in reduced downstream flow during the summer months or extended periods
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-33 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 of drought. Based on the staff's independent review of the IHA analysis conducted by

2 Dominion, sufficient water should be available during the spring and early summer to support

3 striped bass spawning and rearing requirements in the Pamunkey River downstream of NAPS. 

4 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the aquatic impacts to Lake Anna and the

5 downstream communities from the operation of Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL. Nevertheless,

6 the Commonwealth of Virginia may elect to implement mitigation strategies to further protect the

7 aquatic environment.

8

9 Although the staff concluded that impacts associated with operation of NAPS and proposed

10 Unit 3 on downstream aquatic communities would be SMALL, the staff also considered the

11 effects varying the North Anna Dam release rate during late summer and fall to more closely

12 emulate natural variations in stream flow. The staff determined that varying water release rates

13 might be preferable to a constant release rate in late summer and early fall because most

14 organisms in small rivers are adapted to a varying flow regime and steady flows may result in a

15 change in community structure. Modifications to the water release regime from the Lake Anna

16 Dam to mitigate impacts would be under the jurisdiction of VDEQ.

17

18 5.4.2.7 Shoreline Erosion and Other Physical Impacts

19

20 Changes to this section reflect impacts to the North Anna River from changes in the water levels

21 for the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and for dam operating levels.

22

23 Because low-flow velocities in Lake Anna predominate, increased shoreline erosion, lake-bed

24 scouring, and increased turbidity levels caused by the operation of Unit 3 would not be

25 detectable or destabilizing to the aquatic resources of Lake Anna. The flow velocity in the

26 discharge channel, the connecting canals, and the main ponds of the WHTF would be slightly

27 higher than in Lake Anna because of their smaller dimensions. A closed-cycle, combination wet

28 and dry cooling system for Unit 3 would release a maximum of 351 L/s (12.4 cfs) of blowdown

29 water into the existing discharge canal. This represents an increase in the velocity of water in

30 the discharge canal and WHTF of about 0.3 percent. Because the banks of the canals are

31 currently protected by rip-rap from 73.8 to 76.2 m (242 to 250 ft) MSL, the small contribution to

32 flow and velocity from Unit 3 would not result in scouring or erosion in the canal. During the

33 operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2, the flow velocity in the WHTF is generally less than 0.3 m/s

34 (1 ft/s) and has not caused any noticeable scouring or erosion. This would not change based

35 on the small contribution to the overall flow and velocity resulting from the operation of Unit 3.

36

37 Physical impacts resulting from increased turbidity or siltation are unlikely, based on the small

38 changes in discharge flow and velocity expected from Unit 3. Siltation is expected to be

39 minimal because any medium or coarse sediment that was suspended would settle before

40 reaching the intake approach channel during normal lake conditions. Sediment entering the

41 new intake channel from floods or storm events would not present a siltation problem because

42 the channel is 3.7 m (12 ft) deeper than required by the design for the new intake, allowing
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-34 July 2006

1 room for occasional sediment deposition. Fine-grained sediment entering the intakes would

2 either be removed during the water treatment process or returned to Lake Anna via the WHTF

3 at Dike 3. 

4

5 There is no evidence of scouring, erosion, or excessive turbidity from the operation of NAPS

6 Units 1 and 2, and no evidence to suggest that this would change with the addition of Unit 3

7 given the proportionally small amounts of blowdown water that is or would be released during

8 normal operations. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts to aquatic

9 ecological resources from physical changes to Lake Anna from operation of Unit 3 closed-cycle,

10 combination wet and dry cooling would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

11

12 5.4.2.8 Summary of Aquatic Impacts

13

14 Changes to this section reflect the aquatic impacts of the North Anna River as a result of

15 changes in the water levels for the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system and

16 for dam operating levels.

17

18 The aquatic plants and animals in Lake Anna represent a balanced aquatic community. Over

19 the years, these populations have changed as the reservoir’s ecosystem has matured. 

20 Because of the demand for public fishing, the fish community has been changed through

21 species additions (e.g., threadfin shad) and annual stockings of striped bass and walleye. 

22 Overall, the fisheries have remained healthy and balanced despite shoreline development,

23 NAPS operations, and increased fishing pressure.

24

25 Based on the information provided in ER Revision 6, the staff evaluated the impacts to aquatic

26 communities in Lake Anna, the North Anna River, and the downstream river systems to which

27 the North Anna is a tributary. Because Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers, water use would be

28 minimal and would not result in detectible impacts to the aquatic environment. The

29 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system proposed for Unit 3 would result in

30 significantly less impingement and entrainment than a once-through cooling system, and would

31 contribute minimally to the thermal load currently experienced by the lake from the operations of

32 the NAPS Units 1 and 2. Based on the impingement and entrainment modeling conducted by

33 Dominion and data from the Section 316(b) demonstration study for NAPS Units 1 and 2, as

34 discussed above, the operation of Unit 3 would increase the overall yearly impingement and

35 entrainment losses by approximately 1 percent. These losses are not expected to result in

36 noticeable changes to the fish communities in Lake Anna.

37

38 With the change in Unit 3 cooling design from the once-through system to the closed-cycle,

39 combination wet and dry cooling system, thermal impacts are expected to be reduced

40 significantly. The proposed closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3

41 would discharge a maximum of 351 L/s (12.4 cfs) at a maximum temperature of 38°C (100°F). 

42 This flow rate represents 0.3 percent of the about 120,000 L/s (4246 cfs) flow discharged by
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-35 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 NAPS Units 1 and 2, and the discharge temperature of Unit 3 blowdown water is within the

2 range currently observed in the discharge canal during July and August (37.0° to 39.1°C

3 [98.6° to 102.4°F]). Thus, the operation of Unit 3 would result in a negligible change in the

4 volume and temperature of the water entering the discharge canal, the WHTF, Lake Anna, or

5 the North Anna River.

6

7 Operation of the Unit 3 cooling towers could result in consumptive water use from evaporative

8 losses. Based on the water budget modeling conducted by the staff, Lake Anna reservoir water

9 losses resulting from the operation of Unit 3 would increase the fraction of time that the

10 reservoir would be at or below 75.6 m (248 ft) from 6 percent for the baseline (i.e., operation of

11 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 12 /s (20 cfs) and result

13 in reduced downstream flow during the summer months or extended periods of drought. Based

14 on the staff's independent review of the IHA analysis conducted by Dominion, sufficient water

15 should be available during the spring and early summer to support striped bass spawning and

16 rearing requirements in the Pamunkey River downstream of NAPS. Based on the foregoing, the

17 staff concludes that the aquatic impacts to Lake Anna and the downstream communities from

18 the operation of Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

19

20 5.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

21

22 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6. However, additional

23 information is provided about eagles.

24

25 No Federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur at or near the North

26 Anna ESP site except the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The closest known bald

27 eagle nesting site is located more than 4 km (2.5 mi) from the North Anna ESP site. In the

28 Commonwealth of Virginia, a 0.25-mile (0.4-km) buffer zone is usually preserved to limit

29 construction activities (FWS and VDGIF 2000). Dominion stated in its May 24, 2006, RAI

30 response that it follows nesting guidelines referenced by the Virginia Department of Game and

31 Inland Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Dominion 2006b). None of the three

32 Federally or State-listed mussel species known to exist in the region has been found in Lake

33 Anna, the North Anna River, or other local streams. The staff reviewed the potential impacts of

34 operation of Units 3 and 4 on threatened and endangered species. It is unlikely that any

35 threatened or endangered species exist on the North Anna ESP site; consequently, operation

36 associated with the cooling system changes or the increased power level would not have an

37 adverse effect on threatened or endangered species. The staff concludes that the impacts of

38 operation on threatened or endangered species would be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond

39 maintaining an adequate buffer zone is not warranted.

40
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-36 July 2006

1 5.5 Socioeconomic Impacts

2

3 This introductory section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is

4 provided solely for context.

5

6 This section describes the socioeconomic impacts from operating Units 3 and 4 at the North

7 Anna ESP site, and from the activities and demands of the operating workforce on the

8 surrounding region. Socioeconomic impacts include potential impacts on individual

9 communities, the surrounding region, and minority and low-income populations.

10

11 5.5.1 Physical Impacts

12

13 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

14 for context.

15

16 This section assesses the potential physical impacts on the nearby communities that could

17 result from the operation of new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Potential impacts

18 discussed include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. Dominion

19 plans to manage these physical impacts to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local

20 environmental regulations (Dominion 2006a). Dominion does not expect operation of the new

21 units to significantly affect the North Anna ESP site and its vicinity (Dominion 2006a). The

22 staff’s evaluation is discussed in the following subsections.

23

24 5.5.1.1 Workers and the Local Public

25

26 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

27 for context.

28

29 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that residents of Mineral, Virginia, would

30 experience minimal physical impacts from operation of the new units because of its distance

31 from the ESP site. Onsite impacts from station operations to permanent workers could be

32 mitigated through adequate training and use of personal protective equipment to minimize the

33 risk of potentially harmful exposures. Accordingly, the staff concludes that the overall physical

34 impacts of station operation to workers and the local public because of changes to the Unit 3

35 cooling system or the proposed power level increase did not change from that previously

36 evaluated. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

37
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-37 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.5.1.2 Buildings

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that operational activities are not expected to

7 have any effect on any offsite buildings. The staff concludes that the physical impacts to offsite

8 buildings did not change because of the change to the Unit 3 cooling system or power level

9 increase. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

10

11 5.5.1.3 Roads

12

13 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

14 for context.

15

16 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff concluded that any needed upgrades to the regional

17 road system would have been made in conjunction with, or as a result of, the construction of

18 Units 3 and 4. In addition, the number of operating personnel would be significantly fewer than

19 the number of construction personnel. The staff concludes that the physical impacts of station

20 operation on the road system did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL,

21 and mitigation is not warranted.

22

23 5.5.1.4 Aesthetics

24

25 Changes to this section reflect aesthetic impacts from the operation of the cooling towers

26 presented in ER Revision 6 and the presence of plumes.

27

28 The turbine building for Units 1 and 2 is about 30 m (100 ft) above grade and the containment

29 buildings are about 40 m (130 ft) above grade. The tallest building for Units 3 and 4 could be

30 71 m (234 ft) above grade, the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry towers would be

31 less than 55 m (180 ft) tall, and the Unit 4 dry towers would be about 48 m (150 ft) tall

32 (Dominion 2006a). The ESP and cooling tower site grade would be lower than the surrounding

33 terrain, except in the direction of Lake Anna. Given a distance of about 900 m (3000 ft) to the

34 nearest residence, screening by trees and other vegetation on the wooded ESP site, and

35 relative elevations, most residents near the site would not have a clear view of Units 3 and 4. 

36 However, recreational users on the Lake Anna Reservoir and some residents along the lake

37 would be able to see the new units in addition to the other developed areas of the NAPS site

38 already visible. The tallest building at least would rise above the treeline, but would be largely

39 screened by trees on the south, north, and west.

40

41 The Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling towers would generate a vapor plume

42 that could be visible above the height of the plant buildings and that could extend beyond the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-38 July 2006

1 site boundary. The plume would be most prevalent during times when the ambient temperature

2 is low and when the dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures are nearly equal. Typically this would

3 be between late autumn and early spring.

4

5 The environmental impact of the operation of the wet cooling towers was evaluated by Dominion

6 using the SACTI (Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts) system of computer programs,

7 initially written and assembled by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) (ANL 1984) for the

8 Electric Power Research Institute, was used to estimate the impact of operating the cooling

9 towers. The version used by Dominion is dated November 1, 1990. The input meteorological

10 data used to estimate the impacts encompassed the period of 1998 through 2000. It included

11 data collected onsite as well as site representative data collected at the National Weather

12 Service sites in Richmond, Virginia, and Dulles Airport in northern Virginia. For purposes of the

13 analysis, the cooling towers were assumed to be operating in the EC mode, which results in the

14 greatest evaporation rates from the towers, and therefore, assumed to be the greatest level of

15 impacts (Dominion 2006a).

16

17 The results of the staff’s independent analysis indicated that for all seasons, the plume would

18 extend to a maximum height of 980 m (3200 ft) and to a length of 4900 m (16,000 ft) from the

19 tower. The annual duration of plume fogging (i.e., the plume remaining at the ground level)

20 would be about 70 hr (excluding hours of natural fog), with a majority of fogging occurring at

21 about 300 m (1000 ft) to the south-southeast from the cooling towers. Fogging would, however,

22 occur as far as 1600 m (5200 ft) from the tower. Fogging is estimated to occur during all

23 seasons except summer. The analysis indicates that icing is unlikely to occur in conjunction

24 with ground-level fogging (Dominion 2006a). 

25

26 Table 5-6 presents estimates, by season, of the approximate percentage of time that the plume

27 would extend above the tallest structure in the PPE (71 m [234 ft]) or would extend more than

28 800 m (about 2600 ft) from the towers.

29

30 In Dominion’s plume model, the top of the tallest structure in the PPE is approximately 50 m

31 (160 ft) above the top of the traditional mechanical-draft wet cooling towers, which are only

32 22 m (74 ft) tall. The shorter traditional wet cooling tower was used in the analysis to provide an

33 upper bound for nearby plume effects such as fogging or salt drift. The Unit 3 closed-cycle,

34 combination wet and dry cooling system described in ER Revision 6 would be 55 m (180 ft) tall;

35 this would lead to a higher release point and a higher plume elevation than evaluated by

36 Dominion (Dominion 2006a). However, Dominion suggests that the combination wet and dry

37 tower could be plume-abated, which would significantly reduce the visual impact below that

38 shown in Table 5-6. The frequency results reported below are for a release point between 40 m

39 (130 ft) and 50 m (160 ft) below the height of the tallest structure on the North Anna ESP site. 

40 The evaluation indicates that on an annual average basis, the plume would extend more than

41 200 m (650 ft) above the tower or extend more than 400 m (1300 ft) in length approximately 

42
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-39 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 5-6. Fraction of Time by Season That Water Vapor Plume from the Proposed Unit 3

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

3 the PPE or Would Extend More than 800 m (2625 ft) from the Towers 4

5 Plume height Plume height Plume length 

6 >40 m (131 ft) above >50 m (164 ft) above > 800 m (2625 ft)

7 Season top of towers top of towers from towers 

8 89 49 20 Winter

9 77 29 11 Spring

10 78 20 4 Summer

11 79 27 7 Fall

12 Source: Dominion 2006a

13

14 10 percent of the time the wet towers are operating. These results are based on the wet cooling

15 towers operating 100 percent of the time in the EC mode, which results in the most fogging.

16

17 Deposition of salts from cooling tower drift would occur in all directions from the towers out to

18 1525 m (5000 ft), but would occur predominately in the areas to the north through northeast as

19 well as to the south through southeast of the towers. The maximum estimated amount of

deposition would be 12.6 kg/km2 20 /month at 175 m (575 ft) north-northeast of the cooling towers. 

21 The vast majority of the drift deposition would occur within 300 m (1000 ft) of the towers. 

22 Significant chemical interaction of the cooling tower plume and pollutants emitted onsite or in the

23 vicinity of the plant is not anticipated. 

24

25 In its May 24, 2006, response to the NRC’s Request for Additional Information (Dominion

26 2006b), Dominion stated that,

27

28 The statement concerning fogging and salt deposition to be made in a COL application

29 (when a specific reactor design is selected), is intended to indicate that at the time of the

30 COL (when additional design details are known), a confirmatory evaluation will be

31 performed to show that the analysis conducted as a part of this ESP application remains

32 bounding.

33

34 In Appendix K, the staff evaluated the impacts of Unit 3 operation on water use in relation to

35 water levels within Lake Anna over a 35-year period; the analysis is also applicable to the

36 aesthetics impacts as well. Lake levels would be above 75.6 m (248 ft) about 88 percent of the

37 time with Units 1 and 2 and Unit 3 operating versus about 94 percent with only NAPS Units 1 and

38 2 operating. Levels below 75 m (246 ft) (just above the lowest level experienced during the 2001

39 to 2002 drought) could occur about 2 percent of the time with Unit 3 operating, versus 1 percent

40 with only NAPS Units 1 and 2 operating. The minimum water level with Unit 3 operating was

41 estimated at 74.22 m (243.5 ft), versus 74.74 m (245.2 ft) with only NAPS Units 1 and 2. Under

42 severe drought conditions, Unit 3 could have an exacerbating effect on the drawdown of Lake
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) The multiplier effect describes the situation in which each dollar spent on goods and services by a

construction worker becomes income to the recipient who saves some but re-spends the rest on

consumption. This re-spending becomes income to someone else, who in turn saves part and

re-spends the rest. The number of times the final increase in consumption exceeds the initial

dollar spent is called the “multiplier.”

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-40 July 2006

1 Anna, potentially adding to the duration of low water levels, which would affect the visual impact

2 of the amount of shoreline exposed. 

3

4 Because the new units would be located in the existing power station complex and the visual

5 aspects of the site to offsite viewers would be limited by screening and topography, and based

6 on information provided by Dominion (2006a, b) and its independent review, as discussed above,

7 the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts from the operation of Units 3 and 4 would be

8 SMALL There would be an elevated steam plume from the operation of the Unit 3 cooling towers;

9 the staff concludes that the visual impacts would be quite noticeable at times, especially during

10 the winter (periodic MODERATE visual impact). On an annual basis, however, this impact would

11 be limited to about 10 percent of the time and would be the least from mid-spring to early fall

12 when outdoor recreation is most likely to occur. In addition, the staff identified that during severe

13 drought conditions, the operation of Unit 3 would have an impact on the water levels by slightly

14 adding to the duration and extent of shoreline mud flats that may be exposed; the staff concludes

15 that these visual aesthetic impacts would temporarily be MODERATE. Mitigation is not

16 warranted because of the temporary and infrequent nature of the impacts.

17

18 5.5.2 Demography

19

20 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

21 context.

22

23 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff evaluated the impacts of station operation on increases in

24 population and determined that while the new operating personnel are expected to come from

25 outside the region, their small numbers, when considering the population base of each

26 jurisdiction, would not significantly increase the base population within each jurisdiction. Most

new jobs created through the multiplier effect(a) 27 are expected to go to workers who already reside

28 in the region. The changes to the Unit 3 cooling system or the power level increase would not

29 affect the size of the operations workforce. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the

30 impacts of station operation on increases in the regional population did not change. The impact

31 level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

32
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-41 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.5.3 Community Characteristics

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

4 context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff evaluated the social and economic impacts to the

7 surrounding region as a result of operation of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site. The

8 staff evaluated the impacts of operation and of those demands placed by the workforce on the

9 surrounding region during a 40-year operating license period. Dominion expects to employ no

10 more workers to (1) operate Unit 3 with a closed-cycle cooling system than it would to operate

11 two units with a once-through cooling system or (2) operate Units 3 and 4 with a higher power

12 level than previously evaluated.

13

14 5.5.3.1 Economy

15

16 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

17 context.

18

19 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that most new operating personnel are

20 expected to come from outside the region. Their employment for such an extended period of

21 time would have economic and social impacts on the surrounding region. The new jobs, as with

22 the construction workforce, would also create new jobs in the region through the multiplier effect. 

23 Based on the potential aspects of the operation of Units 3 and 4 on the regional economics, the

24 staff concludes that the economic impacts did not change. The impact level category would be

25 SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE BENEFICIAL, and mitigation is not warranted.

26

27 5.5.3.2 Transportation

28

29 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

30 context.

31

32 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff concludes that necessary road improvements would be

33 made during the construction phase to accommodate the much-larger construction work force

34 and that Dominion would activate a travel management plan, as needed. Based on the

35 infrastructure improvements that would be made for the construction of Units 3 and 4 and the

36 expectation that the number of workers needed to operate the units would be unchanged, the

37 staff concludes that the overall impacts of station operation on transportation did not change. 

38 The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

39
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

(a) Note that these numbers do not include boat launches from private marinas.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-42 July 2006

1 5.5.3.3 Taxes

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

4 context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff evaluated the effect of taxes from income on wages and

7 salaries of Units 3 and 4 operational workers, and sales, use, and property taxes on these

8 employees and on Dominion’s corporate profits, most of which represent beneficial sources of

9 income for the State and some of which would benefit the counties in the region. Property tax

10 paid by Dominion would directly benefit Louisa County. Taxes would not change appreciably

11 because of the proposed changes in the Unit 3 cooling system or the proposed power level

12 increase. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts on income, sales, and

13 use taxes, property taxes, and corporate profits did not change. The impact level category would

14 still be SMALL BENEFICIAL for most of the region and LARGE BENEFICIAL for Louisa County. 

15

16 5.5.3.4 Recreation

17

18 Changes to this section reflect Lake Anna water level impacts from operation of the closed-cycle,

19 combination wet and dry cooling system.

20

21 Most of the 43,000 anglers visiting Lake Anna every year launch their boats at Lake Anna State

22 Park and at commercial marinas. Pleasure boat traffic on the lake exceeds angler traffic by as

23 much as 10 to 15 times. Use of stationary boat docks would be impacted when the lake level

24 drops below 76 m (248 ft) MSL. At and below this level, many of the stationary docks become

25 unusable. However, boat ramps would be usable for launching boats until the water level

26 receded below the end of the ramp. During the 2001 to 2002 drought, most private boat ramps

27 could not support launches at lake levels below 74.7 m (245.1 ft) MSL (Dominion 2004b). Even

28 though they were adversely affected because of lower traffic and costs incurred to extend ramps,

29 adjust docks, and move boats, most of the marina operations and fishing guides were able to

30 adjust their operations and continue to operate profitably (Jaksch and Scott 2005). The staff

31 does not expect adverse impacts from NAPS on marinas and guides in normal water years. 

32 Because of the adjustments already made in 2001 and 2002, the staff concludes that impacts on

33 marina operators and fishing guides from operations of four units (even in drought years) would

34 be SMALL to MODERATE and temporary, and mitigation is not warranted.

35

36 As discussed in the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), visitors to the State park actually increased during

37 2002 above the previous years, while the number of boat launches at the park in 2002 was fewer

38 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) 39 Thus, there appears to have been a

40 decline in boating during the drought years, but an increase in the use of the park itself. As
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-43 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 discussed in Section 5.5.1.4, operation of the Unit 3 closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

2 cooling system would slightly exacerbate conditions at the lake during times of drought.

3

4 These impacts could have economic consequences for the three counties surrounding the lake. 

5 The more immediate impacts would be to the marinas and commercial businesses that earn

6 revenue on a seasonal basis from recreational users of the lake. If drought conditions persist

7 over a long enough time period, property values around the lake could be affected as well.

8 Owners of lake-front homes with preferred water views would be particularly impacted. 

9 However, larger market forces such as general economic conditions, population trends, and

10 interest rates are expected to dominate property values in almost all circumstances. Minimal

11 recreational impacts to Lake Anna from operation of the units are expected to occur during

12 non-drought conditions.

13

14 As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the staff also evaluated changing the normal elevation of Lake

15 Anna and the impacts of raising normal operating lake level 15 to 30 cm (6 to 12 in.) above

16 76.2 m (250 ft) MSL. Raising the lake level could increase localized flooding potential and

17 downstream flows, and would likely affect use of some residential and marina boat ramps and

18 docks, including those at Lake Anna State Park. These facilities might need some modification

19 to avoid impacting the year-round and seasonal recreational usage of the lake. The staff

20 concludes that the recreational impacts of raising the lake level would be MODERATE.

21

22 Although the WHTF is considered by Virginia Power to be part of the nuclear facility and is

23 operated as a private industrial facility, homeowners on the shoreline of the WHTF have access

24 to it, with Virginia Power’s permission, for recreational use (e.g., boating, fishing, swimming). 

25 This limited access and use would remain unchanged following the addition of the cooling

26 systems for Units 3 and 4. Dominion evaluated the potential thermal and chemical impacts of

27 Unit 3 and 4 operations on the ability of homeowners to continue their recreation activities. 

28 Dominion determined that there would be virtually no change in temperature of the WHTF as a

29 result of the operation of Units 3 and 4, and there would likely be no impact on thermophilic

30 organisms. While Dominion has not identified which chemicals would be added to the proposed

31 cooling towers to manage water chemistry, it also committed to evaluate potential additives in

32 accordance with “applicable EPA human health and aquatic life criteria to demonstrate that the

33 concentrations of these chemicals in the WHTF would not exceed the criteria, and thus would not

34 pose any risks to human health” (Dominion 2006a). Based on the forgoing, the staff concludes

35 that the thermal and chemical impacts from the operation of Units 3 and 4 on recreation would be

36 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

37

38 Based on the individual aspects of recreational activities in the North Anna ESP site area, if the

39 normal operating level of Lake Anna remains at 76.2 m (250 ft), the staff concludes that the

40 recreational impacts of Unit 3 and 4 operations would be SMALL most of the time, but could be

41 MODERATE during the infrequent extreme droughts. Therefore, mitigation is not warranted. 

42 The staff concludes that if the normal operating level of the lake is raised 15 to 30 cm
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-44 July 2006

1 (6 to 12 in.), then modification of residential and marina boat ramps and docks may be

2 necessary; this action could result in a MODERATE impact.

3

4 5.5.3.5 Housing

5

6 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

7 context.

8

9 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that while the new operating personnel and

10 their families would be expected to come from outside the region, their small numbers, when

11 considering the population base of each jurisdiction, would not significantly increase the base

12 population within each jurisdiction even with the multiplier effect. The change to the Unit 3

13 cooling system or the power level increase would not affect the size of the operations workforce

14 previously evaluated. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of station operation on

15 housing did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not

16 warranted.

17

18 5.5.3.6 Public Services

19

20 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

21 context.

22

23 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff evaluated the local and regional water and waste water

24 treatment capacities, the police, fire and medical facilities, and the demand for social and related

25 services. The changes in Unit 3 cooling and the power level increase would not change the size

26 of the operations workforce previously evaluated. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts

27 of station operation previously evaluated on the demand for public services did not change. The

28 impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

29

30 5.5.3.7 Education

31

32 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

33 context.

34

35 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff determined that while the new operating personnel and

36 their families are expected to come from outside the region, their small numbers, when

37 considering the population base of each jurisdiction, would not significantly increase the base

38 population within each jurisdiction even with the multiplier effect. The change to the Unit 3

39 cooling system or the power level increase would not affect the size of the operations workforce

40 previously evaluated nor the need for increased educational facilities. Therefore, the staff

41 concludes that the impacts of station operation on education did not change. The impact level

42 category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. 

43
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 2004b).

July 2006 5-45 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6, and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff reported that there would be limited potential for impacts

7 during operation of additional power units at North Anna ESP Site because all ground-disturbing

8 activities that could have an impact on historic or cultural resources would probably occur during

9 the construction phase. The change to the Unit 3 cooling system did not increase the size of the

10 land area disturbed onsite and did not change the area of potential effect. Should

11 archaeological, historic, or other cultural resources be uncovered during site excavation,

12 Dominion would implement the NAPS site-wide Excavation and Backfill Work Procedures (NAPS

13 NSS Work Procedure WP-C01), which would involve stopping work immediately and contacting

14 the appropriate organization and/or regulatory agency for proper evaluation and designation, in

15 accordance with the existing procedures (Dominion 2006a). Based on the foregoing, the staff

16 concludes that the historic and cultural impacts from operations did not change. The impact level

17 category would still be SMALL, and further mitigation beyond the existing practice is not

18 warranted.

19

20 5.7 Environmental Justice Impacts

21

22 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

23 context.

24

25 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and

26 addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority(a) 27 low-income populations.

28

29 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff identified the pathways through which the environmental

30 impacts associated with the construction of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site could affect human

31 populations. The staff then evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be

32 disproportionately affected by these impacts. The staff found no unusual resource dependencies

33 or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which the populations

34 could be disproportionate impacted by operations of Units 3 and 4 at the NAPS site that would

35 result in those populations being adversely affected. In addition, the staff did not identify and
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-46 July 2006

1 location-dependent, disproportionately high and adverse impacts affecting these minority and

2 low-income populations. Because the change to the Unit 3 cooling system or the power level

3 increase would not affect such populations, the staff concludes that offsite impacts of operation

4 of Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna ESP site to minority and low-income populations did not

5 change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

6

7 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts

8

9 This introductory section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided

10 solely for context.

11

12 This section addresses the nonradiological health impacts of operating the proposed new units

13 at the North Anna ESP site. Health impacts to the public from the cooling system, noise

14 generated by unit operations, and electromagnetic fields are discussed. Nonradiological health

15 impacts are also evaluated for workers at the new units. Health impacts from radiological

16 sources during operations are discussed in Section 5.9.

17

18 5.8.1 Public Health

19

20 Changes to this section reflect public health impacts from the WHTF for the closed-cycle,

21 combination wet and dry cooling system.

22

23 In ER Revison 6, Dominion changed its proposed approach for the Unit 3 cooling system from

24 open-cycle cooling (i.e., cooling lake) to a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. 

25 The potential health impacts of thermophilic organisms have been investigated in the power

26 industry since the 1970s; the exiting Units 1 and 2 have open-cycle cooling systems that

27 discharge heated cooling water into the WHTF and then into the North Anna Reservoir and the

28 North Anna River (Dominion 2006a). Thermophilic microorganisms (e.g., Naegleria fowleri)

29 generally exist in water bodies with ambient temperatures between 25 and 80(C (77 and 176(F)

30 with maximum growth of such organisms generally occurring when ambient temperatures are

31 maintained between 50 and 60(C (122 and 140(F) (Dominion 2001b). Correspondence from the

32 Virginia Department of Health (VDH) states that N. fowleri begins to proliferate around 30(C

33 (86(F) and thrives at temperatures of 35 and 45(C (95 and 113(F) when compared to competing

34 organisms (VDH 2005). 

35

36 Since 1975, Virginia Power has monitored water temperatures at various locations in Lake Anna,

37 the WHTF, and the discharge canal. The highest temperatures recorded in (1) the discharge

38 canal was 39(C (102.4(F) in August 2002, (2) the WHTF was 35(C (95.0(F) in July 1993, and

39 (3) Lake Anna was 34(C (92.7(F) in July 1977. These temperatures were hourly average

40 values. While ambient summer water temperatures in the sampled locations were found to be
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-47 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 within the range conducive to reproduction and growth of pathogenic micro-organisms, the

2 temperatures measured were below those considered optimal for the growth of thermophilic

3 forms.

4

5 Thermophilic microorganisms can cause primary amoebic encephalitis in humans. No cases of

6 primary amoebic encephalitis have been documented in NAPS workers or area residents during

7 the operating history of the plants (Dominion 2006a). The review performed by Dominion in

8 Section 5.3.4.1 of its revised ER (Dominion 2006a) concluded that the combination wet and dry

9 cooling system for the proposed Unit 3 would not significantly increase the temperature of the

10 WHTF and Lake Anna and, therefore, would not create an environment conducive to the optimal

11 growth of thermophilic organisms.

12

13 The Commonwealth of Virginia considers the WHTF a private pond and does not regulate the

14 discharge temperature of Units 1 and 2 into the WHTF. The point of compliance for the NPDES

15 permit is Dike 3 where the water from the WHTF is discharged into the reservoir. While the

16 WHTF is a private pond, VEPCo has allowed private homeowners on the WHTF access for

17 recreational purposes, including swimming. The public in the vicinity of the WHTF requested that

18 the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) address the health effects of swimming in the WHTF

19 because of concerns regarding the discharge temperature into the WHTF under the initial

20 proposal for Unit 3 as a once-through cooling system, with which a substantial increase to the

21 thermal load of WHTF was likely. In its letter dated September 15, 2005 (VDH 2005), VDH

22 recommends that swimmers avoid recreational activities in water bodies exceeding 40(C

23 (104(F). Subsequently, Dominion modified its proposed cooling system for Unit 3, which would

24 result in negligible thermal impacts to the WHTF. In Enclosure 1 to Revision 6 of the ER,

25 Dominion stated that it “in concert with VDEQ and VDH [it] is exploring options to communicate

26 to local residents information related to existing risks” (Dominion 2006a). Based on the change

27 to the cooling system for Unit 3, the significant reduction in Unit 3 thermal load to the WHTF and

28 the evaluation of thermophilic organisms, the staff considers the public health impacts from the

29 operation of Unit 3 to be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

30

31 5.8.2 Occupational Health

32

33 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

34 context.

35

36 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff reported that human health risks for a new nuclear unit

37 are expected to be dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) to

38 workers engaged in activities such as maintenance, testing, and plant modifications. Historically,

39 actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the average U.S.

40 industrial rates. The staff assumes adherence to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards,

41 practice, and procedures during new nuclear unit operations. The closed-cycle, combination wet

42 and dry cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in power level for Units 3 and 4 do not change
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-48 July 2006

1 the human health risks from that previously evaluated. Based on the mitigation measures

2 identified above, the staff concludes that the overall nonradiological impacts from operations of

3 Units 3 and 4 did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is

4 not warranted.

5

6 5.8.3 Noise Impacts

7

8 Changes to this section reflect noise impacts from the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry

9 cooling system.

10

11 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff estimated the cooling system noise levels to be

12 approximately 75 dBA at the exclusion area boundary and 55 dBA at the nearest residence. In

13 general, the effects of noise had been considered by the NRC elsewhere in NUREG-1437

14 (NRC 1996). In that generic EIS, noise levels below 60 to 65 decibels were considered to be of

15 small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered by the NRC in

16 Supplement 1 of NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002a). In that generic environmental impact statement,

17 the criterion for assessing the level of significance was not expressed in terms of sound levels. 

18 Rather, the level of significance was based on the effect of noise on human activities and

19 threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 is:

20

21 ...noise impacts ... are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high

22 to disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. ... noise impacts ... are

23 considered destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area

24 is essentially unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding

25 of a threatened or endangered species is affected.

26

27 Based on the information provided by Dominion and the NRC insights from the assessments in

28 NUREG-1437 and NUREG-0586 Supplement 1, the staff concluded in the Draft EIS that the

29 potential impacts of noise resulting from operation of two additional nuclear power plants with

30 cooling systems meeting the noise criteria of the PPE as defined in the ER would be small.

31

32 The changes proposed in Revision 6 of the ER describe a combination wet and dry cooling

33 system rather than the once-through cooling system for Unit 3 set forth in earlier versions of the

34 ER. The noise level for the Unit 3 cooling towers given in the PPE is 65 dBA at a distance of

35 300 m (1000 ft), which is 5 dBA higher than the noise level for the Unit 4 cooling towers. This

36 postulated noise level is consistent with the noise level previously evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

37 Therefore, the staff concludes that the noise level resulting from changes in the cooling system

38 approach does not affect the conclusion on human health and impact on biota. The impact level

39 category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

40
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-49 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 5.8.4 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

2

3 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level of 4500 MW(t) for one unit (9000 MW(t) for

4 two units).

5

6 The current transmission lines that originate from the NAPS site are capable of handling the

7 output from two additional units. These lines consist of three 500-kV lines that were erected in

8 the late-1970s and one 230-kV line erected in 1984. Both sets of transmission lines were

9 designed and constructed according to National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) requirements

10 and industry guidance that was current at that time (Dominion 2006a).

11

12 The current NESC requirements for preventing electric shock from induced current were met,

13 and the staff concludes that the impact to the public from acute effects of electromagnetic fields

14 did not change as a result of revisions included in ER Revision 6. The impact level category

15 would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. The conclusion of SMALL impact by the

16 NRC staff is predicated on the assumption made by the staff that the transmission lines carrying

17 the additional power of the two new units would meet the NESC criteria for electric shock. 

18

19 5.8.5 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

20

21 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

22 context.

23

24 Research on the potential for chronic effects from 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from energized

25 transmission lines was reviewed and addressed elsewhere by the NRC in NUREG-1437

26 (NRC 1996). At that time, research results were not conclusive. The National Institute of

27 Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related research through the U.S. Department of

28 Energy. An NIEHS report (1999) contains the following conclusion:

29

30 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

31 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

32 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

33 warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

34 United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive

35 regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public

36 and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does

37 not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence

38 of a risk to currently warrant concern.

39

40 This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impact as significant to

41 the public. However, because conclusive information is not available, this issue is not

42 considered to be resolved.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-50 July 2006

1 5.8.6 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts

2

3 Changes to this section reflect nonradiological health impacts from the closed-cycle, combination

4 wet and dry cooling system and the higher power level of 4500 MW(t) for one unit (9000 MW(t)

5 for two units).

6

7 The staff evaluated health impacts to the public and the workers from the cooling systems, noise

8 generated by unit operations, and acute and chronic impacts of electromagnetic fields at the

9 higher power levels from the additional units. Based on the information provided by Dominion

10 and its independent review, the staff concludes that the potential impacts of nonradiological

11 effects resulting from the operation of two additional units with closed-cycle cooling systems

12 meeting the noise criteria of the PPE would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

13

14 5.9 Radiological Health Impacts

15

16 This introductory section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is

17 provided solely for context.

18

19 This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of the proposed new

20 Units 3 and 4, including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public

21 and to the biota present in the proximity of the new units. Estimated doses to workers at the

22 proposed units are also discussed. Radiological impacts were determined using the PPE

23 approach for liquid and gaseous radiological effluents. 

24

25 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways

26

27 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

28 context.

29

30 During normal operation, small quantities of radiological materials are released to the

31 environment through gaseous and liquid effluents from the plant. Dominion stated in ER

32 Revision 6 that the contribution to direct radiation exposure from new reactor designs would be

33 negligible (Dominion 2006a). 

34

35 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public

36

37 Changes to this section reflect calculations of the radiation doses to the public from the higher

38 power level of 4500 MW(t) for one unit (9000 MW(t) for two units).

39

40 The proposed increase in the power level from 4300 MW(t) to 4500 MW(t) per unit resulted from

41 the increase in power level for the surrogate ESBWR reactor design from 4000 MW(t) to
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-51 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 4500 MW(t) (see Section 5.10 for a discussion of the “surrogate” label). The increase in the

2 power level to 4500 MW(t) per unit results in a small increase to the liquid and gaseous

3 radiological effluent source terms for normal operation, shown in Table 5.4-6 and Table 5.4-7,

4 respectively, of ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a). These tables are reproduced in Appendix H,

5 Tables H-2 and H-5 of this SDEIS. The liquid and gaseous effluent source terms result in small

6 increases to the doses to the maximally exposed individual as shown in Tables 5-7 and 5-8.

7

8 The staff performed an independent evaluation of doses to the maximally exposed individual

9 (Appendix H) and found similar results.

10

11 5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public

12

13 Changes to this section reflect calculations of the radiation impacts to the maximally exposed

14 individual and the population dose from the higher power level of 4500 MW(t) for one unit

15 (9000 MW(t) for two units).

16

17 Maximally Exposed Individual

18

19 Table 5-9 compares the dose estimates for the maximally exposed individual exposed to liquid

20 and gaseous effluents from a single reactor unit to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Design

21 Objectives. The liquid and gaseous radiological effluent source terms for normal operation

22 resulting from the higher power level of 4500 MW(t) per unit resulted in a small increase in doses

23 to the maximally exposed individual as shown in Table 5-9. Doses to the maximally exposed

24 individual were still within the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Design Objectives.

25

26 Table 5-10 compares the dose estimates for the maximally exposed individual exposed to liquid

27 and gaseous effluents to the 40 CFR Part 190 standards. The liquid and gaseous radiological

28 effluent source terms for normal operation resulting from the higher core thermal power level of

29 4500 MW(t) per unit resulted in a small increase in doses to the maximally exposed individual as

30 shown in Table 5-10. The sum of maximally exposed individual dose estimates for the existing

31 Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 were well within the 40 CFR Part 190 Standards. 

32

33 Population Dose

34

35 The liquid and gaseous radiological effluent source terms for normal operation resulting from the

36 higher PPE core thermal power level of 4500 MW(t) per unit increased the population dose within

37 80 km (50 mi) of each unit from 0.32 person-Sv/yr (32 person-rem/yr) (Dominion 2005a) to 0.34

38 person-Sv/yr (34 person-rem/yr) (Dominion 2006a).

39

40 The staff performed an independent evaluation of doses to the maximally exposed individual and

41 population (Appendix H), and found similar results.

42
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-52 July 2006

1 Table 5-7. Liquid Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individuals at Lake Anna 

2 (corresponds to Table 5-8 in the Draft EIS)

3

4 Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Thyroid Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Bone Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

5 5.3 x 10 Fish Consumption -3 0(b) 2.3 x 10-2

6 6.9 x 10 Invertebrate Consumption -4 0(b) 1.5 x 10-3

7 6.9 x 10 Drinking Water -3 1.3 x 10-2 2.7 x 10-4

8 3.0 x 10 Shoreline Recreation -4 3.0 x 10-4 3.0 x 10-4

9 3.2 x 10 Swimming -6 3.2 x 10-6 3.2 x 10-6

10 4.0 x 10 Boating -6 4.0 x 10-6 4.0 x 10-6

11 1.3 x 10 Total -2 1.3 x 10-2 2.5 x 10-2

12 Adult Infant Child Age group receiving maximum dose

13 (a) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

14 (b) Thyroid dose is not applicable because infants are assumed not to consume fish and invertebrates.

15 Source: Dominion 2006a, Table 5.4-8. Doses were estimated for one unit.

16

17 Table 5-8. Gaseous Pathway Doses for Maximally Exposed Individual

18 (corresponds to Table 5-9 in the Draft EIS) 19

20 Location Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Thyroid Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

Skin Dose

(mSv/yr)(a)

21 Nearest Site Boundary

22 (1.4 km [0.88 mi] ESE)

Plume 2.1 x 10-2 (b) 6.2 x 10-2

23 Nearest Site Boundary

24 (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)

25 Nearest Garden 

26 (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)

27 Nearest Residence 

28 (1.5 km [ 0.96 mi] NNE)

Plume 1.4 x 10-2 (b) 4.0 x 10-2

29 Nearest Residence 

30 (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)

31 Nearest Meat Cow 

32 (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)

33 (a) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

34 (b) Thyroid dose is not applicable for the plume pathway.

35 (c) Skin dose is not applicable for the ingestion and inhalation pathways.

36 Source: Dominion (2006a), Table 5.4-9. Doses were estimated for one unit. There were no milk cows or goats

37 within 8 km (5 mi) (Dominion 2006a). No infant doses were calculated for the vegetable or meat pathway because

38 the doses that infants receive from their diet would be bounded by the dose calculated for the child.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-53 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 5-9. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Estimates from Liquid and

2 Gaseous Effluents to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Design Objectives

3 (corresponds to Table 5-10 in the Draft EIS)

4

5 Pathway/Type of Dose Dominion (2006)(a,b) Appendix I Design Objectives(c)

6 Liquid Effluents

7 0.013 mSv/yr 0.03 mSv/yr Whole body dose

8 0.025 mSv/yr 0.1 mSv/yr Maximum organ dose

9 Gaseous Effluents (Noble gases only)

10 0.032 mGy/yr 0.1 mGy/yr Gamma air dose

11 0.048 mGy/yr 0.2 mGy/yr Beta air dose

12 0.024 mSv/yr 0.05 mSv/yr Whole body dose

13 0.062 mSv/yr 0.15 mSv/yr Skin dose

14 Gaseous Effluents (Radioiodines and particulates)

15 0.13 mSv/yr (thyroid) 0.15 mSv/yr Organ dose

16 (a) Doses were estimated for one unit.

17 (b) Multiply mSv/yr (or mGy/yr) times 100 to obtain mrem/yr (or mrad/yr)

18 (c) Design objectives are for each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I)

19 Source: Dominion 2006a, Table 5.4-10

20

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

22 Gaseous Effluents to 40 CFR Part 190 Standards (corresponds to Table 5-11 in

23 the Draft EIS)

24

25 Dose Dominion (2006) Estimate(a,b,c) 40 CFR 190 Standards

26 0.078 mSv/yr 0.25 mSv/yr Whole body dose equivalent

27 0.28 mSv/yr 0.75 mSv/yr Thyroid dose

28 0.12 mSv/yr (bone) 0.25 mSv/yr Dose to another organ

29 (a) Doses from direct radiation were determined to be negligible (Dominion 2006a).

30 (b) Sum of dose from liquid and gaseous effluent releases for the two existing NAPS units and the proposed units

31 (Dominion 2006a)

32 (c) Multiply mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrem/yr.

33 Source: Dominion 2006a, Table 5.4-11

34

35 Based on the small increase to the maximally exposed individual and population dose estimates

36 as a result of the higher power level of 4500 MW(t) per unit, the staff concludes that there would

37 be no observable health impacts to the public from normal operation of the proposed nuclear

38 units. The impact level category would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

39
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-54 July 2006

1 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers

2

3 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

4 context.

5

6 The increase in power level to 4500 MW(t) did not affect occupational doses to workers as the

7 estimated annual occupational dose estimate for advanced reactor designs did not consider the

8 surrogate ESBWR design. The annual occupational dose estimate of 1.5 person-Sv

9 (150 person-rem) considered the AP1000, international reactor innovative and secure design

10 (IRIS), and the gas turbine-modular helium reactor (GT-MHR) designs (Dominion and Bechtel

11 2002). Based on occupational doses being maintained within the 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits

12 and annual occupational dose estimates being within those typical of current operating

13 light-water reactor plants, the staff concludes the health impacts did not change. The impact

14 level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

15

16 5.9.5 Impacts to Biota

17

18 Changes to this section reflect calculations of the radiation impacts to biota from the higher

19 power level of 4500 MW(t) for one unit (9000 MW(t) for two units).

20

21 Table 5-11 compares biota dose estimates from liquid and gaseous effluents to 40 CFR Part 190

22 standards. The liquid and gaseous radiological effluent source terms for normal operation

23 resulting from the higher power level of 4500 MW(t) per unit results in a small increase in

24 calculated biota doses as shown in Table 5-11.

25

26 Table 5-12 of this section compares biota dose estimates from liquid and gaseous effluents to

27 dose guidelines published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

28 (NRCP 1991) and International Atomic Energy Agency studies (IAEA 1992). The liquid and

29 gaseous radiological effluent source terms for normal operation resulting from the higher power

30 level of 4500 MW(t) per unit resulted in a small increase in biota doses as shown in Table 5-12. 

31 Estimated biota doses were still well within the 10 mGy/day (1000 mrad/day) guideline for

32 aquatic organisms and the 1 mGy/day (100 mrad/day) guideline for terrestrial organisms.

33

34 The staff performed an independent evaluation of biota doses (Appendix H) and found similar

35 results.

36

37 The staff concludes that the increase to the biota dose estimates as a result of the higher power

38 level of 4500 MW(t) per unit did not change appreciably. The impact level category would still be

39 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

40

41

42
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-55 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 5-11. Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to 40 CFR Part 190

2 (corresponds to Table 5-12 in the Draft EIS)

3

4 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)

5 0.099 0 0.099 0.20 0.25 Fish

6 0.46 0 0.46 0.92 0.25 Invertebrates

7 0.54 0 0.54 1.08 0.25 Algae

8 0.44 0.34 0.78 1.56 0.25 Muskrat

9 0.051 0.34 0.39 0.78 0.25 Raccoon

10 0.56 0.34 0.90 1.80 0.25 Heron

11 0.44 0.34 0.78 1.56 0.25 Duck

12 (a) Multiply mGy/yr or mSv/yr times 100 to obtain mrad/yr or mrem/yr.

13 (b) From Dominion (2006a), Table 5.4-16.

14

15 Table 5-12. Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed Units 3 and 4 to NCRP and IAEA

16 Studies (corresponds to Table 5-13 in the Draft EIS)

17

18

19 Biota

Estimated Dose for Two Units

(mGy/day)(a)

Chronic Dose Rate Values from

NCRP and IAEA Studies (mGy/day)(a)

20 5.5 x 10 Fish -4 10

21 2.5 x 10 Invertebrates -3 10

22 3.0 x 10 Algae -3 10

23 4.3 x 10 Muskrat -3 1

24 2.1 x 10 Raccoon -3 1

25 4.9 x 10 Heron -3 1

26 4.3 x 10 Duck -3 1

27 (a) Multiply mGy/day times 100 to obtain mrad/day.

28

29 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

30

31 This section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely for

32 context.

33

34 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff reported that a radiological environmental monitoring

35 program (REMP) has been in place for the NAPS site since 1976 (NRC 1976). The REMP

36 includes monitoring of the airborne exposure pathway, direct exposure pathway, water exposure

37 pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from Lake Anna and the North Anna River, and the

38 ingestion exposure pathway within a 40-km (25-mi) radius of the station. The staff reviewed the

39 documentation for the REMP, the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, and recent monitoring

40 reports and determined that the current operational monitoring program is adequate to establish
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-56 July 2006

1 the radiological impacts to the environment related to the construction and operation of two new

2 units at the North Anna ESP site. The staff concludes that the REMP is adequate even if the

3 units operate at the higher power level of 4500 MW(t). 

4

5 5.10 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

6

7 This section addresses the impacts of postulated accidents that were not addressed in the

8 Draft EIS.

9

10 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004a), the staff considered the radiological consequences of potential

11 accidents from proposed new units at the North Anna ESP site based on the certified General

12 Electric ABWR reactor design and a surrogate Westinghouse AP1000. In Revision 6 of the ER,

13 Dominion described the consequences of potential accidents based on an ESBWR design, for

14 which General Electric submitted an application for certification in August 2005; the NRC

15 accepted the application for docketing in December 2005. This supplement considers the

16 consequences of potential accidents based on an ESBWR reactor design with source terms

17 increased by 25 percent to account for uncertainty and potential changes to the design as the

18 staff performs the design certification review (consequently, this design is referred to as the

19 “surrogate” ESBWR design). In addition, this SDEIS considers the consequences of cleanup

20 water line breaks and feedwater system pipe breaks for the ABWR, which were not considered in

21 the Draft EIS.

22

23 As used in this section, the term “accident” refers to any off-normal event not addressed in

24 Section 5.9 that results in the release of radioactive material into the environment. The focus of

25 this review is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits

26 for normal operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B,

27 Table 2.

28

29 Numerous features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power

30 plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the plants, which comprise

31 the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive material from the plant. 

32 The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive material in effluents to

33 unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) are specified in 10 CFR Part 50,

34 Appendix I. There are additional measures that are designed to mitigate the consequences of

35 failures in the first line of defense. These include the NRC’s reactor site criteria in

36 10 CFR Part 100, which require the site to have certain characteristics that reduce the risk to the

37 public and the potential impacts of an accident, and emergency preparedness plans and

38 protective action measures for the site and environs as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47;

39 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E; and NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NRC 1980). All of these safety

40 features, measures, and plans make up the defense-in-depth philosophy to protect the health

41 and safety of the public and the environment.

42
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-57 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 This section discusses (1) types of radioactive material that might be released, (2) paths to the

2 environment, (3) the relationship between radiation dose and health effects, and (4) the impacts

3 of postulated reactor accidents, both design-basis accidents (DBA) and severe accidents. The

4 impacts of postulated accidents during the transportation of spent fuel are discussed in

5 Chapter 6.

6

7 The potential for dispersion of radioactive material in the environment depends on the

8 mechanical forces that physically transport the material and on the physical and chemical forms

9 of the material. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms. The

10 majority of the material is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, there is a significant amount

11 of material that is in the form of volatile solids or gases. Gaseous radioactive material includes

12 the chemically inert noble gases krypton and xenon. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are

13 created in substantial quantities in the fuel by fission, are volatile. Other radioactive material

14 formed during the routine operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities and,

15 therefore, have less tendency to escape from the fuel than the noble gases and iodines.

16

17 Radiation exposure is determined by the proximity of individuals to radioactive material, the

18 duration of exposure, and factors that shield the individuals from the radiation. Pathways that

19 lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material in the air, on

20 the ground, and in the water; (2) the inhalation of radioactive material; and (3) ingestion of food

21 or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water.

22

23 Although radiation may cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no

24 data that unequivocally establish the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses

25 below about 100 mSv (10,000 mrem) and at low dose rates. However, radiation protection

26 experts conservatively assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk of

27 causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation

28 exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold response model is used to describe the relationship

29 between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the National

30 Research Council (2005), the BEIR VII report, supports the linear, no-threshold dose response

31 theory. Simply stated, any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental

32 increase in health risk. This theory is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for

33 estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model probably

34 over-estimates those risks. Based on this model, the staff estimates the risk to the public from

35 radiation exposure using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment (730 fatal cancers,

36 nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 10,000 person-Sv [1,000,000 person-rem])

37 from ICRP Publication 60 (ICRP 1991).

38

39 Physiological effects are clinically detectable should individuals receive radiation exposure

40 resulting in a dose greater than about 0.25 Sv (25 rem) over a short period of time (hours). 

41 Doses of about 2.5 to 5.0 Sv (250 to 500 rem) received over a relatively short period (hours to a

42 few days) can be expected to cause some fatalities.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-58 July 2006

1 5.10.1 Design-Basis Accidents

2

3 This section addresses the impacts of postulated design basis accidents for the ABWR and the

4 surrogate ESBWR that were not addressed in the Draft EIS.

5

6 Dominion has evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that

7 Units 3 and 4 could be constructed and operated at the North Anna ESP site without undue risk

8 to the health and safety of the public. These evaluations use a set of surrogate DBAs that are

9 representative for the range of reactor designs being considered for the North Anna ESP site and

10 site-specific meteorological data. The set of accidents covers events that range from relatively

11 high probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low probability of

12 occurrence with high consequences.

13

14 This DBA review focuses on a surrogate ESBWR light-water reactor design. The bases for

15 analyses of postulated accidents for this design are established in the application for certification. 

16 Detailed descriptions of the DBAs are presented in Chapter 15 of the ESBWR Design Control

17 Document, Tier 2 (GE Nuclear Energy 2006). Potential consequences of DBAs are evaluated

18 following procedures outlined in regulatory guides and standard review plans. The potential

19 consequences of accidental releases depend on the specific radionuclides released, the activity

20 released for each radionuclide, and meteorological conditions. A source term for the ESBWR

21 has been provided by General Electric (2006). Dominion increased the source term by

22 25 percent for the surrogate ESBWR to account for uncertainty because the design review of the

23 ESBWR has not been completed. Methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on

24 guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000b). The staff will determine the significance of

25 any change in the source term if an applicant for a CP or COL references any North Anna ESP.

26

27 In its review of the information in Revision 6 of the ER, the staff identified several inconsistencies

28 between the DBA source terms and the resulting doses. On May 10, 2006, the staff requested

29 that Dominion resolve the inconsistencies (NRC 2006). Dominion resolved the inconsistencies in

30 a May 24, 2006, response (Dominion 2006b) to the staff request for additional information.

31

32 For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological

33 conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an

34 atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as Ȥ/Q. Acceptable methods of

35 calculating Ȥ/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.145

36 (NRC 1983).

37

38 Dominion had provided the staff with meteorological data for 1996, 1997, and 1998 for the North

39 Anna ESP site. These data have been reviewed by the staff and found to be representative of

40 the meteorological conditions at the site (see Section 2.3 of the Draft EIS). The meteorological

41 instrumentation and its maintenance are consistent with staff guidance (i.e., Regulatory Guide

42 1.23 [AEC 1972]), and the data quality is consistent with standards set forth in that guidance. 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-59 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Therefore, the data are considered acceptable for use in evaluation of the consequences

2 of DBAs. 

3

4 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 5 percentile) Ȥ/Q values for use in the

6 environmental review of DBAs are provided in ER section 7.1.4. However, Dominion only

7 provided only one Ȥ/Q for the low population zone (LPZ). NRC guidance (e.g., Regulatory

8 Guides 1.145 and 1.183) indicates that LPZ Ȥ/Qs should be calculated for each of the four time

9 periods that comprise the “course of the accident” (i.e., 30 days [720 hours]). Therefore, the staff

10 calculated Ȥ/Q values for the four time periods using data provided by Dominion.

11

12 Table 5-13 presents the atmospheric dispersion factors that the staff used to calculate doses for

13 DBAs. The first column lists the time periods and boundaries for which Ȥ/Q values and dose

14 estimates are needed. For the exclusion area boundary (EAB), the postulated DBA dose and

15 the short-term Ȥ/Q (i.e., 2 hours) value is calculated, and for the LPZ, they are calculated for the

16 “course of the accident” (i.e., 30 days [720 hours]). For the LPZ, there is a Ȥ/Q value for each of

17 the four time periods. The second column lists the Ȥ/Q values. The Ȥ/Q values for the EAB and

18 the first LPZ time period are the same as those calculated by Dominion. The Ȥ/Q values for the

19 last three LPZ time periods are those estimated by the staff.

20

21 The staff concludes that the atmospheric dispersion characteristics of the North Anna ESP site

22 are acceptable for estimating the potential consequences of postulated DBAs for reactor designs

23 with postulated design Ȥ/Q values falling within the site Ȥ/Q values. The staff intends to verify

24 that the Ȥ/Q values used in analyzing the reactor design proposed at the CP/COL stage are

25 equal to or greater than the Ȥ/Q values specified in the ESP if an applicant for a CP or COL

26 references any North Anna ESP.

27

28 Table 5-14 lists the set of surrogate DBAs considered by Dominion and presents the staff’s

29 analysis of the consequences of each postulated DBA in terms of total effective dose equivalent

30 (TEDE). TEDE is the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) from inhalation

31 and the deep dose equivalent from external exposure. Dose conversion factors from Federal

32 Guidance Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988) were used by the staff to calculate the CEDE. 

33 Similarly, dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 (Eckerman and

34 Ryman 1993) were used by Dominion to calculate the deep dose equivalent. The review criteria

35 used in the staff’s safety review of DBA doses are included in Table 5-14 to illustrate how small

36 the calculated environmental consequences (TEDE doses) are. In all cases, the calculated

37 TEDEs are a small fraction of the review criterion. Considering the magnitude of the doses in

38 Table 5-14 and the relationship between low doses and health effects such as fatal and non-fatal

39 cancers and severe hereditary effects described in 5.10, the staff concludes that the potential

40 environmental impacts of design basis accidents are small.

41

42 Table 5-15 lists the doses for the Cleanup Water Line Break for the ABWR reactor. The doses

43 calculated for this accident are small fractions of the dose limits. According to Revision 6 of the 
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-60 July 2006

Table 5-13 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (Ȥ/Q, s/m3 1 ) for the North Anna ESP Site

2 Design-Basis Accident Calculations

3

Time Period(a) 4 and Boundary Site

5 0 to 2 hr, Exclusion Area Boundary 3.34 x 10-5

6 0 to 8 hr, Low Population Zone 2.17 x 10-6

7 8 to 24 hr, Low Population Zone 1.5 x 10-6

8 1 to 4 day, Low Population Zone 1.2 x 10-6

9 4 to 30 day, Low Population Zone 9.0 x 10-7

10 (a) Times are relative to the beginning of the release to the environment.

11

12 Table 5-14. Design-Basis Accident Doses for the Surrogate ESBWR Reactor

13

14 TEDE in Sv(a)

15 Accident

Standard Review

Plan Section(b) EAB LPZ

Review

Criterion

16 15.6.4 Main Steam Line Break

17 3.13 x 10 Pre-Existing Iodine Spike -3 2.03 x 10-4 2.5 x 10-1(c)

18 1.57 x 10 Accident-Initiated Iodine Spike -4 1.02 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

19 15.6.5 2.08 x 10 Loss-of-Coolant Accident -3 1.33 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-1(c)

20 15.2.8 6.85 x 10 Feedwater System Pipe Break -3 4.45 x 10-9 2.5 x 10-2(d)

21 2.59 x 10 Cleanup Water Line Break -4 1.68 x 10-5 2.5 x 10-2(d)

22 Failure of Small Lines Carrying

23 Primary Coolant Outside Containment

15.6.2 4.49 x 10-5 6.82 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-2(d)

24 15.7.4 1.84 x 10 Fuel Handling -3 1.16 x 10-4 6.3 x 10-2(d)

25 (a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.

26 (b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

27 (c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.21 criteria.

28 (d) Standard Review Plan criterion.

29

30 Table 5-15. Additional Design-Basis Accident Doses for the ABWR Reactor

31

32 TEDE in Sv(a)

33 Accident

Standard Review

Plan Section(b) EAB LPZ

Review

Criterion

34 4.68 x 10 Cleanup Water Line Break -6 3.04 x 10-7 2.5 x 10-2(c)

35 (a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.

36 (b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 1987).

37 (c) Standard Review Plan criterion.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-61 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 ER and the Dominion May 24, 2006, response to the staff’s RAI, the impacts of the Feedwater

2 System Pipe Break DBA are bounded by the impacts of the Cleanup Water Line Break

3 (Dominion 2006b).

4

5 Although Dominion chose the PPE approach in the overall ESP application, it based its initial

6 evaluation of the impacts of DBAs on characteristics of the ABWR and the AP1000 reactor

7 designs with the explicit assumption that these impacts would bound the impacts of other

8 ALWRs designs (Dominion 2006a). In Revision 6 to the ESP application and its May 24, 2006,

9 response to the staff RAIs of May 10, 2006, Dominion provided an evaluation of the impacts of

10 postulated DBAs for the ESBWR reactor design (Dominion 2006a, b). The staff has reviewed

11 these analyses. The results of the Dominion and staff analyses indicate that the impacts of

12 postulated DBAs, if the surrogate ESBWR were to be located at the North Anna ESP site, would

13 be small compared to the TEDE doses used as safety review criteria, which are included in

14 Table 5-14 to illustrate how small the calculated environmental consequences (TEDE doses) are. 

15 In all cases, the calculated TEDEs are a small fraction of the review criterion. Considering the

16 magnitude of the doses in Table 5-14 and the relationship between low doses and health effects

17 such as fatal and non-fatal cancers and severe hereditary effects described in Section 5.10, the

18 staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts of design basis accidents would be

19 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

20

21 5.10.2 Severe Accidents

22

23 This section addresses the impacts of postulated severe accidents for an ESBWR that were not

24 addressed in the Draft EIS.

25

26 For the ABWR and AP1000 reactor designs, Dominion based its evaluation of the potential

27 consequences of postulated severe accidents on the evaluation for current generation reactors

28 previously evaluated by the staff in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). Three pathways were

29 considered: (1) the atmospheric pathway in which radioactive material is released to the air,

30 (2) the surface water pathway in which airborne radioactive material falls out on open bodies of

31 water, and (3) the groundwater pathway in which groundwater is contaminated by a basemat

32 melt-through with subsequent contamination of surface water by the groundwater.

33

34 In addition, in Revision 6 of the ER, Dominion performed a site-specific analysis of the potential

35 consequences of postulated severe accidents for an ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site. 

36 Dominion used the MACCS2 computer code (Chanin et al. 1990; Jow et al. 1990) for the

37 analysis. Along with Revision 6 to the North Anna ESP application, Dominion also provided the

38 MACCS2 input and output files to the NRC (Dominion 2006a).

39

40 The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of

41 severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). MACCS2 (Chanin and

42 Young 1997) is the current version of MACCS. The MACCS and MACCS2 codes evaluate the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-62 July 2006

1 consequences of atmospheric releases of radioactive material following a postulated severe

2 accident. The pathways analyzed include external exposure to the passing plume, external

3 exposure to material deposited on the ground and skin, inhalation of material in the passing

4 plume and resuspended from the ground, and ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. 

5 The primary enhancements in MACCS2 are that MACCS2 has (1) a more flexible emergency

6 response model, (2) an expanded library of radionuclides, and (3) an improved food-chain model

7 (Chanin and Young 1997).

8

9 Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed: (1) human health, (2) economic

10 cost, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human-health effects are expressed in terms

11 of the number of cancers that might be expected if a severe accident were to occur. These

12 effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation dose received by the general population. 

13 MACCS2 estimates both early cancer fatalities and latent fatalities. Early fatalities are related to

14 high doses or dose rates and can be expected to occur within a year of exposure (Jow et al.

15 1990). Latent fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of people to low doses and

16 dose rates and could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years. Population health risk

17 estimates are based on the population distribution within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant,

18 whereas average individual health risks are based on the distribution of population close to the

19 plant. Economic costs of a severe accident include the costs associated with short-term

20 relocation of people, decontamination of property and equipment, interdiction of food supplies,

21 land, and equipment use, and condemnation of property. The affected land area is a measure of

22 the areal extent of the residual contamination following a severe accident.

23

24 Risk is the product of the frequency of an accident, also called the core damage frequency,

25 and the consequences of the accident. For example, a severe accident with containment

26 leakage at the Technical Specification rate for the surrogate ESBWR is estimated to have a core

damage frequency of 2.80x10-8 per reactor year (Ryr-1 27 ). The cumulative population dose

associated with this accident at the North Anna ESP site is calculated to be 2.43x102 28 person-Sv

(2.43x104 29 person-rem). The population dose risk for this class of accidents is the product

of 2.80x10-8 Ryr-1 and 2.43x102 person-Sv, or 6.80x10-6 person-Sv Ryr-1 30

(6.80x10-4 person-rem Ryr -1 31 ).

32

33 Core damage frequency estimates are made using well developed methods that have been

34 updated based on investigation of the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2 and research

35 following the accident. Core damage frequency estimation methods used to generate the

36 estimates presented in this EIS are described in NUREG-1150, Severe Accident Risks: An

37 Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1990). These methods explicitly consider

38 both pre-accident and post-accident human errors. The core damage frequencies listed in this

39 EIS are core damage frequencies estimated for the ESBWR reactor design as set forth in the

40 ESBWR certification application. The following sections discuss the estimated risks associated

41 with the air, surface water, and groundwater pathways.

42
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-63 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Air Pathway

2

3 The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to the air

4 pathway. The results of the MACCS2 runs are presented in Table 5-16. The core damage

5 frequencies given in this table are for internally initiated accident sequences while the plant is at

6 power. Internally initiated accident sequences include those sequences initiated by human error,

7 equipment failures, and loss of offsite power. The core damage frequencies for externally

8 initiated events and during shutdown would be comparable to or lower than those for internally

9 initiated events.

10

11 Table 5-16 shows that the probability weighted consequences (i.e., the risks) of severe accidents

12 for the surrogate ESBWR located on the North Anna ESP site are small for all risk categories

13 considered. In Table 5-17, the health risks estimated for the surrogate ESBWR at the North

14 Anna ESP site are compared with health risk estimates for the five reactors considered in

15 NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). Although risks associated with both internally and externally-initiated

16 events were considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in NUREG-1150, only risks

17 associated with internally initiated events are presented in Table 5-17. The health risks shown

18 for the surrogate ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site are significantly lower than the risks

19 associated with the current generation of operating reactors presented in NUREG-1150. For

20 perspective, Table 5-18 compares the health risks from severe accidents for the surrogate

21 ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site with the risks for the current generation of operating reactors

22 at various sites.

23

24 The Commission has set safety goals for average individual early fatality and latent cancer

25 fatality risks from internally initiated events (NRC 1986). These goals are that average individual

early fatality risk be less than 5x10-7 Ryr-1 26 and that average individual latent cancer fatality risk be

less than 2x10-6 Ryr-1 27 . The average individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population

28 distribution within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the plant boundary. The average individual latent cancer

29 fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 16 km (10 mi) of the plant. For

30 the plants considered in NUREG-1150, these risks were well below the Commission’s safety

31 goals. Risks calculated for the surrogate ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site are lower than the

32 risks associated with the current generation reactors considered in NUREG-1150, and are well

33 below the NRC safety goals.

34

35 The staff compared the core damage frequencies and population dose risk estimates for the

36 surrogate ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site with comparable statistics summarizing the results

37 of contemporary severe accident analyses performed for 28 current generation operating

38 reactors at 23 sites. The results of these analyses are included in the final site-specific

39 Supplements 1 through 20 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal,

40 NUREG-1437, and in the ERs included with license renewal applications for those plants for

41 which supplements have not been published. All of the analyses were completed after

42 publication of NUREG-1150, and the 23 analyses used MACCS2, which was released in 1997.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-64 July 2006 Table 5-16. Mean Environmental Risks from Surrogate ESBWR Severe Accidents at the North Anna ESP Site 1

23 Environmental Risk

Release Category Description

4

(Accident Class)

5

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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 Release through controlled

(filtered) venting fromsuppression chamber

(f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

CCID 10 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 11 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)
July 2006 5-65 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-16. (contd) 1

2

Release Category Description

3

(Accident Class)

4

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

5 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

6 Containment bypassed because

of CIS failure with large (>12"hole) opening. Lower drywelldebris bed covered.

(f) (f) 4.65 x 10-11 (f) (f) (f) (f)

DCH

7 Direct containment heating (high

pressure RPV failure) eventdamages containment

(f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

OPVB

8 Containment fails due to failure

of vapor suppression system(vacuum breaker) function.

(f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

OPW1

9 Containment fails due to early

(<24 hours) loss of containmentheat removal 

(f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f) (f)

Total 10 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. 11(b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990). 12(c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that could occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years. 13(d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health 14

effects (Jow et al. 1990) 15

(e) Land risk is farm land requiring decontamination prior to resumption of agricultural usage. To convert hectares to acres, multiply by 2.47. 16(f) Less than 1 percent of the total 17

18
NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-66 July 2006

Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

1

Table 5-17. Comparison of Environmental Risk for New Surrogate ESBWR Units at the North Anna ESP Site with Risks for

2

Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150 

34

Reactor Site

5

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) 6 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) 7 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) 8 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) 9 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) 10 3.4 x 10-4 5 x 10+1 1 x 10-4 2 x 10-2 9 x 10-9 8 x 10-9Surrogate ESBWR 11at North Anna ESP 12Site(c) 13

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. 14(b) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). 15(c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using North Anna site-specific input. 16

17
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-67 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 5-18. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal

2 Events for the Surrogate ESBWR at the North Anna ESP Site with Risks Initiated by

3 Internal Events for 28 Current Operating Plants Undergoing License Renewal

4

5 Reactor Site

Core Damage

Frequency (yr-1)

50-mi (80-km) Population Dose

Risk (person-Sv Ryr-1)

(a)

Current Reactor Maximum(b) 6 2.4x10-4 6.9x10-1

Current Reactor Mean(b) 7 3.6x10-5 1.5x10-1

Current Reactor Median(b) 8 2.8x10-5 1.4x10-1

Current Reactor Minimum(b) 9 1.9x10-6 5.5x10-3

ESBWR at North Anna ESP Site(c) 10 2.9x10-8 3.3x10-5

11 (a) To convert Sv to rem, multiply Sv by 100.

12 (b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for current plants undergoing operating license renewal.

13 (c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using North Anna site-specific input.

14

15 Table 5-18 shows that the core damage frequencies estimated for an ESBWR are significantly

16 lower than those of current generation reactors. Similarly, the population doses estimated for an

17 ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site are well below the mean and median values for current

18 generation reactors undergoing license renewal.

19

20 Population dose and risk estimates of the North Anna site in Tables 5-16 through 5-18 are for the

21 year 2030 and are based on data from the 1990 census. Population growth estimates presented

22 in Chapter 2 of the ER (Dominion 2006a) indicate that between 2030 and 2065 the population in

23 the region is expected to increase by factors of 1.2 to 1.6 depending on distance and direction

24 from the site. Even if the projected growth from 2030 to 2065 were as large as a factor of 2, the

25 risks would still be well below the Commission’s safety goals.

26

27 The staff has considered the risk estimates given in Tables 5-16, the comparisons of atmospheric

28 pathway risks in Tables 5-17 and 5-18, and the comparison of average individual early fatality and

29 average individual latent cancer fatality risks in Table 5-17 with the Commission’s safety goals. 

30 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts for the proposed North Anna ESP

31 site for the air pathway releases for severe accidents would be small for operation of the

32 surrogate ESBWR.

33

34 Surface Water Pathways

35

36 Surface water pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These pathways cover the effects

37 of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water. The surface water pathways of

38 interest include exposure to external radiation from submersion in water and activities near the
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-68 July 2006

1 water, ingestion of water, and ingestion of fish and other aquatic creatures. Of these pathways,

2 the MACCS2 code only evaluates the ingestion of contaminated water. The risks associated with

3 this surface water pathway calculated for the North Anna ESP site are included in the last column

4 of Table 5-16. For each accident class, the population dose risk from ingestion of water is a small

5 fraction of the dose risk from the air pathway.

6

7 Lake Anna is used for recreational activities including swimming and fishing. Doses from these

8 surface water pathways are not modeled in MACCS or MACCS2. NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996)

9 provides an estimate of typical population exposure risk for the aquatic food pathway for plants

10 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 4x10-3 person-Sv Ryr-1 11

(4x10-1 person-rem Ryr-1). The total risk for the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 is about 2.5x10-1 12

person-Sv Ryr-1 (2.5x101 person-rem Ryr-1 13 ) (NRC 2002a). Thus, the generic aquatic pathway risk

14 is less than 2 percent of the total risk. Analysis of water-related exposure pathways at the Fermi

15 reactor (NRC 1981) suggests that population exposures from swimming are significantly lower

16 than exposures from the aquatic ingestion pathway.

17

18 Virginia Power controls the land to the high water mark of Lake Anna (Dominion 2006a). In the

19 event of a large release of radioactive material, Virginia Power and the Commonwealth of Virginia

20 could control access to the lake, which is the major surface water body in the vicinity of the North

21 Anna ESP site. By exercising that control, Virginia Power could reduce exposures through the

22 surface water pathways.

23

24 After considering the water ingestion dose estimates, the NUREG-1437 evaluations, and Virginia

25 Power’s control over access to Lake Anna, as set forth above, the staff concludes that the

26 impacts for the proposed North Anna ESP site from surface water pathway releases for severe

27 accidents are small for operation of the surrogate ESBWR.

28

29 Groundwater Pathway

30

31 Neither MACCS nor MACCS2 evaluates the environmental risks associated with severe accident

32 releases of radioactive material to groundwater. However, this pathway has been addressed in

33 NUREG-1437 in the context of renewal of licenses for the current generation reactors. 

NUREG-1437 assumes a 1x10-4 Ryr-1 34 probability of occurrence of a severe accident with a

35 basemat melt-through leading to potential groundwater contamination, and the staff concluded

36 that groundwater generally contributed a small fraction of the risk attributable to the atmospheric

37 pathway. Although the staff assumed that the probability of occurrence of a release via the

38 groundwater pathway is significantly larger than the probability of a release via the atmospheric

39 pathway, the groundwater pathway is more tortuous and affords a greater time for implementing

40 protective actions and therefore results in a lower risk to the public. As a result, the staff

41 concludes that the impacts for the proposed North Anna ESP site from groundwater pathway

42 releases for severe accidents are small for operation of the surrogate ESBWR.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-69 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts

2

3 Although Dominion chose the PPE approach in the overall ESP application, it based its initial

4 evaluation of the environmental impacts of severe accidents on characteristics of the ABWR and

5 the surrogate AP1000 reactor designs with the explicit assumption that these impacts would

6 bound the impacts of other ALWRs designs (Dominion 2005). In Revision 6 to the ESP

7 application, Dominion provided an evaluation of the environmental impacts of severe accidents for

8 the surrogate ESBWR design (Dominion 2006a). The NRC staff reviewed the analysis in the

9 ER and conducted its own confirmatory analysis using the MACCS2 code. The results of both the

10 Dominion and NRC analyses indicate that the environmental risks associated with severe

11 accidents if an ESBWR were to be located at the North Anna ESP site would be small compared

12 to risks associated with operation of current generation reactors at the North Anna site and other

13 sites. These risks are well below the NRC safety goals. On these bases, the staff concludes that

14 the probability weighted consequences of severe accidents at the North Anna ESP site would be

15 SMALL. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents are not resolved. If an ESP is issued

16 and an applicant for a CP or COL references it, the applicant needs to address the site-specific

17 and design-specific severe accident mitigation alternatives.

18

19 The environmental impacts for severe accidents that have been considered include potential

20 radiation exposures to individuals and to the population as a whole, the risk of near- and

21 long-term adverse health effects that such exposures could entail, and the potential economic and

22 societal consequences of accidental contamination of the environment. Although severe

23 accidents have a potential for early fatalities and economic costs that cannot arise from normal

24 operations, the overall assessment of environmental risk of accident, assuming protective action,

25 shows that it is roughly comparable with the risk from normal operation. The risks of an early

26 fatality from potential accidents at the site are small in comparison with the risks of an early

27 fatality from other human activities in a comparably sized population. Consequently, the staff

28 concludes that the potential environmental impacts of severe accidents are small.

29

30 5.10.3 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

31

32 This section summarizes the potential environmental impacts of postulated accidents for a

33 ESBWR at the North Anna ESP site. These accidents were not addressed in earlier versions of

34 the ER or in the Draft EIS.

35

36 The staff evaluated the environmental impacts from postulated design basis accidents and

37 postulated severe accidents using an additional reactor design, a surrogate ESBWR, to

38 characterize the impacts from ALWRs. Based on the information provided by Dominion, and its

39 independent review as discussed above, the staff concludes that the potential environmental

40 impacts of postulated accidents would be SMALL. However, alternatives to mitigate severe
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-70 July 2006

1 accidents are not resolved. If an ESP is issued and an applicant for a CP or COL references it,

2 the applicant needs to address the site-specific and design-specific severe accident mitigation

3 alternatives.

4

5 5.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During

6 Operation

7

8 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level and the closed-cycle, combination wet and

9 dry cooling system.

10

11 The following general measures and controls on which the staff relied in its evaluation of

12 environmental impacts during operation of the proposed new units at the North Anna ESP site

13 include those which Dominion would be required to implement by applicable permits and

14 authorizations (Federal, State, and local requirements contained in Table 1.2-1 of the ER) as well

15 as feasible measures and controls contained in Table 5.10-1 of the ER:

16

17 & solid waste management, erosion and sediment control, air emission control, noise

18 control, storm water management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material

19 management

20

21 & imposed on water discharges from the proposed new units (ER Sections 5.1.1, 5.3.2,

22 5.5.1)

23

24 & installing and operating air emission sources (ER Section 5.8.1)

25

26 & Virginia Power procedures applicable to environmental control and management

27

28 Dominion specifically identified the following general plans or specific mitigation measures in its

29 ER (Dominion 2006a) on which the staff relied in its evaluation:

30

31 & Current transmission line maintenance practices would continue if two new units were built

32 at the ESP site (ER Section 5.6.1.1).

33

34 & Locations of rare or sensitive plant species within transmission line corridors would be

35 identified so modified treatment practices can be used in these areas to avoid adverse

36 impacts (ER Section 5.6.1.1).

37

38 & The intake structure for the proposed new units at the ESP site would meet Section 316(b)

39 of the Clean Water Act and the implementing regulations, as applicable (ER

40 Section 5.3.1.2).

41
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-71 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 & A fish return system based on the latest technology available during detailed engineering

2 would be considered for incorporation into the intake system (ER Section 5.3.1.2).

3

4 & Vegetative shielding would block a clear view of the new units from nearby residences,

5 and a visual impact study would be performed and the results would be described in the

6 COL application (ER Section 5.8.1.5).

7

8 & Noise levels would be controlled in accordance with applicable local county regulations

9 (ER Section 5.8.1.2).

10

11 & Potential increases in traffic would be mitigated through effective traffic management

12 (ER Section 5.1.1).

13

14 & Any ground disturbing activities would be conducted in coordination with VDHR and

15 professional archaeological practices (ER Section 4.1.3).

16

17 Dominion evaluated the measures and controls shown in Table 5.10-1 of the ER (Dominion 2005)

18 and considered them feasible from both a technical and economic standpoint. In addition,

19 Dominion expects these measures and controls to be adequate for avoiding or mitigating potential

20 adverse impacts associated with operation of the proposed new units. The staff considered these

21 measures and controls in its evaluation of station operation impacts.

22

23 5.12 Summary of Operational Impacts

24

25 Changes to this section reflect the summary of operations impacts from the proposed project

26 presented in ER revision 6

27

28 Impact level categories denoted in Table 5-19 as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE were assigned

29 to each resource area based on the staff’s evaluations and conclusions regarding expected

30 adverse environmental impacts, if any. A brief statement explains the basis for the impact level. 

31 Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from Dominion for the local economies, are

32 likely to be beneficial impacts to the community, and are noted as such. 

33
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-72 July 2006

1 Table 5-19. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the North Anna ESP Site

2

3 Category Comments

Impact

Level

4 Land use impacts --

5 Operation of new units within existing site. The site and vicinity

Possible new housing and retail space added in

vicinity due to potential growth.

SMALL

6 No new transmission line rights-of-way would be Transmission line rights-of-way

needed.

SMALL

7 Meteorological impacts are expected to be Air quality impacts

negligible. Pollutants emitted during operations

considered insignificant and limits could be

incorporated under existing Exclusionary Permit.

SMALL

8 Water-related impacts --

9 Changes in the quantity and distribution of heat in Hydrological alterations

the lake are expected to be negligible. 

SMALL

10 Water use

11 During normal water years, the impact would be Normal years

small.

SMALL

12 During critical low-water years, the impacts could Drought years

be temporarily moderate.

MODERATE

13 Water effluents would be regulated by the VPDES Water quality

permit, but their exact composition would depend

on information not yet available.

Unresolved

14 Ecological impacts --

15 No detectable impacts expected; no important Terrestrial ecosystems

species in area.

SMALL

16 The fish community is balanced. Proportion of Aquatic ecosystems

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

17 Threatened and Endangered

18 Species

--

19 No threatened or endangered species known to Terrestrial Species

inhabit area.

SMALL

20 No threatened or endangered species known to Aquatic Species

inhabit area.

SMALL
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-73 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 5-19. (contd)

2

3 Category Comments

Impact

Level

4 Socioeconomic impacts --

5 Physical Impacts --

6 Workers would use protective equipment and Workers/Public

receive training to mitigate any possible impact.

North Anna location is relatively remote, so the

public would not be impacted.

SMALL

7 No impact to onsite or offsite buildings. SMALL Buildings

8 Upgrades and other mitigation before or during Roads

construction would cover the lesser impact of

operational work forces.

SMALL

9 Aesthetics

10

Visual impact would be minimal due to remote

location. Lower water levels, and their effect on

shoreline exposure during severe drought could

temporarily impact area. 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

11 Number of new employees small in proportion to Demography

population base.

SMALL

12 Community Characteristics

13 Economy

14

Increased jobs would benefit the area

economically, up to a moderate beneficial impact

(Louisa and Orange Counties) is possible.

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

TO

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

15 Improvements made for construction would be Transportation

sufficient to cover any adverse impact from small

number of additional operational workers.

SMALL

16 Taxes

17

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

18 Recreation

19

Overall impacts to recreation minimal due to

remote location. Traffic around and use of lake

could increase. Lower water levels, and their effect

on shoreline exposure and recreational usage

during severe drought could temporarily impact

area.

SMALL TO

MODERATE
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

Table 5-19. (contd)

Category Comments

Impact

Level

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-74 July 2006

1 Adequate housing is available in Henrico and Housing

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

2 Adequate in all counties for any population Public Services

increase due to operation workforce.

SMALL

3 Current schools and planned additions would Education

handle additional students.

SMALL

4 A cultural resource program is in place for Historic and cultural resources

minimizing impacts from routine land disturbances.

SMALL

5 No unusual resource dependence in the area. SMALL Environmental justice

6 Health impacts monitored and controlled in Nonradiological health impacts

accordance with Occupational Safety and Health

Administration regulations.

SMALL

7 Doses to public and occupational workers are Radiological health impacts

monitored and controlled in accordance with NRC

limits.

SMALL

8 Impacts of postulated accidents --

9 Doses for advanced light water reactors are Design basis accidents

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

10 Risks for ALWRs would be small. If gas-cooled Severe accidents

reactor is selected at the CP/COL stage then the

staff will evaluate the severe accident impacts for

gas-cooled reactors. Severe accident mitigation

alternatives are unresolved.

SMALL

11

12 5.13 References

13

14 This section was changed to include new references to support the analysis of changes to the

15 cooling system and power output as presented in ER Revision 6. 

16

17 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

18 Protection Against Radiation.”

19
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-75 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

2 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

3

4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

6

7 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

8 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

9

10 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

11 Criteria.”

12

13 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

14 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

15

16 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). 1984. A User’s Manual: Cooling-Tower-Plume

17 Prediction Code. Published as EPRI CS-3403-CCM by Electric Power Research Institute, Palo

18 Alto, California.

19

20 Chanin D.I., J.L. Sprung, L.T. Ritchie, and H.N. Jow. 1990. MELCOR Accident Consequence

21 Code System (MACCS), User’s Guide. NUREG/CR-4691, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.

22

23 Chanin D.I. and M.L. Young. 1997. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume1, User’s Guide. 

24 SAND97-0594, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

25

26 Cheek T.E., J.M. Van Den Avyle, and C.C. Coutant. 1985. “Influence of Water Quality on

27 Distribution of Striped Bass in a Tennessee River Impoundment.” Transactions of the American

28 Fisheries Society 114:67-76.

29

30 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2002. Chesapeake Bay Dissolved Oxygen Criteria, Draft No. 2. 

31 Accessed at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/

32 subcommittee/wqsc/doctg/doc-docritdoc-01-03-2002.PDF on August 23, 2005.

33

34 Clean Water Act (also called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251,et seq..

35

36 Dominion Energy Inc. and Bechtel Power Corp. (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. Study of

37 Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States. U.S. Department

38 of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-02ID14313. Available at

39 www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/ESP_Study/ESP_Study_Dominion1.pdf

40

41 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2001a. “Migratory Birds.” Water/Waste

42 Environmental Protection Manual. Chapter 13, Glen Allen, Virginia.
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-76 July 2006

1 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2001b. Appendix E – Applicant’s Environmental

2 Report – Operating License Renewal Stage, North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, License

3 Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7, Virginia Electric & Power Company, May 2001.

4

5 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. North Anna Early Site Permit Application

6 - Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

7

8 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter dated June 28, 2004 from

9 E. S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC responding to the Virginia Department of Environmental

10 Quality comment letter Glen Allen, Virginia.

11

12 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004c. Letter dated May 17, 2004 from

13 E. S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC

14 request dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

15

16 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit Application

17 – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

18

19 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to NRC

20 dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request dated May

21 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

22

23 Eckerman K.F., A.B. Wolbarst, and A.C.B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide

24 Intake and Air Concentrations and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and

25 Ingestion. Federal Guidance Report No. 11, -520/1-88-202, U.S. Environmental Protection

26 Agency, Washington, D.C.

27

28 Eckerman K.F. and J.C. Ryman. 1993. External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and

29 Soil. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, -402-R-93-081, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

30 Washington, D.C.

31

32 Golden J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

33 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

34

35 Goodyear C.P. 1978. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach,

36 FWS/OBS-78/65, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Power Plant

37 Team, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

38

39 Hanover County Department of Public Utilities. 2004. Letter to Chief, Rules and Directives

40 Branch, NRC, regarding Dominion’s ESP application, January 7, 2004.

41
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-77 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Health Physics Society (HPS). 2004. Radiation Risk in Perspective. The Health Physics

2 Society, McLean, Virginia.

3

4 Ho E. And E. E. Adams. 1984. Final Calibration of the Cooling Lake Model, North Anna Power

5 Station. Report No. 295, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

6 Cambridge, Massachusetts.

7

8 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and

9 Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series

10 No. 332, Vienna, Austria.

11

12 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of

13 the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon Press,

14 Oxford, United Kingdom.

15

16 Jaksch J. and M. Scott. 2005. North Anna ESP Site Audit Trip Report – Socioeconomics. 12-8-

17 2003 through 12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2003 through 12-12-2003

18 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2004 through 9-29-2004 and 7-11-2005 through 7-15-

19 2005. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession No. ML052170374.

20

21 Jenkins R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries

22 Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

23

24 Jow H.N., J.L Sprung, J.A. Rollstin, L.T. Ritchie, and D.I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident

25 Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR-4691, Volume 2,

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

27

28 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing

29 Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.

30

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

32

33 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NEISH Report on Health

34 Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

35 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

36

37 National Research Council. 2005. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

38 Radiation: BIER VII - Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels

39 of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

40
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-78 July 2006

1 Olmsted L.L. and J.P. Clugston. 1986. “Fishery Management in Cooling Impoundments,”

2 Pages 227-237 in Reservoir Fisheries Management, (G.E. Hall and M.J. Van Den Ayvle, editors),

3 Reservoir Committee, Southern Division American Fisheries Society, Bethesda Maryland.

4

5 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Onsite Meteorological Programs. Regulatory

6 Guide1.23 (or Safety Guide 23), Washington, D.C.

7

8 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. USGS Surface Water Data for USA: USGS Surface -

9 Water Monthly Statistics for the Nation. Accessed at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly/

10 ?referred_module=sw&site_no=01671020&por_01671020_1=189374,00060,1,1979-10,2004-

11 09&start_dt=1979-10&end_dt=2003-09&format=html_ table&date_format=YYYY-MM12 DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection _list on June 22, 2006.

13

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Addendum to the Final Environmental

15 Statement Related to Operation of North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2. Virginia Electric and

16 Power Company. NUREG-0134, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, Washington, D.C.

17

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of

19 Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants.

20 NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

21

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement

23 Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Addendum No.1. NUREG-0769

24 Addendum 1. Washington, D.C.

25

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for

27 Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.145 Rev. 1,

28 Washington, D.C.

29

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear

31 Power Plants; Policy Statement.” Federal Register, Volume 51, p. 30028, August 21, 1986.

32

33 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plan for the Review of

34 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800 (formerly issued as

35 NUREG-75/087), Volumes 1 and 2. NRC, Washington, D.C.

36

37 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for

38 Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.

39

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

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

42
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

July 2006 5-79 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Environmental Standard Review Plan. 

2 NUREG-1555, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

3

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Alternative Radiological Source Terms for

5 Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183,

6 Washington, D.C.

7

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

9 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

10 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

11

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

13 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 7 Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units

14 1 and 2. NUREG-1437 Supplement 7. November 2002. Available at

15 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement7

16

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

18 (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811,

19 Washington, D.C.

20

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. NRR Office Instruction Change Notice

22 LIC-203, Revision 1. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and

23 Considering Environmental Issues. May 24, 2004. Appendix D, Environmental Justice Guidance

24 and Flow Chart. Washington, D.C.

25

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004c. Letter dated March 12, 2004 from Andrew

27 J. Kugler (NRC) to David A. Christian (Dominion) requesting additional information.

28

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006 Letter from Nitin Patel (NRC) to David A.

30 Christian (Dominion) requesting additional information. May 10, 2006

31

32 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 2004. Natural Heritage Resources

33 Factsheet. Migratory Songbird Habitat in Virginia’s Coastal Plain. Accessed at

34 http://www.dcr.state.va/dnh/songfact.htm on March 4, 2004.

35

36 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Virginia Pollutant Discharge

37 Elimination System Permit No. VA0052451, Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia

38 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Act, Commonwealth

39 of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, permit’s effective date, January 11, 2001;

40 expiration date, January 11, 2006.

41
Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 5-80 July 2006

1 Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 2005. Letter from R. B. Stroube (VDH) to R. Burnley

2 (VDEQ) regarding heat effects of immersion in ambient waters. September 15, 2005.

3

4 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1985. Impingement and Entrainment Studies for

5 North Anna Power Station,1978-1983, Prepared by Water Quality Department, Richmond, 

6 Virginia.

7

8 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 2002. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

9 the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 2001 including Summary for 1998-2000. 

10 Richmond, Virginia.

11

12
July 2006 6-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

2

3

4 This chapter of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was changed to

5 reflect new information and analysis of fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning impacts

6 related to an increase in the maximum power level from 4300 MW(t) to 4500 MW(t) proposed in

7 Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. Section summaries are provided for context.

8

9 This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid

10 waste management, (2) transportation of radioactive material, and (3) decommissioning

11 following operation of two new nuclear power units. The environmental impacts were assessed

12 for the North Anna early site permit (ESP) site and the alternative sites. Distinctions between

13 the impacts of advanced light-water reactor (LWR) designs and gas-cooled reactor designs are

14 discussed. Elements of the analysis presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15 (Draft EIS)(NRC 2004) that are relevant in this Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact

16 Statement (SDEIS) are related to changes in the power level of proposed Units 3 and 4

17 (referred to hereafter as Units 3 and 4).

18

19 The power level change is an increase from a maximum of 4300 MW(t) to 4500 MW(t) per unit. 

20 This change is intended to align with the new power level designated for the surrogate

21 economic simplified boiling water reactor (surrogate ESBWR).

22

23 In its evaluation of uranium fuel cycle impacts for the North Anna ESP site, Dominion used the

24 plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach for the advanced LWR designs but not for the two

25 gas-cooled reactors. In its evaluation of the impacts from transportation of radioactive

26 materials, Dominion did not use the PPE approach but rather evaluated each reactor design

27 individually. Therefore, an applicant referencing any North Anna ESP would have to perform a

28 new evaluation if a different design is proposed at the construction permit (CP) or combined

29 license (COL) stage.

30

31 The staff reviewed the potential impacts of the higher output level on the fuel cycle,

32 transportation, and decommissioning. Throughout Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS, there are

33 references to the previous maximum power level of 4300 MW(t) (now 4500 MW(t)) and

34 1500 MW(e) (now 1520 MW(e)). Each place in the text of the Draft EIS that previously

35 addressed the analyses for 4300 MW(t) or 1500 MW(e) will be changed in the Final EIS to

36 reflect the analyses for the 4500 MW(t) or 1520 MW(e) values and power levels. Changes in

37 this chapter are identified and discussed only for those sections in which the higher power level

38 of 4500 MW(t) affects the actual impact analysis.

39

40
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-2 July 2006

1 6.1 Fuel Cycle Impacts and Solid Waste Management

2

3 This introductory section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is

4 provided solely for context.

5

6 This section of the Draft EIS discussed the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle

7 and solid waste management for both the advanced LWR designs and gas-cooled reactor

8 designs. The impacts of the two types of design are presented separately because Title 10 of

9 the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 51.51 provides specific criteria for

10 evaluating the environmental impacts only for LWR designs. 

11

12 6.1.1 Light-Water Reactors

13

14 Changes to this section reflect the revised PPE value of 4500 MW(t) for the power level for one

15 unit (9000 MW(t) for two units) provided in ER Revision 6. The corresponding net electrical

16 output is 1520 MW(e) for one unit (3040 MW(e) for two units).

17

18 In the Draft EIS, the staff evaluated impacts at a net electric output of 3200 MW(e); this level is

19 still higher than the 3040 MW(e) power level proposed in ER Revision 6. This section was

20 changed to reflect the higher power level as presented in ER Revision 6.

21

22 The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state that 

23

24 Every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a light-water25 cooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take

26 Table S–3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating

27 the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the

28 production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of

29 irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials, and management of low level

30 wastes and high level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental

31 costs of licensing the nuclear power plant. Table S–3 shall be included in the

32 environmental report and may be supplemented by a discussion of the environmental

33 significance of the data set forth in the table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed

34 facility.

35

36 The PPE for the North Anna ESP site used input parameters from the following LWR designs:

37

38 & Advanced Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor (ACR-700) – This reactor, developed by

39 Atomic Energy Canada Limited, is an evolutionary extension of the CANDU 6 plant using

40 very slightly enriched uranium fuel and light-water cooling.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 & Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) – This reactor, developed by General Electric

2 Company (GE), is a standardized plant that has been certified under the NRC

3 requirements in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A. The ABWR is fueled with slightly enriched

4 uranium and has light-water cooling.

5

6 & Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (AP1000) – This earlier version of the AP1000, a

7 reactor design developed by Westinghouse Electric Company, using slightly enriched

8 uranium and light-water cooling. This design is not the standard AP1000 design that

9 was certified by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D; therefore, this design is

10 referred to as the “surrogate AP1000.”

11

12 & Surrogate Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) – This surrogate reactor

13 design is based on a design developed by GE using slightly enriched uranium fuel and

14 has light-water cooling. Dominion revised its application to reflect a higher power level

15 volume of 4500 MW(t) (Dominion 2006a). The ESBWR design certification application is

16 currently under review by the NRC.

17

18 & International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) Next-Generation Pressurized Water

19 Reactor (PWR) – This reactor, under development by a consortium led by Westinghouse

20 Electric Company, is a modular light-water reactor.

21

22 These light-water designs all use uranium dioxide fuel; therefore, the values in Table S–3 can

23 be used to assess environmental impacts. Table S–3 values are normalized for a reference

24 1000-MW(e) LWR at an 80 percent capacity factor. The PPE power level for the North Anna

25 ESP site is 9000 MW(t), assuming two ESBWR units would be located on the ESP site or at any

26 of the alternative sites, with a PPE capacity factor of 96 percent (Dominion 2006a). This

27 corresponds to 3040 MW(e). The 10 CFR 51.51(a) Table S–3 values are reproduced in

28 Table 6-1, which follows.

29

30 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff evaluated a net electrical output of 3200 MW(e) for the

31 site; therefore, the higher power level (i.e., 3040 MW(e)) in ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a)

32 remains bounded by the staff’s evaluation. The staff’s evaluation assumed that fuel cycle

33 impacts for the ESP site would be approximately four times the impact values in Table S–3

34 (see Table 6-1). This is referred to as the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model.

35

36 This section was revised to reflect the revised PPE value of 4500 MW(t) for the power level for

37 one unit (9000 MW(t) for two units) provided in Dominion (2006a). The corresponding net

38 electrical output is 1520 MW(e) for one unit (3040 MW(e) for two units).

39

40 Summaries of Section 6.1.1 subsections follow.

41
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-4 July 2006

1 6.1.1.1 Land Use

2

3 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that the total annual land needed for the fuel

7 cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) scaled model is about 184 ha (452 ac). Approximately 20 ha

8 (52 ac) are permanently committed land, and 164 ha (400 ac) are temporarily committed. In

9 comparison, a coal-fired power plant with the same MW(e) output as the LWR scaled model and

10 that uses strip-mined coal results in the disturbance of about 324 ha (800 ac) per year for fuel

11 alone. Because the land use needs remain bounded by the staff’s previous evaluation, the staff

12 concludes that the impact on land use did not change because of the higher power level. The

13 impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

14

15 6.1.1.2 Water Use

16

17 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

18 for context.

19

20 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that principal water-use for the fuel cycle

21 supporting a 1000-MW(e) scaled model is that needed to remove waste heat from the power

22 stations supplying electrical energy to the enrichment step of this cycle. The maximum

23 consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying electrical energy to the nuclear fuel

24 cycle using cooling towers) would be about 6 percent of the 1000-MW(e) scaled model using

25 cooling towers. Because the water use needs remain bounded by the staff’s previous

26 evaluation, the staff concludes that impacts on water use did not change because of the higher

27 power level. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

28

29 6.1.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts

30

31 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

32 for context.

33

34 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that electrical energy and process heat are used

35 during various phases of the fuel cycle process. Electrical energy associated with the fuel cycle

36 represents about 5 percent of the annual electrical power production of the reference

37 1000-MW(e) LWR. Process heat is primarily generated by the combustion of natural gas. This

38 gas consumption, if used to generate electricity, would be less than 0.4 percent of the electrical

39 output from the model plant. Because the fossil fuel needs remain bounded by the staff’s

40 previous evaluation, the staff concludes that fossil fuel impacts did not change because of the

41 higher power level. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not

42 warranted.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 6.1.1.4 Chemical Effluents

2

3 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that the quantities of chemical effluents released

7 from operation of fuel cycle facilities would be approximately four times less than for the

reference 1000-MW(e) LWR. The principal effluents are SOx, NOx 8 , and particulates. Because

9 the chemical effluents likely to be released remain bounded by the staff’s previous evaluation,

10 the staff concludes that impacts from chemical effluents did not change because of the higher

11 power level. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

12

13 6.1.1.5 Radioactive Effluents

14

15 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

16 for context.

17

18 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that radioactive effluents estimated to be

19 released to the environment from waste management activities and certain other phases of the

20 fuel cycle process are set forth in Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51(a) (see Table 6-1). The

21 estimated 100-yr environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from radioactive

22 gaseous and liquid releases resulting from the fuel cycle is approximately 66 person-Sv

23 (6600 person-rem) (whole body) per reference reactor-year, which includes doses from

24 radon-222 and technetium-99. Using the risk estimation method from International Commission

25 on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 (ICRP 1991), this dose commitment equates

26 to an estimated total of approximately 4.8 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary

27 effects to the U.S. population annually. This risk is quite small compared to the number of fatal

28 cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be estimated to the

29 U.S. population annually from exposure to natural sources of radiation using the same risk

30 estimation method. Because the radioactive effluents likely to be released remain bounded by

31 the staff’s previous evaluation, the staff concludes that the impact from radioactive effluents did

32 not change because of the higher power level. The impact level category would still be SMALL,

33 and mitigation is not warranted.

34

35 6.1.1.6 Radioactive Wastes

36

37 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

38 for context.

39

40 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that the quantities of buried radioactive waste

41 material (low-level, high-level, and transuranic wastes) are specified in Table S–3 (see 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-6 July 2006

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

2 (Normalized to Model LWR Annual Fuel Requirement [AEC 1972; AEC 1974]

3 or Reference Reactor Year [NRC 1976])(corresponds to Table 6-1 in the Draft EIS)

4

5 Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

6 Natural Resource Use 

7 Land (acres):

Temporarily committed(b) 8 ............... 100

9 Undisturbed area ................... 79

10 Disturbed area ..................... 22 Equivalent to a 100 MW(e) coal-fired power plant.

11 Permanently committed ............... 13

12 Overburden moved (millions of MT) ...... 2.8 Equivalent to 95 MW(e) coal-fired power plant.

13

14 Water (millions of gallons):

15 Discharged to air .................. 160 = 2 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR with cooling

tower.

16 Discharged to water bodies .......... 11,090

17 Discharged to ground ............... 127

18

19 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,377 <4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR with oncethrough

20

21 Fossil fuel:

22 Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hr) 323 <5 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR output. 

23 Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) .... 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45 MW(e) coal-fired

power plant.

24 Natural gas (millions of standard cubic feet) 135 <0.4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) energy output. 

25 Effluents--Chemical (MT)

Gases (including entrainment):(c) 26

SOx 27 ................................ 4400

NOx

(d) 28 ............................... 1190 Equivalent to emissions from 45 MW(e) coal-fired plant

for a year.

29 Hydrocarbons ........................ 14

30 CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6

31 Particulates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1154

32 Other gases: 

33 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. 

34 HCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.014
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 6-1. (contd)

2

3 Environmental Considerations Total Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000 MW(e) LWR

4 Liquids:

SO4 5 .................................. 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 6 .................................. 25.8

7 Fluoride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9

Ca++ 8 ................................. 5.4

Cl- 9 ................................... 8.5

Na+ 10 .................................. 12.1

NH3 11 .................................. 10

12 Fe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4

13 Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) ........ 240 From mills only–no significant effluents to environment.

14 Solids 91,000 Principally from mills–no significant effluents to

environment.

15 Effluents--Radiological (curies)

16 Gases (including entrainment):

17 Rn-222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presently under reconsideration by the Commission.

18 Ra-226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02

19 Th-230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02

20 Uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.034

21 Tritium (thousands) .................... 18.1

22 C-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

23 Kr-85 (thousands) ..................... 400

24 Ru-106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 Principally from fuel reprocessing plants.

25 I-129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3

26 I-131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83

27 Tc-99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presently under consideration by the Commission.

28 Fission products and transuranics ......... 0.203

29 Liquids:

30 Uranium and daughters ................. 2.1 Principally from milling–included tailings liquor and

returned to ground–no effluents; therefore, no effect on

environment.

31 Ra-226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0034 From UF6 production. 

32 Th-230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0015

33 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. 

34 Fission and activation products ........... 5.9 x 10-6

35 Solids (buried on site): 

36 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. 
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

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-8 July 2006

1 TRU and HLW (deep) .................. 1.1 x 107 Buried at Federal Repository.

2 Effluents—thermal (billions of British thermal

3 units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4063 <5 percent of model 1000 MW(e) LWR

4 Transportation (person-rem): 

5 Exposure of workers and general public .... 2.5

6 Occupational exposure (person-rem) ........ 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management.

7 (a) In some cases where no entry appears it is clear from the background documents that the matter was

8 addressed and that, in effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However,

9 there are other areas that are not addressed at all in the table. Table S–3 does not include health effects from

10 the effluents described in the table, or estimates of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or

11 estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or reprocessing activities. These issues may be

12 the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings.

13

14 Data supporting this table are given in the “Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” WASH-1248,

15 April 1974; the “Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel

16 Cycle,” NUREG-0116 (Supp.1 to WASH-1248, NRC 1976); the “Public Comments and Task Force Responses

17 Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel

18 Cycle,” NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248) (NRC 1977b); and in the record of the final rulemaking

19 pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management,

20 Docket RM-50-3. The contributions from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are

21 maximized for either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation

22 excludes transportation of cold fuel to a reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor

23 which are considered in Table S–4 of Sec. 51.20(g). The contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle

24 are given in columns A-E of Table S–3A of WASH-1248. 

25

26 (b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, because the

27 complete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or

28 57 reactors for 30 years. 

29

30 (c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. 

31

32 (d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process. 

33

34 Table 6-1). For low-level waste disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission notes in

35 Table S–3 that there will be no significant radioactive releases to the environment. For 

36 high-level and transuranic waste, the Commission notes that these are to be buried at a

37 repository, such as the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and that no release to

38 the environment is expected to be associated with such disposal because it has been assumed

39 that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the spent fuel are released to the

40 atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. Because the quantities of radioactive wastes

41 remain bounded by the staff’s previous evaluation, the staff concludes that the impact from

42 radioactive wastes did not change because of the higher power level. The impact level

43 category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 6.1.1.7 Occupational Dose

2

3 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that the annual occupational dose attributable to

7 all phases of the fuel cycle for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model is about 24 person-Sv

8 (2400 person-rem). This is based on the 6 person-Sv (600 person-rem) occupational dose

9 estimate attributed to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 1000-MW(e) LWR (NRC 1996). 

10 Occupational doses would be maintained to meet the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20. Because

11 the occupational dose estimates remain bounded by the staff’s previous evaluation, the staff

12 concludes that the health impacts from occupational dose did not change because of the higher

13 power level. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

14

15 6.1.1.8 Transportation

16

17 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

18 for context.

19

20 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that the transportation dose to workers and the

21 public was about 0.025 person-Sv (2.5 person-rem) annually for the reference 1000-MW(e)

22 LWR per Table S–3 (see Table 6-1). This corresponds to a dose of 0.1 person-Sv

23 (10 person-rem) for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model. For comparative purposes, the

24 estimated collective dose from natural background radiation to the population within 80 km

25 (50 mi) of the ESP site is 9200 person-Sv/yr (920,000 person-rem/yr) (Dominion 2006a). 

26 Because the transportation dose estimates remain bounded by the staff’s previous evaluation,

27 the staff concludes that the impact from transportation did not change because of the higher

28 power level. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

29

30 6.1.1.9 Conclusion

31

32 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level proposed in ER Revision 6.

33

34 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff concluded that the impacts on land use to support the

35 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would be SMALL and that the impacts on water use for these

36 combinations of thermal loadings and water consumption would be SMALL relative to the water

37 use and thermal discharges of the proposed project. The staff also concluded that the fossil

38 fuel impacts from the direct and indirect consumption of electrical energy for fuel cycle

39 operations would be SMALL relative to the net power production of the proposed project, and

40 that the impacts of chemical and radioactive effluents and transportation would be SMALL.

41
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-10 July 2006

1 Because the PPE combined power level increase to 3040 MW(e) for two units at the North Anna

2 ESP site or at any of the alternative sites remains bounded by the staff’s previous evaluation at

3 3200 MW(e) for both units, the staff concludes that the LWR impacts from fuel cycle activities

4 did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not

5 warranted.

6

7 6.1.2 Gas-Cooled Reactors

8

9 Changes to this section reflect the revised PPE value of 4500 MW(t) for the power level for one

10 unit (9000 MW(t) for two units) provided in ER Revision 6. The corresponding net electrical

11 output is 1520 MW(e) for one unit (3040 MW(e) for two units). The staff reassessed the

12 methods used to calculate the maximum number of Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor units

13 and PBMR units that could be sited on the North Anna ESP site or at the alternative sites. In

14 the Draft EIS, the staff evaluated impacts at a net electric output of 3200 MW(e); this is higher

15 than the 3040 MW(e) proposed in ER Revision 6.

16

17 Table S–3 from 10 CFR 51.51(a) can be used as a basis for bounding the environmental

18 impacts from the uranium fuel cycle only for LWRs. Dominion performed an assessment of the

19 environmental impacts of the fuel cycle for gas-cooled reactor designs by comparing key

20 parameters for these reactor designs to those used to generate the impacts in Table S–3

21 (Dominion 2006a). Key parameters are energy usage, material involved, and number of

22 shipments for each major fuel cycle activity (i.e., mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel

23 fabrication, and radioactive waste disposal). Dominion sought to demonstrate in the ER that the

24 impacts for the gas-cooled reactor designs were comparable to the environmental impacts

25 identified for LWRs in the technical basis document, WASH-1248, “Environmental Summary of

26 the Uranium Fuel Cycle,” and its Supplement 1 (NUREG-0116) for Table S–3 (NRC 1976).

27

28 As discussed in Section 6.1, the fuel cycle impacts in Table S–3 were based on a reference

29 1000 MW(e) LWR operating at an annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output

30 of 800 MW(e). This is termed the “reference reactor year.” For the purposes of evaluating fuel

31 cycle impacts for the North Anna ESP site or for any of the alternative sites, it was assumed that

32 the additional LWR’s site-wide fuel impacts would be based on a total net electric output of

33 3200 MW(e). This was termed the 1000 MW(e) LWR scaled model and resulted in a factor

34 approximately four times (i.e., 3200/800) the impacts in Table S–3.

35

36 One of the other-than-LWRs considered by Dominion, the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor

37 (GT-MHR), is a four module 2400-MW(t), nominal 1140-MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an

38 annual capacity factor of 88 percent for a net electric output of 1003 MW(e). Therefore, the

39 maximum number of GT-MHR units that could be sited at the North Anna ESP site or at any of

40 the alternative sites and remain below the 3200 MW(e) total net electric output for the site is

41 three (i.e., 3 x 1003).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The second other-than-LWR reactor considered by Dominion, the pebble bed modular reactor

2 (PBMR), is an eight module, 3200 MW(t), nominal 1320 MW(e) unit assumed to operate at an

3 annual capacity factor of 95 percent for a net electric output of 1253 MW(e). Therefore, the

4 comparable number of PBMR units to remain below the 3200 MW(e) total net electric output for

5 the site is two (i.e., 2 x 1253).

6

7 Dominion (2006a) compared the impacts between the Table S–3 LWR to the gas-cooled reactor

8 designs. The comparison used an annual fuel loading as a starting point and then proceeded in

9 reverse direction through the fuel cycle (i.e., fuel fabrication, enrichment, conversion, milling,

10 mining, radioactive waste). Table 6-2 provides an estimate of the impacts for each phase of the

11 uranium fuel cycle assuming that the North Anna ESP site or any of the alternative sites would

12 host three four-module GT-MHR units or two eight-module PBMR units.

13

14 6.1.2.1 Fuel Fabrication

15

16 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

17 for context.

18

In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that the quantity of UO2 19 needed for reactor fuel is

a key parameter. The more UO2 20 needed, the greater the environmental impacts (i.e., more

21 energy, greater emissions, and increased water usage). The 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model

described in Section 6.1.1 would use the equivalent of 160 MT of enriched UO2 22 annually. This

compares to 18 to 19 MT of enriched UO2 23 annually for the gas-cooled reactor technologies.

24

25 GT-MHR fuel consists of microspheres of uranium oxycarbide (UCO) coated with multiple layers

26 of pyrocarbon and silicon carbide referred to as TRISO coating. Two types of microspheres are

27 used in the GT-MHR fuel, one enriched to 19.8 percent uranium-235 and one with natural

28 uranium. The microspheres and graphite shims are bound together into a rod-shaped compact

29 that is stacked into graphite blocks referred to as fuel elements. A reactor core consists of

30 1020 fuel elements.

31

PBMR fuel consists of UO2 32 kernels (enriched to 12.9 percent uranium-235) that are TRISO

33 coated, similar to the GT-MHR fuel. The TRISO-coated particles are imbedded into a graphite

34 matrix to form a fuel sphere that is 60 mm (2.4 in.) in diameter. Each fuel sphere contains

35 approximately 15,000 TRISO-coated particles. Approximately 260,000 fuel spheres make up a

36 core of a single reactor module.

37

38 The fuel described above for gas-cooled reactors are fabricated differently than fuel for LWRs. 

39 There are no currently operating large-scale fuel fabrication facilities producing gas-cooled

40 reactor fuels in the United States, so a direct comparison of environmental impacts is not

41 possible. Based on some environmental impacts from a small-scale fuel fabrication facility 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-12 July 2006

1 Table 6-2. Fuel Cycle Environmental Impacts from Gas-Cooled Reactor Designs for the

North Anna ESP Site(a) 2 (corresponds to Table 6-3 in the Draft EIS)

3

4 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

5 Mining Operations

6 1.01 0.67 Annual ore supply (Million MT)

7 Milling Operations

8 909 606 Annual yellowcake (MT)

UF6 9 Production

Annual UF6 10 1137 758 (MT)

11 Enrichment Operations

Enriched UF6 12 24 25 (MT)

13 612 388 Annual separative work unit (SWU) (MT)

14 Fuel Fabrication Plant Operations

Enriched UO2 15 18 19 (MT)

16 16 17 Annual fuel loading (MTU)

17 Solid Radioactive Waste

18 3300 Ci; Annual LLW from reactor operations (Ci) (b) 400m3 131 Ci;(b) 2400 drums

19 LLW from reactor decontamination and

20 decommissioning Ci per reference reactor-year

Data not available Data not available

21

22 (a) Values calculated by multiplying annual values from Table 5.7-1 of the ER (Dominion 2006a) by a multiplier

23 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 24 Bq/Ci.

25 References: 10 CFR 51.51(a), Table S–3 Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data

26 Notes:

27 1. The enrichment SWU calculation was performed using the United States Enrichment Corporation, Inc.

28 (USEC) SWU calculator and assumes a 0.30 percent tails assay.

 2. The information on the reference reactor (mining, milling, UF6 29 , enrichment, fuel fabrication values) taken from

30 NUREG-0116, Table 3.2, no recycling (NRC 1976).

31 3. The information on the reference reactor (solid radioactive waste) taken from 10 CFR 51.51, Table S–3.

32 4. The calculated information on the reference reactor uses the same methodology as for the reactor

33 technologies.

34 5. The normalized information is based on 1000 MW(e) and the reactor vendor-supplied unit capacity factor.

35 6. For the new reactor technologies, the annual fuel loading was provided by the reactor vendor.

36 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 37 .

 8. The annual yellowcake number was generated using the relationship 2.61285 lb. of U3O8 to 1 kg U of UF6 38 ;

1.185 kg of U3O8 39 to 1.48 kg.

40 9. The annual ore supply was generated assuming an 0.1% ore body and a 90% recovery efficiency.

41 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

42 PBMR decontamination and decommissioning waste.

43
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 producing gas-cooled reactor fuel, Dominion concluded that the environmental impacts from

2 producing gas-cooled reactor fuel would be “not inconsistent” with those of LWRs

3 (Dominion 2006a). By comparison with the fuel fabrication impacts for LWR technologies, the

4 staff concludes that the environmental impacts from producing gas-cooled reactor fuel did not

5 change. The impact level category would still likely be SMALL. For a gas-cooled reactor these

6 impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage, when the staff will consider the

7 environmental data that is available on a large-scale, fuel fabrication facility for gas-cooled

8 reactors.

9

10 6.1.2.2 Enrichment

11

12 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

13 for context.

14

15 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that there are two quantities of interest for

16 enrichment (Dominion 2006a). These were (1) the amount of energy required to enrich the fuel

measured in separative work units (SWUs) and (2) the amount of UF6 17 needed. An SWU is a

18 measure of energy needed to enrich the fuel. The major environmental impacts for the entire

19 uranium fuel cycle are from the emissions of the fossil fuel plants used to supply energy for the

20 gaseous diffusion plants that enrich the uranium. An enrichment technology developed since

21 the impacts in Table S–3 (see Table 6-1) were developed and evaluated includes the gas

22 centrifuge process, which uses 90 percent less energy than the gaseous diffusion process

23 (NRC 1996).

24

To produce 160 MT of enriched UO2 25 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, the enrichment

plant needs to produce about 208 MT of UF6 26 , which requires over 500 MT of SWUs

(Dominion 2006a). For gas-cooled reactor technologies, the needed enriched UF6 27 ranges from

24 to 25 MT of UF6. The amount of energy to produce these quantities of enriched UF6 28 for the

29 gas-cooled reactor designs ranges from 388 to 612 MT of SWU. The upper range is

30 approximately 20 percent higher than the energy needed for the reference LWR. Dominion

31 concluded that the large reduction in energy associated with using an alternate enrichment

32 technology (e.g., centrifuge) and its associated environmental impacts would more than offset

33 the increase in SWUs (Dominion 2006a). Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the

34 environmental impacts of enriching gas-cooled fuels by comparison with the impacts of

35 enriching LWR fuel did not change. The impact level category would still likely be SMALL. For

36 a gas-cooled reactor, these impacts will need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage, when the

37 staff will consider impacts from the enrichment technology in use at that time.

38
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-14 July 2006

1 6.1.2.3 Uranium Hexafluoride Production – Conversion

2

3 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that there are two uranium conversion

7 processes: a wet process and a dry process. In an earlier evaluation, NUREG-1437

8 (NRC 1996), the NRC stated that environmental releases are small from the conversion facilities

9 compared to the overall fuel cycle impacts and that changing from 100 percent use of one

10 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 11 are similar to those

12 considered when determining the environmental impacts that were part of Table S–3 of

13 10 CFR 51.51(a) (see Table 6-1).

14

The conversion facility would need to produce 1440 MT of UF6 15 annually for the reference

1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model compared to 758 to 1137 MT of UF6 16 for the gas-cooled

17 reactors based on the USEC SWU calculator (Dominion 2006a). Because the other-than-LWR

values are still less than the amount of UF6 18 needed for the LWR and the associated impacts are

expected to be less, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts from producing UF6 19 for

20 gas-cooled reactors did not change. The impact level categories would still be SMALL.

21

22 6.1.2.4 Uranium Milling

23

24 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

25 for context.

26

27 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that annual yellowcake production is the metric

28 of interest for uranium milling. Plants needing to produce less yellowcake than the reference

29 plant would consequently need less energy, have fewer emissions, and use less water.

30

31 The uranium mill for the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model would produce about 1200 MT of

32 yellowcake. Because the uranium mill for the gas-cooled reactor technologies would need to

33 produce 606 to 909 MT of yellowcake, which is still less than the amount of yellowcake needed

34 for the scaled LWR (Dominion 2006a), the staff concludes that the environmental impacts from

35 uranium milling for gas-cooled reactors did not change. The impact level category would still be

36 SMALL.

37
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 6.1.2.5 Uranium Mining

2

3 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

4 for context.

5

6 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that annual ore supply is the metric of interest for

7 uranium mining. The less ore mined, the smaller the environmental impacts (i.e., less energy

8 used, fewer emissions, less water usage). For the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model, 1.09 million

9 MT of raw ore would be needed to produce 1200 MT of yellowcake. Because 0.67 to

10 1.01 million MT of ore would be needed for the gas-cooled reactor technologies, a range that is

11 less than the amount of ore needed for the reference 1000-MW(e) scaled-model LWR, the staff

12 concludes that the environmental impacts from uranium mining for the gas-cooled reactors did

13 not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL.

14

15 6.1.2.6 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Operations

16

17 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

18 for context.

19

20 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff cited Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51(a), which is reproduced

as Table 6-1. The table indicates that there are 3.4x1014 21 Bq (9100 Ci) of low-level waste

22 generated annually from operations of the reference LWR; the 1000-MW(e) LWR scaled model

would result in 1.3x1015 23 Bq (36,400 Ci) of low-level waste annually. Gas-cooled reactor

technologies are projected to generate 4.8x1012 Bq to 1.2x1014 24 Bq (131 to 3300 Ci) of low-level

25 waste scaled annually, far below the amounts generated by the reference LWR. Because these

26 amounts are still well below the amounts generated by the reference LWR, the staff concludes

27 that the environmental impacts from low-level radioactive waste operations for gas-cooled

28 reactors did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL.

29

30 6.1.2.7 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Decontamination and Decommissioning

31

32 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

33 for context.

34

35 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff cited Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51(a), which is reproduced

as Table 6-1. The table indicates that 5.6x107 36 MBq (1500 Ci) per Reference-Reactor Year

37 “...comes from reactor decontamination and decommissioning - buried at land burial facilities.” 

38 Dominion noted that gas-cooled reactor technologies would (1) operate much cleaner than the

39 reference 1000-MW(e) LWR, as evidenced by lower estimates of low-level waste generated and

40 (2) produce less heavy metal radioactive waste because of the higher thermal efficiency and

41 higher fuel burnup (Dominion 2006). The gas-cooled reactor designs are also more compact
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-16 July 2006

1 than the reference LWR design, which would be expected to result in less decontamination and

2 decommissioning waste; additionally, low-level waste impacts from decontamination and

3 decommissioning of a gas-cooled reactor are expected to be comparable to or less than that of

4 the reference LWR. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts

5 from solid low-level radioactive waste generated during decontamination and decommissioning

6 for gas-cooled reactors would likely be SMALL, but these impacts will need to be assessed

7 again at the CP or COL stage if an applicant selects a gas-cooled design.

8

9 6.1.2.8 Conclusions

10

11 This section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

12 for context.

13

14 The staff expects that the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel cycle activities and solid

15 waste management activities for the proposed gas-cooled reactors would be SMALL. However,

16 because of the uncertainty in the final design of the gas cooled reactors and the change in

17 technology that could be applied to uranium fuel cycle activities, this issue is unresolved. 

18 Should an applicant reference one of these designs, additional reviews would be needed at the

19 CP or COL stage in the following areas: fuel fabrication, enrichment, and solid low-level waste

20 operation during decontamination and decommissioning.

21

22 6.2 Transportation of Radioactive Materials

23

24 This introductory section was not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is

25 provided solely for context.

26

27 This section addresses both the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from

28 normal operating and accident conditions resulting from (1) shipment of unirradiated fuel to the

29 North Anna ESP site, (2) shipment of spent fuel to a monitored retrievable storage facility or a

30 permanent repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste to

31 offsite disposal facilities. Distinctions between transportation impacts of advanced LWR

32 designs and gas-cooled reactor designs are discussed.

33

34 The NRC evaluated the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste for light-water35 cooled nuclear power reactors in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975)

36 and found the impact to be small. These documents provided the basis for Table S–4 in

37 10 CFR 51.52, which summarizes the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste

38 to and from one LWR of 3000 to 5000 MW(t) (1000 to 1500 MW(e)). Impacts are provided for

39 normal transportation conditions and accidents in transport for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR. 

40 Dose to transportation workers during normal transportation operations was estimated to result

41 in a collective dose of 0.04 person-Sv (4 person-rem) per reference reactor-year. The
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-17 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 combined dose to the public along the route and dose to onlookers was estimated at

2 0.03 person-Sv (3 person-rem) per reference reactor-year. Environmental risks (radiological)

3 during accident conditions were determined to be SMALL. Nonradiological impacts during

4 accident conditions were estimated as one fatal injury in 100 reactor years and one nonfatal

5 injury in 10 reference reactor-years. Subsequent reviews of transportation impacts in

6 NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977a) and Sprung et al. (2000) concluded that impacts were bounded by

7 Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52.

8

9 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), a full description and detailed analysis of transportation

10 impacts is not required when licensing an LWR (i.e., impacts are assumed to be bounded by

11 Table S–4) if the reactor meets the following criteria:

12

13 & The reactor has a core thermal power level not exceeding 3800 MW(t).

14

& Fuel is in the form of sintered UO2 15 pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not

16 exceeding 4 percent by weight, and pellets are encapsulated in zirconium-clad fuel rods.

17

18 & Average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed

19 33,000 MWd/MTU, and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days

20 after it is discharged from the reactor.

21

22 & With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is

23 packaged and in solid form.

24

25 & Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated fuel is shipped from the

26 reactor by truck, rail, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped

27 from the reactor by truck or rail.

28

29 None of the proposed advanced reactors, including the surrogate ESBWR (i.e., ESBWR with

30 increased power level), meet all the conditions in 10 CFR 51.52(a), so a full description and

31 detailed analysis of transportation is required.

32

33 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel

34

35 This introductory section is not affected by changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided

36 solely for context.

37

38 The staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts of transporting

39 unirradiated (fresh) fuel to the proposed North Anna ESP site. Environmental impacts of

40 transportation accidents during normal operating conditions are discussed in this section. 

41 Appendix G of the Draft EIS provides the details of the analysis.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-18 July 2006

1 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions

2

3 Changes to this section reflect health impacts from the transportation of unirradiated fuel to the

4 North Anna ESP site or any alternative site for two units with a higher power level of

5 9000 MW(t).

6

7 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that normal conditions, sometimes referred to as

8 “incident-free” transportation, are transportation activities in which shipments reach their

9 destination without releasing any radioactive cargo to the environment. Impacts from these

10 shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the unirradiated fuel shipping

11 casks.

12

13 This section presents estimates of the numbers of shipments of unirradiated fuel needed to load

14 the initial reactor core, annual reloads, and totals over 40 years for each type of advanced

15 reactor. The shipment estimates were then normalized to the reference reactor electrical

16 generating capacity given in WASH-1238 that forms the basis for Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52. 

17 ER Revision 6 did not result in a change of the reactor-type-specific numbers of unirradiated

18 fuel shipments are presented in Table 6-3. This table updates Table 6-4 in the Draft EIS and

19 includes information on the surrogate ESBWR. The impacts of the power level increase for

20 surrogate ESBWR unirradiated fuel shipments are described below.

21

22 Dominion indicated in the ER Revision 6 that this change would not significantly affect the

23 quantity of unirradiated fuel required for the initial core and annual refueling requirements. 

24 Typically, a higher power output would require more fuel and therefore more fuel shipments. 

25 However, the surrogate ESBWR has a higher unit capacity than was assumed in the Draft EIS

26 (96 percent versus 95 percent) and the fuel will have a higher average burnup. In addition, In

27 Enclosure 1 to Revision 6 of the ER, Dominion states that the ESBWR fuel assemblies are

28 about 28 percent lighter than ABWR fuel assemblies (Dominion 2006a). This lower weight is

29 offset by the requirements for 30 percent more ESBWR fuel assemblies than ABWR fuel

30 assemblies. The result is that the total number of fuel shipments for the surrogate ESBWR

31 would increase by 1 to 2 percent, well within the uncertainty of the estimates. Therefore, the

32 number of shipments of unirradiated fuel is essentially unchanged from the estimates presented

33 in the Draft EIS. The power level increase would also not affect the radiation dose rates from

34 the unirradiated fuel shipments and other parameters used to define the shipping routes and

35 receptors. Therefore, the ESBWR power level increase does not affect the per-shipment dose

36 or annual dose impacts presented in the Draft EIS for unirradiated fuel. However, it does have

37 a small impact on the number of shipments normalized to the reference LWR net electric

38 generating capacity. The normalized unirradiated fuel shipments and impacts for the

39 ABWR/ESBWR in the Draft EIS are larger than the surrogate ESBWR. This is because the

40 estimates are normalized to net electric output (i.e., impacts per MW(e)). Because the

41 surrogate ESBWR has a higher net electric output than the ABWR/ESBWR previously 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-19 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 6-3. Numbers of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for Each Advanced Reactor

2 Type (corresponds to Table 6-4 in the Draft EIS)

3

4 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)

5 Reference LWR

6 (WASH-1238)

18 6 252 1100 0.8 252

7 30 6.1 267 1500 0.95 165 ABWR

Surrogate ESBWR(e) 8 30 6.1 267 1520(f) 0.96(f) 162

9 14 3.8 161 1150 0.95 130 Surrogate AP1000

10 30 15.4 628 1462 ACR-700 (g) 0.9 420

11 34 4.3 201 1005 IRIS (h) 0.96 184

12 51 20 831 1140 GT-MHR (i) 0.88 729

13 44 20 824 1320 PBMR (j) 0.95 579

14 NOTE: The reference LWR shipment values have all been normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical

15 generation.

16 (a) Shipments of the initial core have been rounded up to the next highest whole number.

17 (b) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years

18 of average annual reload quantities).

19 (c) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from INEEL (2003).

20 (d) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100 MW(e) plant at

21 80 percent or net electrical output of 880 MW(e)).

22 (e) Ranges of capacities are given in INEEL (2003) for these reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. The

23 unirradiated fuel shipment data for these reactors were derived using the upper limit of the ranges.

24 (f) Values taken from ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a).

25 (g) The ACR-700 unit includes two reactors at 731 MW(e) per reactor.

26 (h) The IRIS unit includes three reactors at 335 MW(e) per reactor.

27 (i) The GT-MHR unit includes four reactors (modules) at 285 MW(e) per reactor.

28 (j) The PBMR unit includes eight reactors (modules) at 165 MW(e) per reactor.

29

30 evaluated in the Draft EIS, and the un-normalized impacts are essentially equal, the staff

31 concludes that the impacts per MW(e) are slightly smaller. For the surrogate ESBWR, the

32 normalized shipment value is 162 shipments per 1100 MW(e) rather than 165 shipments per

33 1100 MW(e) previously reported.

34
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-20 July 2006

1 The analysis of maximally-exposed individuals under normal transport conditions is not affected

2 by the changes in ER Revision 6.

3

4 In addition, the normal radiological impacts of transporting unirradiated fuel to advanced reactor

5 sites before normalization to the reference LWR electric generation remain unchanged. 

6 However, because the net electric output capacity for the surrogate ESBWR was changed to

7 1520 MW(e), the normalized impacts were updated in Table 6-4; this table corresponds to

8 Table 6-5 in the Draft EIS.

9

10 Based on the foregoing, the staff still concludes that all of the total detriment estimates would be

less than 1x10-4 11 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per reference

12 reactor year. These risks are very small compared to the fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and

13 severe hereditary effects that would be expected to occur annually in the same population from

14 exposure to natural sources of radiation. However, these impacts are not considered to be

15 resolved for other-than-LWR designs and would need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage

16 when specific information is available regarding other-than-LWR fuel performance and shipping

17 containers, if the applicant references such designs.

18

19 6.2.1.2 Accidents

20

21 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

22 for context.

23

24 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff reported that accident risks are a combination of accident

25 frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies for transportation of fuel to and from future

26 reactors are expected to be lower that those used in the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972),

27 which forms the basis for Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52, because of improvements in highway

28 safety and security, and an expected decrease in traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates. 

29 There is no significant difference in consequences of accidents severe enough to result in a

30 release of unirradiated fuel particles to the environment between advanced LWRs and current31 generation LWRs because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging are similar to those analyzed

32 in WASH-1238. Consequently, the impacts of accidents during transport of unirradiated fuel for

33 advanced LWRs to the North Anna ESP site or any alternative site are expected to be smaller

34 than the impacts listed in Table S–4 for current generation LWRs.

35

36 With respect to advanced gas-cooled reactors, accident rates (accidents per unit distance) and

37 associated accident frequencies (accidents per year) would be expected to follow the same

38 trends as for LWRs (i.e., overall reduction relative to the accident rates used in the WASH-1238

39 analysis). The consequences of accidents involving gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel,

40 however, are more uncertain. The staff assumed that gas-cooled reactor unirradiated fuel

41 would have the same abilities as LWR unirradiated fuel to maintain functional integrity following 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-21 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 6-4. Radiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to Advanced Reactor Sites

2 (corresponds to Table 6-5 in the Draft EIS)

3

4 Plant Type

Normalized

Average

Annual

Shipments

Cumulative Annual Dose; person-Sv/yr per

1100 MW(e)(a)

Workers

Public -

Onlookers

Public -

Along Route

5 6.1 1.1 x 10 Reference LWR (WASH-1238) -4 4.2 x 10-4 1.0 x 10-5

6 4.2 7.1 x 10 ABWR -5 2.7 x 10-4 6.6 x 10-6

7 4.1 6.9 x 10 Surrogate ESBWR -5 2.7 x 10-4 6.5 x 10-6

8 3.3 5.6 x 10 Surrogate AP1000 -5 2.2 x 10-4 5.2 x 10-6

9 10.5 1.8 x 10 ACR-700 -4 7.0 x 10-4 1.7 x 10-5

10 4.6 7.9 x 10 IRIS -5 3.1 x 10-4 7.4 x 10-6

11 18.2 3.1 x 10 GT-MHR -4 1.2 x 10-3 2.9 x 10-5

12 14.5 2.5 x 10 PBMR -4 9.6 x 10-4 2.3 x 10-5

13 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4

14 Condition

<1 per day 4.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2 3.0 x 10-2

15 (a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

16

17 a traffic accident. This assumption is considered to be conservative because gas-cooled

18 reactor fuel operates at significantly higher temperatures, and thus maintains integrity under

19 more severe thermal conditions than LWR fuel. Detailed information about the behavior of the

20 gas-cooled reactor fuel under impact conditions was not available. However, packaging

21 systems for unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel will meet the same performance requirements

22 as unirradiated LWR fuel packages including fissile material controls to prevent criticality during

23 normal and accident conditions. Consequently, it is expected that packaging systems for

24 unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuels would provide equivalent protection as those packages

25 designed for unirradiated LWR fuels. In addition, the fuel forms for the gas-cooled reactors are

similar to LWRs (i.e., UO2 26 for the PBMR and uranium oxycarbide for the GT-MHR versus UO2

27 for LWRs); therefore, the inherent failure resistance provided by unirradiated gas-cooled reactor

28 fuels should be similar to that provided by LWR fuel. Because unirradiated gas-cooled and

29 LWR fuels and associated packaging systems would still provide similar resistance to various

30 environmental conditions, the staff concludes that the impacts of accidents involving

31 unirradiated gas-cooled reactor fuel would not be significantly different than for unirradiated

32 LWR fuel and will be within the impacts listed in Table S–4 for current generation LWRs and did

33 not change. However, these impacts are not considered to be resolved, and would need to be
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-22 July 2006

1 assessed at the CP or COL stage when specific information is available regarding other-than2 LWR fuel performance, if the applicant references such designs.

3

4 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel

5

6 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

7 for context.

8

9 In the Draft EIS (2004), the staff performed an independent review of the environmental impacts

10 of transporting spent fuel from the proposed North Anna ESP site or any alternative site to a

11 spent fuel disposal repository. The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site has been identified as a

12 possible location for a geologic repository. The staff considers an estimate of the impacts of the

13 transportation of spent fuel to a possible repository in Nevada to be a reasonable bounding

14 estimate of the transportation impacts to a storage or disposal facility because of the distances

15 involved and the representativeness of the distribution of members of the public in urban,

16 suburban, and rural areas (i.e., population distributions) along the shipping routes. 

17 Environmental impacts of normal operating conditions and transportation accidents are

18 discussed in this section.

19

20 This analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in casks with

21 characteristics similar to casks currently available (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical

22 metal pressure vessels). Each shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded

23 on a modified trailer. These assumptions are consistent with assumptions made by the NRC

24 elsewhere in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel in

25 Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1999). These assumptions are conservative because the

26 alternative assumptions involve rail transportation or heavy-haul trucks, which would reduce the

27 overall number of spent fuel shipments (NRC 1999), thus reducing impacts.

28

29 Environmental impacts of transportation of spent fuel were calculated using the RADTRAN 5

30 computer code (Neuhauser et al. 2003). Routing and population data used in RADTRAN 5 for

31 truck shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and

32 Michelhaugh 2000). The population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 census.

33

34 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions

35

36 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level.

37

38 This section presents estimates of the numbers of shipments of spent fuel to be transported to a

39 spent fuel repository from each type of advanced reactor. The shipment estimates were then

40 normalized to the reference reactor electrical output capacity given in WASH-1238 that forms

41 the basis for Table S–4 in 10 CFR 51.52. The power level increase also does not affect the
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-23 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 radiation dose rates from spent fuel shipping casks because the regulatory maximum dose

2 rates were assumed in the Draft EIS and it does not affect the route characteristics or additional

3 parameters important to estimating normal transportation impacts. Therefore, the staff

4 concludes that the normal condition per-shipment impacts for the surrogate ESBWR are not

5 significantly different than those presented in Table 6-6 of the Draft EIS for the North Anna ESP

6 site and the alternative sites.

7

8 The power level increase does have a small impact on the annual number of shipments

9 normalized to the reference LWR net electric output capacity. The normalized spent fuel

10 shipments and impacts were updated in Table 6-5; this table updates Table 6-7 in the Draft EIS

11 and includes information on the surrogate ESBWR. The APWR/ESBWR estimates in the Draft

12 EIS were larger than the surrogate ESBWR because they are normalized to net electric output

13 (i.e., impacts per MW(e)). Because the surrogate ESBWR has a higher net electric output than

14 the ABWR/ESBWR in the Draft EIS, and the un-normalized (i.e., per-shipment) impacts are

15 essentially equal, the impacts per MW(e) are slightly smaller. Because of an increase in

16 burnup, the normalized shipment value is 40 shipments/yr/1100 MW(e) for the surrogate

17 ESBWR rather than 41 shipments/yr/1100 MW(e) as stated in the Draft EIS. 

18

19 The updated dose estimates do not change the conclusion that the total detriment estimates

associated with the population doses would be less than 1x10-1 20 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers,

21 and severe hereditary effects per reference reactor year. These risks are very small compared

22 to the fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects that would be expected to

23 occur annually in the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. 

24

25 6.2.2.2 Accident Conditions

26

27 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level.

28

29 The staff used the RADTRAN 5 computer code to estimate the impacts of transportation

30 accidents involving spent fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5 considers a spectrum of potential

31 transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and low consequences

32 (e.g., “fender benders”) to those with low frequencies and high consequences (i.e., accidents in

33 which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical and thermal conditions). Details

34 of the analysis are discussed in Appendix G of the Draft EIS.

35

36 Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The

37 radionuclide inventories used in the Draft EIS were based on the information provided by the

38 Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL) in Early Site Permit

39 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003). This report

40 included hundreds of radionuclides for each advanced reactor type. A screening analysis was

41 conducted to select the dominant contributors to accident risks to simplify the RADTRAN 5

42 calculations. The screening identified the radionuclides that would contribute more than 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-24 July 2006

1 Table 6-5. Routine (Incident-Free) Population Doses from Spent Fuel Transportation,

2 Normalized to Reference Light-Water Reactors (corresponds to Table 6-7 in the

3 Draft EIS)

4

5 Reactor

6 Type

Reference LWR

(WASH-1238) ABWR

Surrogate

AP1000 ACR-700

7 Shipments

8 per Year 60 41 40 90

Environmental Effects, person-Sv per reactor-year(a) 9

10 Reactor

11 Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

12 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

13 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

14 Savannah

15 River Site

0.06 0.21 0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.04 0.14 <0.01 0.08 0.32 0.01

16 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

17

18 Reactor

19 Type

Surrogate

ESBWR IRIS GT MHR PBMR

20 Shipments

21 per Year 40 35 34 12

Environmental Effects, person-Sv per reactor-year(a) 22

23 Reactor

24 Site Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route Crew Onlookers

Along

Route

25 North Anna 0.04 0.14 0.36 0.036 0.12 0.0032 0.034 0.12 0.0031 0.012 0.04 0.001 

26 Portsmouth 0.04 0.13 0.29 0.031 0.11 0.0025 0.03 0.11 0.0024 0.01 0.036 0.00082

27 Savannah

28 River Site

0.04 0.14 0.40 0.034 0.12 0.0035 0.033 0.12 0.0033 0.011 0.039 0.0011

29 Surry 0.04 0.14 0.38 0.037 0.12 0.0033 0.035 0.12 0.0032 0.12 0.04 0.011

30 (a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain doses in person-rem/yr.

31

32 99.999 percent of the dose from inhalation of radionuclides released following a transportation

33 accident. No radionuclide inventory data were provided by INEEL (2003) for the ACR-700 and

34 IRIS advanced reactors; therefore, transportation accident risks were not quantified for these

35 reactor types and would need to be assessed at the CP or COL stage if the applicant

36 referenced either of these designs.

37

38 ER Revision 6 proposed a higher power level for the surrogate ESBWR, which affects the

39 radionuclide inventories in spent fuel. Because the revised radionuclide inventory for the

40 ESBWR was not addressed in Early Site Permit Environmental Report Sections and Supporting

41 Documentation (INEEL 2003), a preliminary analysis was conducted to estimate the impacts of

42 the revised radionuclide inventories on the spent fuel transportation accident impacts given in

43 the Draft EIS. The radionuclide inventories for each reactor type were updated for the surrogate

44 ESBWR radionuclide inventories provided in Dominion’s response to the NRC staff’s Request

45 for Additional Information dated May 24, 2006 (Dominion 2006b), in Table 6-5; this table

46 corresponds to Table 6-8 in the Draft EIS.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-25 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 6-6. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for 

Each Advanced Reactor Type, Bq/MTU(a) 2 (corresponds to Table 6-8 in the

3 Draft EIS)

4

5 Radionuclide

ABWR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

Surrogate

ESBWR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

Surrogate

AP1000

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

GT-MHR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

PBMR

Inventory,

Bq/MTU

6 4.96 x 10 Am-241 13 4.81 x 1013 2.69 x 1013 8.18 x 1013 7.55 x 1013

7 1.24 x 10 Am-242m 12 1.02 x 1012 4.85 x 1011 5.03 x 1011 8.51 x 1011

8 1.20 x 10 Am-243 12 1.21 x 1012 1.24 x 1012 5.14 x 1011 4.77 x 1012

9 4.22 x 10 Ce-144 14 5.00 x 1014 3.28 x 1014 2.15 x 1015 1.19 x 1015

10 2.04 x 10 Cm-242 12 1.80 x 1012 1.05 x 1012 1.51 x 1012 2.78 x 1012

11 1.37 x 10 Cm-243 12 1.28 x 1012 1.14 x 1012 2.02 x 1011 1.96 x 1012

12 1.80 x 10 Cm-244 14 1.84 x 1014 2.87 x 1014 2.83 x1013 5.48 x 1014

13 2.43 x 10 Cm-245 10 2.50 x 1010 4.48 x 1010 1.65 x 108 5.29 x 1010

Co-60(a) 14 1.01 x 1014 1.06 x 1014 000

15 1.78 x 10 Cs-134 15 1.92 x 1015 1.78 x 1015 2.21 x 1015 4.03 x 1015

16 4.59 x 10 Cs-137 15 4.70 x 1015 3.44 x 1015 1.08 x 1016 1.41 x 1016

17 3.81 x 10 Eu-154 14 3.90 x 1014 3.38 x 1014 3.23 x 1014 3.74 x 1014

18 1.93 x 10 Eu-155 14 2.00 x 1014 1.71 x 1014 8.77 x 1013 1.08 x 1014

19 1.25 x 10 Pm-147 15 1.31 x 1015 6.51 x 1014 6.92 x 1015 5.07 x 1015

20 2.27 x 10 Pu-238 14 2.28 x 1014 2.25 x 1014 1.17 x 1014 4.55 x 1014

21 1.43 x 10 Pu-239 13 1.43 x 1013 9.44 x 1012 2.25 x 1013 1.11 x 1013

22 2.28 x 10 Pu-240 13 2.30 x 1013 2.01 x 1013 3.96 x 1013 3.32 x 1013

23 4.51 x 10 Pu-241 15 4.51 x 1015 2.58 x 1015 8.33 x 1015 7.18 x 1015

24 8.29 x 10 Pu-242 10 8.29 x 1010 6.73 x 1010 1.56 x 1011 4.51 x 1011

25 6.07 x 10 Ru-106 14 6.88 x 1014 5.74 x 1014 1.48 x 1015 1.68 x 1015

26 1.99 x 10 Sb-125 14 2.14 x 1014 1.42 x 1014 2.21 x 1014 2.51 x 1014

27 3.27 x 10 Sr-90 15 3.36 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

28 3.27 x 10 Y-90 15 3.36 x 1015 2.29 x 1015 8.95 x 1015 1.08 x 1016

29 (a) Cobalt-60 is an activation product. Only the ABWR/ESBWR submittal in INEEL (2003) provided inventory

30 data for activation products; it was scaled up for the surrogate ESBWR.

31

32 The total inventory for the surrogate ESBWR radionuclides that contribute more than

33 99.999 percent of the dose from inhalation are increased by 3 percent relative to the Draft EIS

34 for the ABWR/ESBWR. The dose from many of the actinides (e.g., americium-241,

35 americium-242m, curium-242, curium-243, and plutonium-239) would be lower for the surrogate

36 ESBWR than was shown in the Draft EIS; however, fission product inventories (and doses)

37 would be somewhat higher. The range of differences is from -17 percent (americium-242m) to

38 +18 percent (cerium-144).
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-26 July 2006

1 The likely impacts on the spent fuel transportation accident risks were estimated using

2 radionuclide-specific risk estimates from the Draft EIS RADTRAN 5 outputs. The risk estimates

3 were adjusted linearly with the radionuclide inventories discussed above. For example, the

4 calculations indicated that americium-241 inventories for the surrogate ESBWR decreased by

5 3 percent relative to the previous power level ESBWR. Thus, the americium-241 contribution to

6 the total risk was decreased by 3 percent. This was repeated for the rest of radionuclides in the

7 RADTRAN calculations. The result was that the accident risk for the higher power level case

8 was about 5 percent higher; the updated results are provided in Table 6-7; this table

9 corresponds to Table 6-9 of the Draft EIS. This increase is approximately the same as the

10 percentage increase in power levels (4300 MW(t) for the ABWR/ESBWR in the Draft EIS to

11 4500 MW(t) for the ESBWR in the ER Revision 6). 

12

13 The increase in power level did not change the conclusion that all of the total detriment

estimates associated with the doses in the Table 6-7 would be less than 1x10-6 14 fatal cancers,

15 nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per year for the North Anna ESP and any

16 alternative site.

17

18 6.2.2.3 Conclusion

19

20 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level.

21

22 The values determined by this analysis represent the contribution of such effects to the

23 environmental costs of licensing the reactor. Because of the conservative approaches and data

24 used to calculate doses, actual environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated

25 in the EIS. Thus, the staff concludes that the overall transportation accident risks associated

26 with advanced LWR reactor (including surrogate ESBWR) spent fuel shipments from the North

27 Anna ESP site or any alternative site are SMALL and are consistent with the risks associated

28 with transportation of spent fuel from current generation reactors presented in Table S–4 of

29 10 CFR 51.52. The fuel performance characteristics, shipping casks, and accident risks for

30 other-than-LWR designs are not resolved and would need to be assessed at the CP or COL

31 stage if the applicnat references such designs.

32

33 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste

34

35 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level.

36

37 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the staff discussed the environmental effects of transporting waste

38 from proposed ESP site and alternative sites. The following results apply to all advanced

39 reactors, including the surrogate ESBWR described in ER Revision 6:

40

41
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-27 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 6-7. Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for Advanced Reactors,

2 Normalized to Reference 1000 – MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation

3 (corresponds to Table 6-9 in the Draft EIS)

4

5

Advanced Reactor Type

ABWR

Surrogate

ESBWR

Surrogate

AP1000 GT-MHR PBMR

6 MTU/yr 20.3 20.3 19.7 6 5.8

Population Dose, person-Sv/yr(a) 7

8 4.7 x 10 North Anna -6 5.0 x 10-6 4.2 x 10-7 1.9 x 10-7 3.1 x 10-7

9 5.2 x 10 Portsmouth -6 5.5 x 10-6 4.0 x 10-7 1.8 x 10-7 3.0 x 10-7

10 5.3 x 10 Savannah River Site -6 5.6 x 10-6 4.7 x 10-7 2.1 x 10-7 3.5 x 10-7

11 4.8 x 10 Surry -6 5.1 x 10-6 4.3 x 10-7 2.0 x 10-7 3.2 x 10-7

12 Latent Cancer Fatalities per Year

13 2.8 x 10 North Anna -7 3.0 x 10-7 2.5 x 10-8 1.1 x 10-8 1.9 x 10-8

14 3.1 x 10 Portsmouth -7 3.3 x 10-7 2.4 x 10-8 1.1 x 10-8 1.8 x 10-8

15 3.2 x 10 Savannah River Site -7 3.4 x 10-7 2.8 x 10-8 1.3 x 10-8 2.1 x 10-8

16 2.9 x 10 Surry -7 3.1 x 10-7 2.6 x 10-8 1.2 x 10-8 1.9 x 10-8

17 Total Detrimental Health Effects per Year

18 4.0 x 10 North Anna -7 4.2 x 10-7 3.6 x 10-8 1.6 x 10-8 2.7 x 10-8

19 4.4 x 10 Portsmouth -7 4.6 x 10-7 3.4 x 10-8 1.6 x 10-8 2.6 x 10-8

20 4.5 x 10 Savannah River Site -7 4.8 x 10-7 4.0 x 10-8 1.8 x 10-8 3.0 x 10-8

21 4.1 x 10 Surry -7 4.3 x 10-7 3.7 x 10-8 1.7 x 10-8 2.7 x 10-8

22 (a) Multiply person-Sv/yr times 100 to obtain person-rem/yr.

23

24 & Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be packaged in solid form.

25

26 & Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be shipped from the reactor by truck or rail.

27

28 & The weight limitation of 33,100 kg (73,000 lb) per truck and 90,700 kg (100 tons) per

29 cask per railcar would be met.

30
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-28 July 2006

1 & The traffic density would be less than the one truck shipment per day or three railcars

2 per month limitation.

3

4 Table 6-8 presents updated estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste shipment

5 numbers for the advanced reactor types, including the surrogate ESBWR, normalized to the

6 reference 1100-MW(e) LWR defined in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), this table corresponds to

7 Table 6-10 of the Draft EIS. Dominion indicated in its May 24, 2006 response to RAIs that no

8 change is anticipated in the volume of radioactive waste produced (Dominion 2006b). The

9 quantity of radioactive waste generated is more closely related to Dominion’s operational

10 practices than the reactor’s power output. The staff concludes that increases in solid

11 radioactive waste generation estimates for the surrogate ESBWR, if any, would be small and

12 that any increase would be within the range of uncertainty of the waste generation estimates.

13

14 The normalized annual waste generation rate and waste shipments for the surrogate ESBWR

15 would be slightly smaller than previously evaluated because the estimates are normalized to net

16 electric output (i.e., impacts per MW(e)). Because the surrogate ESBWR has a higher net

17 electric output than the ABWR/ESBWR in the Draft EIS, and the waste volumes, shipments, and

18 impacts are essentially equal, the impacts per MW(e) are slightly smaller. The normalized

amount of solid waste generated annually would decrease from 62 to 60 m3 19 /1100 MW(e) plant

20 and the normalized annual shipments would decrease from 27 to 26 shipments/1100 MW(e). 

21 The waste generation and shipment estimates were adjusted to reflect a slightly higher capacity

22 factor of 0.96 versus the capacity factor used in the Draft EIS (i.e., 0.95). 

23

24 As shown in the table, only the PBMR would be expected to generate a larger volume of

25 radioactive waste than the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). However, the GT-MHR

26 and PBMR information in INEEL (2003) assumed that the applicant would ship wastes using

two different packaging systems: one that hauls 28 m3 per shipment (1000 ft3 27 per shipment) and

one that hauls 5.7 m3 per shipment (200 ft3 28 per shipment). Under those conditions, the number

29 of shipments of radioactive waste per year, normalized to 1100 MW(e) electric generation

30 capacity, would be about six shipments per year per 1100 MW(e) (880 net MW(e)) for the

31 GT-MHR and seven shipments per year per 1100 MW(e) for the PBMR. These estimates are

32 well below the reference LWR (46 shipments per year per 1100 MW(e)). However, impacts

33 from other-than-LWR designs are not resolved because of the lack of verifiable information.

34

35 The higher power level does not change the staff conclusion that the sum of the daily shipments

36 of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste is well below the one truck shipment per

37 day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S–4 for all reactor types. Doubling the shipment

38 estimates to account for empty return shipments of fuel and waste is still well below the

39 one-truck-shipment-per-day condition.
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-29 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 6-8. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments for Advanced Reactors (corresponds to

2 Table 6-10 of the Draft EIS)

3

4 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)

5 Reference

6 LWR

7 (WASH-1238)

100 m3

/yr

per unit

108 1100 108 46

8 100 m ABWR 3

/yr

per unit

100 1500 62 27

9 Surrogate

10 ESBWR

100 m3

/yr

per unit

100 1520(c) 60 26

11 Surrogate

12 AP1000

55 m3

/yr 

per unit

56 1150 45 20

13 47.5 m ACR-700 3

/yr

per unit

47.5 731 64 28

14 25 m IRIS 3

/yr

per modules

74 (3 modules) 1,005

(3 modules)

67 29

15 98 m GT-MHR 3

/yr

(4 module

Plant)

98 (4 modules) 1,320

(8 modules)

86 37(d)

16 100 drums/yr PBMR

per modules

168 (8 modules) 1,320

(8 modules)

118 51(d)

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 liters (0.21 m3 17 ).

18 (a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation

19 output are given in Table 6-3 for each reactor type. All are normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical

20 output (1100-MW(e) unit with an 80 percent capacity factor).

21 (b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average

waste shipment capacity of 2.34 m3

 per shipment (108 m3 22 /yr divided by 46 shipments/yr).

23 (c) This value was taken from the ER, Revision 6 (Domion 2006a)

24 (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 25

(200 ft3 26 ) of radioactive waste. This would result in six to seven shipments per year after

27 normalization to the reference LWR electrical output.

28
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-30 July 2006

1 6.2.4 Conclusions

2

3 Changes to this section reflect the higher power level.

4

5 An analysis was conducted of the impacts under normal operating and accident conditions of

6 transporting unirradiated fuel to advanced reactor sites and spent fuel and wastes from

7 advanced reactor sites to disposal facilities. To make comparisons to Table S–4, the

8 environmental impacts are normalized to a reference reactor year. The reference reactor is an

9 1100-MW(e) reactor that has an 80-percent capacity factor, for a total electrical output of

10 880 MW(e) per year. The environmental impacts can be adjusted to calculate impacts per site

11 by multiplying the normalized impacts by the ratio of the total electric output for the advanced

12 reactor sites to the electric output of the reference reactor.

13

14 Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate doses, actual

15 environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated in the EIS. Thus, the staff

16 concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and

17 from advanced LWR designs would be SMALL, and would be consistent with the risks

18 associated with transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors

19 presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. For gas-cooled designs, the impacts are likely to be

20 small, but this issue is not resolved because of the lack of verifiable information on these

21 designs. At the CP or COL stage, an applicant referencing these designs would need to

22 provide the necessary data and the staff would need to validate the assumptions used in this

23 transportation analysis.

24

25 Assumptions that will need validation if a gas-cooled design is selected include:

26

27 & Verifying that unirradiated and spent fuel from gas-cooled reactors have the same

28 abilities as LWR unirradiated and spent fuel to maintain fuel and cladding integrity

29 following a traffic accident.

30

31 & Verifying that shipping cask design assumptions (for example, cask capacities) are

32 equal to or bounded by the assumptions in this analysis.

33

34 & Verifying that unirradiated fuel initial core/refueling requirement, spent fuel generation

35 rates, and radioactive waste generation rate assumptions are equal to or bounded by

36 the assumptions in this analysis.

37

38 & Verifying that shipping cask capacities and accident source terms, including spent fuel

39 inventories, severity fractions, and release fractions, are equal to or bounded by the

40 assumptions in this analysis.

41
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-31 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Should the ACR-700 or IRIS reactors be chosen for the ESP site, a transportation accident

2 analysis will be performed as spent fuel inventories were not available for this analysis.

3

4 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts

5

6 This section is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6 and is provided solely

7 for context.

8

9 At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, the NRC regulations require that the facility

10 undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the removal of a facility safely from service and

11 the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The

12 regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.75

13 and 50.82.

14

15 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any LWR

16 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental

17 Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the

18 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586, (NRC 2002). If an applicant for a

19 CP or COL referencing the North Anna ESP applies for a license to operate one or more

20 additional units at the North Anna ESP site, there is a requirement to provide a report containing

21 a certification that financial assurance for radiological decommissioning will be provided. At the

22 time an application is submitted, the requirements in 10 CFR 50.33, 50.75, and 52.77 (and any

23 other applicable requirements) would have to be met.

24

25 At the ESP stage, applicants are not required to submit information regarding the process of

26 decommissioning, such as the method chosen for decommissioning, the schedule, or any other

27 aspect of planning for decommissioning. Dominion did not provide this information in its

28 application. For the new nuclear unit or units, if LWR designs are chosen or if other-than-LWRs

29 that were considered in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 are chosen, the impacts from

30 decommissioning are expected to be within the bounds described in NUREG-0586,

31 Supplement 1. In such cases, the staff expects the impact from decommissioning are likely to

32 be small. However, for whatever design that is selected, the impacts from decommissioning are

33 not resolved and would have to be assessed at the CP or COL stage.

34

35 6.4 References

36

37 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

38 Protection Against Radiation.”

39
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 6-32 July 2006

1 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

2 of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

3

4 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

5 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

6

7 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

8 Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

9

10 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

11 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

12

13 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

14 NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

15 dated May 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

16

17 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit

18 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File

19 Number 3747. Idaho Falls, Idaho.

20

21 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. ICRP Publication 60: 1990

22 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the

23 ICRP, Vol 21/1-3, Elsevier, The Netherlands

24

25 Johnson P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2000. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic

26 Information System (WebTRAGIS) User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-2000/86, Oak Ridge National

27 Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Available at

28 http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/v823/rpt/106749.pdf

29

30 Neuhauser K.S., F.L. Kanipe, and R.F. Weiner. 2003. RADTRAN 5 User Guide.

31 SAND2003-2354, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available on the

32 Internet at http://infoserve.sandia.gov/sand_doc/2003/032354.pdf 

33

34 Sprung J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills,

35 K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of

36 Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

37 Washington, D.C.

38

39 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

40 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C.

41
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

July 2006 6-33 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel

2 Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C.

3

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of

5 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. NUREG-75/038,

6 Washington, D.C.

7

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing

9 and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0116, Supplement 1 to

10 WASH-1248, Washington, D.C.

11

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Final Environmental Statement on

13 Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1,

14 Washington, D.C.

15

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Public Comments and Task Force

17 Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management

18 Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248),

19 Washington, D.C.

20

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

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

23

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

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

26 Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report.” 

27 NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

28

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

30 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 7 Regarding the Decommissioning of

31 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

32

33 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

34 (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-8511 Draft, Office of

35 Nuclear Reactor Regulations, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

July 2006 7-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 7.0 Cumulative Impacts

2

3

4 This chapter of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is presented in its

5 entirety and was changed to reflect the cumulative impact of the higher power output level, and

6 additional cooling system design alternative (i.e., once-through cooling) as a result of cooling

7 system changes proposed for Unit 3 in Revision 6 of the Environmental Report.

8

9 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff considered potential cumulative impacts

10 during its evaluation of information applicable to each of the potential impacts of constructing

11 and operating reactors at the proposed North Anna Power Station (NAPS) early site permit

12 (ESP) site for reactor designs that fall within the plant parameter envelope (PPE) presented in

13 Revision to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s (Dominion) Environmental Report (ER)

14 (Dominion 2006). For the purpose of this analysis, past actions are those occurring after Lake

15 Anna was created, but prior to operation of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2. Present actions

16 are those from the start of operation of existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 until the start of

17 construction of the proposed ESP Units 3 and 4 (hereafter referred to as Units 3 and 4). Future

18 actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through construction and operation of Units 3

19 and 4, including decommissioning. The geographical area over which past, present, and future

20 actions could contribute to cumulative impacts depends on the type of impact evaluated.

21

22 The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other

23 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the NAPS site that

24 would affect the same resources impacted by NAPS Units 1 and 2 regardless of what entity

25 (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts

26 are defined as “cumulative” in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1508.7

27 and include individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of

28 time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or

29 LARGE impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on the

30 affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL

31 individual impact could be important it if contributes to or accelerates the overall resource

32 decline.

33

34 7.1 Land Use

35

36 For purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered for cumulative impacts resulting

37 from construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 includes the three-county area of Louisa,

38 Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, Virginia, because the impacts to land use are insignificant

39 outside the three county area. The staff reviewed the available information on the land-use

40 impacts of constructing two additional nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site. Accordingly,

41 the staff concludes that while lower tax rates or better services could encourage development,
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 7-2 July 2006

1 the comprehensive land-use plans would control development. As a result, cumulative land-use

2 impacts did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not

3 warranted.

4

5 7.2 Air Quality

6

7 The NAPS site is located in an area that is in attainment for criteria pollutants. In Section 5.2 of

8 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North

9 Anna ESP Site (Draft EIS) the staff evaluated the impacts of the discharge of warm moist air

10 from the wet cooling tower portion of the wet and dry cooling system (NRC 2004). The existing

11 units use a once-through cooling system and Unit 4 would use a dry cooling system, neither of

12 which discharges warm moist air. Therefore, the cumulative impacts of the change from the

13 cooling system is the same as the impact analyzed in Section 5.2. The increase in power for

14 Units 3 and 4 had no affect on air quality. The changes to the cooling system and the power

15 increase would not result in additional releases from vehicles, auxiliary boilers, emergency

16 generators, and energized transmission lines. The discharge from Unit 3 wet cooling tower

17 portion of the wet and dry cooling system would have a SMALL impact. In addition, the

18 Commonwealth of Virginia regulates emissions to the atmosphere. The air quality impacts of

19 construction and operations are estimated to be small. No other significant impacts from other

20 actions were identified. Accordingly, the staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of air

21 quality did not change. The impact level category would still be SMALL, and mitigation is not

22 warranted.

23

24 7.3 Water Use and Quality

25

26 There would be two primary surface water resource parameters affected by the operation of

27 Unit 3 on the Lake Anna reservoir: (1) the lake level and (2) the downstream flow. In turn,

28 changes in these parameters impact water use, aquatic ecosystems, and socioeconomics. The

29 cumulative effects on those parameters are discussed in each category in this section. The

30 thermal effects on the lake, as evaluated in the Draft EIS (NRC 2004) for once-through cooling

31 are not an issue in light of the currently proposed combination wet and dry cooling system.

32

33 The staff, while preparing this assessment, did not identify any other currently planned

34 industrial, commercial, or public installations that would consume water within the general

35 vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. The intake of water from, and the discharge of water to,

36 Lake Anna from the new units would be regulated by the Virginia Department of Environmental

37 Quality (VDEQ) just as the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 are currently regulated by the VDEQ. 

38 The intake and discharge limits for each installation are established considering the overall or

39 cumulative impact of all of the other regulated activities in the area. The staff expects that

40 compliance with Clean Water Act and regulations of the Commonwealth of Virginia are
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 adequate to minimize the cumulative effects on water resources. Operation of Units 3 and 4

2 would require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the

3 Commonwealth. NPDES permits must be renewed every 5 years, which will ensure that the

4 Commonwealth of Virginia addresses changes in water quality over time. The Commonwealth

5 has the authority to designate the North Anna drainage as a surface water management area,

6 which will ensure that water supply changes over time are addressed. Unit 4 would use dry

7 cooling towers and not water from Lake Anna for cooling; therefore, its operation would have

8 little operational impact on Lake Anna.

9

10 In Chapter 5, the staff evaluated the effects of the existing Units 1 and 2 and the effects of

11 adding Units 3 and 4 on Lake Anna. A cumulative evaluation of the effects of Units 3 and 4 on

12 Lake Anna starts with the existing lake conditions and adds the effects of construction and

13 operation of Units 3 and 4 to reach a cumulative impact assessment. Based on the fact that the

14 Lake Anna drainage is largely rural and the shoreline is largely residential, the staff concludes

15 that it is unlikely that future development will appreciably alter the hydrology. In non-drought

16 years, the projected incremental decline of the lake level attributable to Unit 3 using the

17 combination wet and dry cooling tower system is relatively minor and less than the effect of

18 using once-through cooling. The lowest pool elevation and greatest incremental decline would

19 occur during the month of October.

20

21 Though less pronounced than with once-through cooling, the operation of ESP Unit 3 would

22 increase the duration of periods of low lake level during drought conditions when the Lake Level

23 Contingency Plan would be applied. Implementation of the Lake Level Contingency Plan

reduces flow from Lake Anna as the level in the lake declines to a minimum flow of 0.57 m3 24 /s

25 (20 cfs) (Louisa County 2001). Hanover County, one of four downstream counties, has

26 identified a need for additional water for future development (Hanover County Department of

27 Public Utilities 2004). To meet its future projected demand, Hanover County proposes to

withdraw 1.3 m3 28 /s (46 cfs) from the North Anna River (Dominion 2006). Resolution of any future

29 conflicts over water use would fall within the regulatory authority of the Commonwealth of

30 Virginia. There are three basic approaches considered by the staff to mitigate water conflicts

31 including (1) alternative design of the Unit 3 cooling system, (2) alternative operation of the

32 proposed Unit 3, and (3) alternative operating procedures for the North Anna Dam. Alternative

33 cooling system designs are discussed in Section 8.2 of this Supplement to the Draft EIS

34 (SDEIS). Dry cooling would eliminate the consumptive water loss associated with Unit 3. 

35 If water conditions were severe the Commonwealth of Virginia maintains the regulatory authority

36 to require Dominion to derate or terminate operation of one or more of the North Anna units. 

37 Finally, the release of water from Lake Anna is regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The

38 Lake Level Contingency Plan is an explicit statement of the Commonwealth’s policy to balance

39 the demands of lake and downstream water needs. The Commonwealth can alter the normal

40 pool elevation and the trigger elevation at which releases are reduced, and can specify the

41 timing, duration, and magnitude of discharge flows from the North Anna Dam.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 7-4 July 2006

1 Based on the staff’s independent water budget assessment, which includes the cumulative

2 impact of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Unit 3, the staff concludes that the

3 water use impacts would be SMALL except in drought years when the impacts would be

4 MODERATE. In drought years, the Commonwealth of Virginia may determine to require

5 Dominion to derate or cease operation. Water quality impacts are anticipated to be small. 

6 However, because specific bounding water quality parameters were not provided in the PPE for

7 all discharge streams, the water quality impact is unresolved.

8

9 7.4 Terrestrial Ecosystem

10

11 For purposes of this analysis, the geographic area in which adverse cumulative effects on

12 terrestrial resources, such as wildlife populations and habitat areas could occur, includes the

13 areas around Lake Anna, within the North Anna ESP site, and within the existing transmission

14 line rights-of-way.

15

16 Although the rate of housing and recreational development around Lake Anna has been

17 relatively high, the habitats at the North Anna ESP site and in the vicinity of Lake Anna are

18 common in central Virginia, and are not considered critical for the survival of any threatened or

19 endangered species. Therefore, the staff concludes that the contribution of development at the

20 North Anna ESP site to the cumulative habitat loss in the region would be SMALL.

21

22 There are no important terrestrial species (e.g., threatened or endangered species) or important

23 habitats (e.g., critical habitats, wildlife sanctuaries) in the vicinity of the site or transmission line

24 rights-of-way, and wildlife has adapted to the noise levels from the existing Units 1 and 2. The

25 nearest bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest is 4.2 km (2.6 mi) west of the site and would

26 not be affected by noise from the NAPS site. Therefore, cumulative noise effects on wildlife are

27 expected to be minimal.

28

29 The combination wet and dry cooling system, as proposed for Unit 3, and dry cooling towers, as

30 proposed for Unit 4, include elevated structures that could pose a risk of avian collisions. In

31 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

32 the staff reviewed the issue of avian collisions with elevated structures at nuclear power plants

33 in the United States and concluded that cooling towers pose a very small hazard for birds (NRC

34 1996). Therefore, impacts to birds from collisions with heat dissipation structures of the

35 proposed Unit 3 and Unit 4 cooling systems and existing facilities at the NAPS site are expected

36 to be minimal. The North Anna ESP site is in an area with relatively few tall facilities or features

37 that would pose collision hazards to birds and additional industrial development is not likely in

38 the foreseeable future. Therefore, cumulative effects on birds resulting from collisions would be

39 expected to be minimal.

40
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Because there would be no new transmission lines, transmission line operation and

2 maintenance, or alterations of rights-of-way, no changes to the level of impact on terrestrial

3 resources are expected to occur if additional power is transmitted through this system. Also,

4 the addition of the combination wet and dry cooling system for proposed Unit 3 and the dry

5 cooling system for proposed Unit 4 are not expected to adversely impact avian populations in

6 the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site. The staff concludes that the potential regional

7 cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecology contributed by the construction and operation of

8 Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

9

10 7.5 Aquatic Ecosystem

11

12 The construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 were evaluated to determine if the potential

13 exists for interactions with past, present, and future actions that could contribute to adverse

14 cumulative impacts to aquatic resources. For the purpose of this analysis, the geographic area

15 of interest is the Lake Anna reservoir, the Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF), and the

16 portion of the North Anna River downstream of Lake Anna dam. Environmental stressors

17 contributing to cumulative aquatic impacts include the operations of NAPS (with or without the

18 addition of Units 3 and 4), anthropogenic activities not directly related to NAPS (e.g., increased

19 urban development and recreational activity in or near the lake and river), and natural

20 environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in precipitation or temperature, and

21 the resulting response of the aquatic community). The staff considered all of these sources of

22 impacts when evaluating the cumulative aquatic ecology impacts of Dominion’s ESP

23 application.

24

25 The studies conducted by Dominion to establish compliance with sections 316(a) and 316(b) of

26 the Clean Water Act demonstrate that impingement and entrainment associated with the

27 operation of Units 1 and 2 have not resulted in a significant detectible adverse impact to fish

28 communities of Lake Anna. Thermal discharges from Units 1 and 2 have increased the overall

29 temperature of the WHTF and Lake Anna; however, heat-sensitive species are normally able to

30 find refuge in deeper parts of the lake, and heat shock or cold shock events have not resulted in

31 detectible changes to resident or stocked fish populations. Biocide releases from Units 1 and 2

32 currently comply with the Commonwealth of Virginia NPDES permit requirements, and will

33 continue to be monitored in the future. The addition of Units 3 and 4 is not expected to

34 noticeably contribute any aquatic impacts beyond those related to the operation of Units 1

35 and 2.

36

37 The closed-cycle cooling system proposed for Unit 4 uses very little water and would not result

38 in measurable impingement, entrainment, or discharge-related impacts. The combination wet

39 and dry cooling system proposed for Unit 3 would increase overall impingement and

40 entrainment at NAPS by approximately 1 percent. This is not expected to result in detectible

41 changes in the resident and introduced fish community in Lake Anna.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 7-6 July 2006

1 The thermal impacts of Unit 3 to the WHTF, Lake Anna, and the North Anna River are expected

2 to be minor because the temperature of the small volume of blowdown water released to the

3 WHTF is within the temperature range currently observed in the discharge canal. Operation of

4 Unit 3 would result in a decrease in the level in Lake Anna that would affect the downstream

5 release of water over the Lake Anna dam, especially during the summer months and drought

6 years. The decreases in lake level would not be expected to adversely impact aquatic organism

7 in the lake. However, the consumptive water use by Unit 3 may have some adverse impact on

8 aquatic communities downstream of the North Anna dam during summer months or drought

9 years. However, the aquatic communities of the North Anna River have adapted over time to

10 changes in stream flow, and it is expected that the overall impacts associated with Units 3 and 4

11 would be negligible.

12

13 Anthropogenic stressors not directly associated with NAPS activities may contribute to the

14 potential for adverse cumulative impacts to the lake and river. These impacts include habitat

15 loss and nonpoint pollution related to increased urbanization along the shores of the reservoir

16 and river, increased recreational use of the North Anna reservoir, impacts to the lake fishery

17 from changes in management practices or increased fishing pressure, and potential

18 downstream impacts from increased consumptive water use for human needs. Because the

19 Lake Anna reservoir is essentially a closed system that is regulated by Federal, State, and local

20 resource agencies, the staff assumes the cumulative impacts to the lake and river associated

21 with urbanization and increased resource use would be managed within the existing system of

22 rules and guidelines to ensure the aquatic communities are protected and the fishery resources

23 continue to be sustainable.

24

25 The presence of natural environmental stressors (e.g., short- or long-term changes in

26 precipitation or temperature) would contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts to Lake

27 Anna and the North Anna River. Because these impacts are not related to NAPS activities and

28 are difficult to predict, it is not possible to determine their contribution to cumulative impacts in

29 the study area. It is likely, however, that at certain times of the year, NAPS operations, other

30 anthropogenic stressors, and climactic events would combine to adversely impact the aquatic

31 populations of Lake Anna and the North Anna River. The staff expects that these events would

32 be of short duration and that the impacted resources would quickly recover after normal

33 patterns resume. 

34

35 At present, Lake Anna represents a balanced community and supports a thriving population of

36 game fish and the forage species that support them. These communities either exist naturally

37 or are a product of management (stocking) strategies by State agencies. A diverse community

38 is also present in the North Anna River below the dam. Long-term monitoring has shown that

39 the lake and river communities are capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions

40 resulting from natural or anthropogenic sources of impact, and this adaptation is expected to
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 continue to occur with or without the addition of Units 3 and 4. Accordingly, the construction

2 and operation of proposed Units 3 and 4 is not expected to change the overall aquatic impacts

3 of NAPS.

4

5 Based on 25 years of aquatic monitoring data conducted by Virginia Power, there is no

6 evidence that Federally or State-listed threatened or endangered aquatic species are present in

7 Lake Anna or the North Anna River. Although aquatic species listed could occur in counties

8 adjacent to NAPS, there is no evidence that they have been observed or collected in those

9 locations. Based on this assessment, the staff concludes the cumulative impacts to threatened

10 or endangered aquatic species from the construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 are

11 SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

12

13 Consumptive water use for Unit 3 may exacerbate low-water conditions in Lake Anna and the

14 North Anna River during the summer months or droughts, but the overall impacts of Units 3

15 and 4 are not expected to be environmentally detectible or to contribute significantly to the

16 cumulative aquatic impacts that currently exist. The presence of anthropogenic or natural

17 stressors unrelated to NAPS operations currently influence the aquatic resources of Lake Anna,

18 the WHTF, and the North Anna River, and will continue to do so. These impacts would be

19 considered by Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies, and the various management

20 plans for the lake would be modified, as necessary. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes

21 that the cumulative impacts of adding Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL, and mitigation is not

22 warranted.

23

24 7.6 Socioeconomic, Historic and Cultural Resources,

25 Environmental Justice

26

27 Much of the analyses of the socioeconomic impacts presented in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 already

28 incorporate cumulative impact analysis because the metrics used for analysis only make sense

29 when placed in the total or cumulative context. The geographical area of the cumulative

30 analysis varies depending on the particular impact considered, and may depend on specific

31 boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions, or distance, as in the case of environmental justice. 

32 The construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 would not add any cumulative socioeconomic

33 impacts beyond those already evaluated in Sections 4.5 and 5.5. The staff concludes that

34 construction impacts would generally be SMALL, but there could be greater impacts if more

35 workers than expected settle in Louisa and Orange Counties, in which case MODERATE

36 impacts may be reached for physical impacts on roads, housing, and some public services. 

37 In addition, during times of severe drought, the impacts to aesthetics and recreation during

38 operations may also reach MODERATE levels and there could be periodic MODERATE

39 aesthetic impacts from cooling tower plumes. In terms of beneficial effects, the impact on

40 regional economies and tax revenues would be beneficially SMALL to LARGE.
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 7-8 July 2006

1 With regard to historic and cultural resources, construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 would

2 not add to any cumulative impacts to these resources beyond those identified in Sections 4.6

3 and 5.6. Dominion would implement the existing NAPS procedures to ensure that either known

4 or newly discovered potential historic and cultural sites would not be inadvertently impacted

5 during onsite activities that involve land disturbances (Dominion 2006). The staff concludes that

6 the cumulative impacts of construction and operation on historic and cultural resources would

7 be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

8

9 The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices through which minority or

10 low-income populations would be disproportionately affected. As a result, cumulative impacts of

11 environmental justice would be SMALL.

12

13 Based on the above considerations, the staff concludes that under some circumstances,

14 construction and operation of Units 3 and 4 could make a detectable adverse contribution to the

15 cumulative effects associated with some socioeconomic issues under certain circumstances,

16 including aesthetics and recreation. The individual impacts range from MODERATE ADVERSE

17 to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

18

19 7.7 Nonradiological Health

20

21 The cumulative impacts of construction and operation of the existing NAPS Units 1 and 2 and

22 the proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4 on the ambient temperature of Lake Anna with regard to

23 potential formation of thermophilic microorganisms was evaluated in Section 5.8.1. The

24 evaluation showed that the addition of two new units would not increase the temperature in

25 Lake Anna, and existing temperatures are not high enough to create an environment conducive

26 to the optimal growth of thermophilic organisms. Further, health risks to workers can be

27 expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the average U.S. industrial

28 rates and the impact of construction and operation of the Unit 3 cooling system would not

29 materially change the health risks. Noise, dust emissions, and acute and chronic

30 electromagnetic fields effects were also evaluated and found to have small impacts. The staff

31 concludes that the cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation of Units 3 and

32 4 on nonradiological health would be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

33

34 7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

35

36 The proposed increase in the power level from 4300 MW(t) to 4500 MW(t) per unit resulted from

37 the increase in power level for the ESBWR reactor design from 4000 MW(t) to 4500 MW(t). The

38 increase in the power level to 4500 MW(t) per unit results in a small increase to the liquid and

39 gaseous radiological effluent source terms for normal operation. The revised liquid and
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 gaseous effluent source terms result in small increases to the doses to the maximally exposed

2 individual as shown in revised Tables 5-7 and 5-8.

3

4 The dose from the existing Units 1 and 2 are well below regulatory limits and did not change as

5 a result of the power level increase for proposed Units 3 and 4. There is a small increase to the

6 maximally exposed individual as a result of the power level increase. This small increase to the

7 maximally exposed individual and the population dose estimates did not change the staff

8 conclusion that the cumulative radiological impacts are SMALL.

9

10 The radiological exposure limits and standards for the protection of the public and for

11 occupational exposures have been developed assuming long-term exposures, and therefore

12 incorporate cumulative impacts. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses

13 predicted from the operation of Units 3 and 4 would be well below regulatory limits and

14 standards. Specifically, the site boundary dose to the maximally exposed individual from the

15 existing Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 combined would be well within the

16 regulatory standard of 40 CFR Part 190. For purposes of this analysis, the geographical area is

17 the area included within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the North Anna ESP site.

18

19 As stated in Section 2.5, Dominion has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring

20 program (REMP) around NAPS since 1976. The REMP measures radiation and radioactive

21 materials from all sources, including NAPS. The Commission would regulate any reasonably

22 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. Therefore,

23 the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operation of the proposed ESP

24 Units 3 and 4 and the existing operating NAPS Units 1 and 2 would remain SMALL, and

25 mitigation is not warranted.

26

27 7.9 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning

28

29 This section has been added since the Draft EIS was published and reflects the increase in fuel

30 use as presented in Revision 6 of the ER.

31

32 The addition of the Units 3 and 4 on the North Anna ESP site would result in the need for

33 additional fuel. The impacts of producing this fuel include mining of the uranium ore, milling of

34 the ore, conversion of the uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment of the uranium

35 hexafluoride, fuel fabrication where the uranium hexafluoride in converted into uranium oxide

36 fuel pellets, and disposition of the spent fuel in a proposed Federal waste repository. As

37 discussed in Section 6.1 of the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the environmental impacts of fuel cycle

38 activities for the proposed units would be a maximum of four times those presented in

39 Table S–3 of 10 CFR 51.51. Table S–3 provides the environmental impacts from uranium fuel

40 cycle operations for a model 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at 80 percent capacity with a

41 12-month fuel loading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. Per
Cumulative Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 7-10 July 2006

1 10 CFR 51.51(a), the staff considers the impacts in Table S–3 to be acceptable for the 1000-

2 MW(e) reference reactor. As discussed in Section 6.1.1 of the Draft EIS, advances in reactors

3 since the development of Table S–3 impacts will have the effect of reducing environmental

4 impacts of the operating reference reactor. For example, a number of fuel management

5 improvements have been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and

6 to reduce fuel and separative work (enrichment) requirements. Fuel cycle impacts would occur

7 not only at the North Anna ESP site but would also be scattered through other locations in the

8 United States or, in the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in other countries. The staff

9 considers the cumulative fuel cycle impacts of operating NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the proposed

10 Units 3 and 4 for the 1000-MW(e) light-water scale model to be SMALL. Cumulative impacts for

11 other than light-water reactor designs are not resolved.

12

13 The addition of Units 3 and 4 would result in additional shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site

14 and additional shipments of spent fuel and waste from the site. Cumulative impacts would be

15 approximately twice that of the existing operating plants. Environmental impacts from

16 transportation of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste are found in Section 6.2 of this

17 environmental impact statement based on specific reactor types proposed for Units 3 and 4. 

18 The following conclusions were derived from the staff's analysis of unirradiated fuel shipments:

19

20 • The number of unirradiated fuel shipments equates to less than one truck shipment per day

21 within criteria specified in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52.

22

23 • Annual dose to workers and the public would be less than dose specified in Table S–4. 

24

 • Health impacts are projected to be small (i.e., less than 1 x 10-4 25 detriment/yr).

26

27 The following conclusions were derived from the staff's analysis of spent fuel: (1) after

28 accounting for conservative assumptions in the staff's evaluation, doses to the worker and the

29 public would be within criteria specified in Table S–4, and (2) health impacts from normal

30 conditions and accident conditions would be small (i.e., less than 0.1 detriment/yr). Regarding

31 transportation of waste shipments, the staff concluded that the normalized number of waste

32 shipments would be within the value specified in Table S–4 for the 1100-MW(e) reference

33 reactor. Cumulative impacts of transportation for operating both NAPS Units 1 and 2 and the

34 proposed Units 3 and 4 would be SMALL. Cumulative impacts for other than light-water reactor

35 designs are not resolved.

36

37 As discussed in Section 6.3 of this SDEIS and Section 6.3 of the Draft EIS (NRC 2004),

38 environmental impacts from decommissioning are expected to be small as the licensee would

39 have to comply with decommissioning regulatory requirements. In Supplement 1 to

40 NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear

41 Facilities, the NRC found the impacts on radiation dose to workers and the public, waste
Cumulative Impacts

July 2006 7-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 management, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomics to be small

2 (NRC 2002). However, because Dominion was not required to (and did not) submit information

3 regarding decommissioning in its ESP application, this issue is not resolved.

4

5 7.10 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

6

7 The staff considered and evaluated the potential impacts resulting from construction and

8 operation of Units 3 and 4 together with past, present, and future actions in the North Anna ESP

9 site and surrounding area, including the changes presented in ER Revision 6. For several

10 impact areas, the staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from

11 construction and operation are SMALL, and mitigation beyond the actions discussed in Sections

12 4.10 and 5.10 is not warranted. However, some areas have the potential for MODERATE

13 impacts, most of which would occur under temporary circumstances such as drought conditions

14 or as the result of a larger than expected concentration of construction workers settling near the

15 NAPS site. Further mitigation is not warranted because of the temporary nature of the impacts.

16

17 7.11 References

18

19 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

20 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

21

22 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

23 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

24

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

26 Part 1508, “Council on Environmental Quality, Terminology and Index.”

27

28 Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251 et seq.

29

30 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

31 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Richmond, Virginia.

32

33 Hanover County Department of Public Utilities. 2004. Letter to Chief, Rules and Directives

34 Branch, NRC., regarding Dominion’s ESP application, January 7, 2004, Hanover, Virginia.

35

36 Louisa County. 2001. The County of Louisa, Virginia Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive

37 Plan, Chapter V, September 4, 2001, Louisa, Virginia.

38

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

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

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 7-12 July 2006

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

2 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

3 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Washington, D.C.

4

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

6 an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Washington, D.C.
July 2006 8-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.0 Impacts of the Alternatives

2

3

4 This chapter of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was changed to

5 reflect the higher power output level and an additional cooling system design alternative

6 (i.e., once-through cooling) resulting from the cooling system changes proposed for Unit 3 in

7 Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. In addition, this chapter is presented in its entirety to

8 provide the analysis to support the comparisons of the proposed site to the alternative sites

9 discussed in Chapter 9.

10

11 The purpose of this chapter of this Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

12 (SDEIS) is to examine the environmental impacts of alternatives to constructing and operating

13 the proposed two nuclear units at the proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) site. The

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff considered the no-action alternative, system

15 design alternatives, and the use of alternative sites. For the purposes of this SDEIS, the staff

16 used the alternative sites selected by Dominion North Anna LLC (Dominion) in its ESP

17 application (Dominion 2006). The results of the analysis described in this chapter were used

18 and analyzed to determine whether any alternative site considered is obviously superior to the

19 proposed site (described in Chapter 9).

20

21 Consideration of alternative sites involves a two-part examination as set forth in NUREG-1555,

22 Section 9.3 (NRC 2000), in accordance with an NRC decision related to licensing the Seabrook

23 Nuclear Power Plant (Public Service Company 1977). The first stage evaluates a full suite of

24 environmental issues to determine whether any of the alternative sites is environmentally

25 preferable to the proposed site. If not, then the evaluation of alternative sites ends at the first

26 stage. If an alternative site appears environmentally preferable to the proposed site, the

27 analysis proceeds to the second stage. The second stage of the test considers economic,

28 technological, and institutional factors among the environmentally preferred sites to determine

29 whether any alternative site that was considered is “obviously superior” to the proposed site. If

30 there is no such obviously superior site, then the proposed site prevails; a staff conclusion that

31 an alternative site is obviously superior to the proposed site would normally lead to a

32 recommendation that the ESP application be denied.

33

34 Section 8.1 discusses the no-action alternative. Section 8.2 examines the station design

35 alternatives. Section 8.3 reviews Dominion’s region of interest (ROI) and examines the

36 suitability of the ROI and Dominion’s alternative site selection process, describing the method

37 Dominion used to select the candidate and alternative sites. Section 8.4 examines issues that

38 are common to all the sites, and addresses them collectively. Sections 8.5 through 8.7

39 individually evaluates the selected alternative sites. Section 8.8 provides a summary of

40 alternative site impacts, and Section 8.9 cites the references relevant to this chapter.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-2 July 2006

1 8.1 No-Action Alternative

2

3 For this ESP application, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC would

4 deny the ESP request. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of new nuclear

5 power reactors at the proposed North Anna ESP site in accordance with the Title 10 of the Code

6 of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 process would referencing an approved ESP not occur.

7

8 The no-action alternative consists of two parts. First, the no-action alternative would include a

9 scenario in which the NRC would not issue the ESP. There are no environmental impacts

10 associated with not issuing the ESP except that the impacts associated with site preparation

11 and preliminary work, allowed pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(c) and 10 CFR 52.25(a), would be

12 avoided; changes to the Unit 3 cooling approach and the higher power level for proposed Units

13 3 and 4 (referred to hereafter as Units 3 and 4) would not change the impacts of the no-action

14 alternative. Second, given that the EIS addresses the environmental impacts of construction

15 and operation as directed by the Commission (10 CFR 52.18(a)(2)), the no-action alternative

16 would result in no such construction and operation. Therefore, the impacts predicted in this EIS

17 would not occur. Nonetheless, Part 52 does not require an ER or EIS for an ESP to include

18 consideration of the benefits of construction and operation of a reactor or reactors at the ESP

19 site (see 10 CFR 52.17(b)), nor does it require such an ER or EIS to include consideration of

20 alternative energy sources (see Exelon Generation Co., LLC et al., CLI-05-17, 62 NRC 5

21 (2005)). Dominion did not include these matters in its ER, and the DEIS likewise did not

22 consider them. Accordingly, should the NRC ultimately determine to issue an ESP for the North

23 Anna ESP site, and a CP or COL application that references such an ESP is docketed, these

24 matters will be considered in the EIS prepared in connection with the review of that CP or COL

25 application.

26

27 However, the no-action alternative would not achieve the benefits intended by the ESP process,

28 which would include (1) early resolution of siting issues prior to large investments of financial

29 capital and human resources in new plant design and construction, (2) early resolution of issues

30 on the environmental impact of construction and operation of reactors that fall within the site

31 parameters, (3) the ability to bank sites on which nuclear plants may be located, and

32 (4) facilitation of future decisions on whether to build new nuclear plants.

33

34

35

36

37

38
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.2 System Design Alternatives

2

3 Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.3 contain information regarding alternative plant cooling systems for

4 the proposed Unit 3 at the North Anna ESP site. Section 8.2.1 discusses once-through cooling

5 system; Section 8.2.2 discusses wet cooling system heat-dissipation systems; and Section

6 8.2.3 discusses dry cooling system heat dissipation systems for Unit 3. A dry cooling tower has

7 been proposed for Unit 4 at the North Anna ESP site. Water and energy balance studies of

8 Lake Anna suggest that the lake would not support a once-through cooling system, a wet

9 cooling tower heat dissipation system, or a combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 4. 

10 Refer to Appendix K for more detail on the water budget analysis. Therefore, neither of these

11 alternatives is considered for Unit 4 at the North Anna ESP site.

12

13 The purpose of the plant cooling system is to dissipate heat to the environment. The various

14 cooling system options differ in how and where the heat transfer takes place and, therefore,

15 have different environmental impacts. In the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

16 system proposed for Unit 3, heat is transferred to the atmosphere through evaporation,

17 long-wave radiation, and conduction. With the wet tower portion of the system, only a fraction

18 of the water withdrawn from the lake is returned as blowdown, with the majority being

19 evaporated. The dry tower portion of the system consumes a negligible amount of water. 

20

21 8.2.1 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Once-Through Cooling System

22

23 A once-through cooling system for Unit 3 would transfer heat to the atmosphere and aquatic

24 environment of the Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF), Lake Anna, and the North Anna

25 River downstream of the dam by convection, evaporation, long-wave radiation, and conduction. 

26 As described below, when compared to the proposed design, increased impingement,

27 entrainment, circulation changes in the WHTF and Lake Anna, temperature in the aquatic

28 environment, and consumptive use of water would result from the once-through design.

29

30 A once-through cooling system design would withdraw a larger volume of water from Lake Anna

31 through the intakes, resulting in greater impingement and entrainment. The once-through

32 design for Unit 3 was estimated to withdraw 71,900 L/s (1,140,000 gpm) compared to the

33 maximum of 1405 L/s (22,269 gpm) for the proposed Unit 3 closed-cycle design operating in

34 Energy Conservation (EC) mode. The additional recirculation from this flow combined with the

35 existing recirculation in Lake Anna could further erode the limited water volume below the lake

36 thermocline that may be an important refugium for certain fish populations in Lake Anna.

37

38 A once-through design would initially transfer all the reject heat to the aquatic environment. The

39 increased heat load would push warm water out of the WHTF further into Lake Anna. The staff

40 estimated that WHTF-type conditions would be extended into about 19 percent of the volume of

41 Lake Anna. This could reduce the productivity of certain fish populations in Lake Anna that are
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-4 July 2006

1 sensitive to temperature. Some of the heat entering the WHTF and Lake Anna would be lost to

2 the atmosphere through evaporation. This additional evaporation resulting from the increased

3 in lake surface temperatures would reduce the total water supply. Dominion had estimated that

induced evaporation from once-through cooling could result in water loss at a rate of 0.79 m3 4 /s

5 (28 cfs), whereas the design proposed in Revision 6 of the Environmental Report (ER) would

have induced evaporative losses at a lesser rate of about 0.57 m3 6 /s (20 cfs). 

7

8 The staff evaluated mitigation for the once-through cooling system to reduce cooling water

9 discharge temperatures into Lake Anna. Wet mechanical draft cooling towers could be

10 employed as helper towers along with the once-through cooling design on an as-needed basis

11 during the late summer and early fall. Use of these towers in a helper mode would reduce the

12 station discharge temperature to Lake Anna but would result in an increase in consumptive

13 water use that would be greater than the combination wet and dry cooling system. Based on

14 the combination wet and dry cooling tower system's expected smaller impact on the aquatic

15 environment, the staff concludes that a combination wet and dry cooling system for Unit 3 would

16 be preferable to a once-through cooling system.

17

18 8.2.2 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Wet Cooling System

19

20 Wet, mechanical, and natural draft cooling towers transfer heat to the atmosphere through

21 evaporation and conduction. Assuming all the heat transfer is through evaporation, a wet

22 cooling design would consume more water than either the once-through design or the

23 combination wet and dry cooling system proposed in ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006). The

24 increased use of makeup water requirements for a wet cooling design would increase

25 impingement and entrainment slightly over the proposed design.

26

27 The use of a wet cooling tower design versus the proposed combination wet and dry cooling

28 system design for Unit 3 would increase water withdrawals from Lake Anna. The impact of the

29 increased evaporative losses of a wet cooling tower design would be particularly noticeable

30 during drought years. The results of water balance calculations suggest that the use of an wet

31 cooling tower system for the 2001 through 2003 critical water period would have resulted in an

32 additional 1.0 m (3.4 ft) drawdown of the lake in September 2002. In comparison, use of the

33 proposed combination wet and dry cooling would only have drawn the lake down by an

34 additional 0.5 m (1.6 ft). The use of a wet cooling tower design would also prolong the duration

35 of low-flow conditions downstream of the dam. The staff concludes that based on the expected

36 smaller impact on the lake level and downstream flows, a combination wet and dry cooling

37 system design for Unit 3 is preferable to a wet cooling tower design.

38
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.2.3 Plant Cooling System: Unit 3 Dry Cooling System

2

3 The use of a dry cooling design versus the proposed combination wet and dry cooling system

4 design for Unit 3 would largely eliminate the impacts on aquatic biota in Lake Anna and the

5 North Anna River downstream. The lake would not be heated by rejected heat from Unit 3, and

6 there would be no additional consumptive water use.

7

8 A dry cooling tower designed to dissipate heat may reduce water-related impacts of operating

9 Unit 3, but it also has some disadvantages. In particular, dry cooling systems are more

10 expensive to build and are not as efficient as wet cooling systems. To achieve the necessary

11 cooling, dry systems move of a large amount of air through a heat exchanger, and the fans that

12 force the air through the heat exchanger use a significant amount of power. Dominion

13 estimates that the power needed to operate dry cooling towers would be 8.5 to 11 percent of the

14 plant power output (Dominion 2006). The power needed to operate a dry tower for Unit 3 would

15 be about 150 MW(e). This power demand reduces the net power output of the plant. The

16 power needed for operating the combination wet and dry cooling system would be 1.7 to

17 4 percent. The fans and the large volume of air required for cooling result in elevated noise

18 levels. Nevertheless, the noise levels at the site boundary associated with the dry towers would

19 likely be bounded by noise levels resulting from the operation of the North Anna Power Station

20 (NAPS). The dry cooling tower would also occupy more land than a once-through or wet tower

21 cooling system.

22

23 The staff concludes that based on its analysis that Lake Anna could support Unit 3 using a

24 combination wet and dry cooling system and given the environmental impact of increased use

25 of resources needed by using a less efficient dry cooling system, a combination wet and dry

26 cooling system is preferable to a dry cooling system for Unit 3.

27

28 8.3 Alternative Sites, Region of Interest, and Selection and

29 Evaluation Process

30

31 The power level increase affects the North Anna ESP site and the alternative sites equally. The

32 cooling system design change affects only the North Anna ESP site. NRC regulations require

33 that the ER submitted in conjunction with an application for an ESP include an evaluation of

34 alternative sites to determine whether there is an obviously superior alternative to the site

35 proposed (10 CFR 52.17(a)(2)). This section includes subsections discussing Dominion’s

36 Region of Interest (ROI) for selecting alternative sites and its alternative site-selection process. 

37 The three alternative sites examined in detail in this SDEIS are Dominion’s Surry Power Station

38 (Surry) site in Surry County, Virginia; the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Portsmouth

39 Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth) site in Pike County, Ohio; and DOE’s Savannah River

40 Site, which is in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-6 July 2006

1 Dominion stated that the two DOE sites were selected as candidate sites because:

2

3 & The sites represent valuable national assets with prior or existing nuclear energy

4 potential.

5

6 & New nuclear power facilities would represent potentially promising new missions for

7 these sites.

8

9 & The sites have the potential to support reactor demonstrations and/or commercial

10 reactor development.

11

12 & There is extensive site information and an available infrastructure that could help to

13 reduce site development costs.

14

15 & The partially or fully developed site environment and the available infrastructure reduces

16 the incremental environmental impacts associated with the new plant construction and

17 operation on land use, ecological resources, aesthetics, and local transportation

18 networks.

19

20 & The sites are not in proximity to major population centers (Dominion 2006).

21

22 The Surry site was selected by Dominion as an ESP candidate site because:

23

24 & The existing environmental conditions and the environmental impacts are known from

25 data collected during years of monitoring air, water, ecological, and other parameters.

26

27 & Construction of new transmission line rights-of-way may potentially be avoided if the

28 existing transmission system (lines and rights-of-way) can accommodate the increased

29 power generation.

30

31 & No additional land acquisitions would be necessary if a new transmission line can be

32 avoided, and the resulting land-use impacts of the new plant would be small.

33

34 & The Surry site was recently subjected to an environmental review process during its

35 license renewal review.

36

37 & The Surry site had extensive environmental studies performed during the original

38 site-selection process, which could be updated and used for new units.

39

40 & Site physical criteria, including primarily geologic/seismic suitability, have been

41 characterized.

42
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 & Plant construction, operation, and maintenance costs would be reduced because of

2 existing site infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission line rights-of-way, water source, and

3 intake/discharge system).

4

5 & The Surry site has nearby power markets.

6

7 & The Surry site has local community acceptance and support (Dominion 2006).

8

9 NRC’s environmental review guidance for alternative nuclear plant sites recognizes that there

10 will be special cases in which the proposed site was not selected on the basis of a systematic

11 site-selection process, but was selected on the basis of environmentally acceptable operating

12 experience at the site or because the site was previously found acceptable on the basis of a

13 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) review. In such cases the NRC will analyze

14 the applicant’s site-selection process only as it applies to the alternate sites. The site

15 comparison may then be restricted to a site-by-site comparison of the alternate sites with the

16 proposed site (NRC 2000).

17

18 8.3.1 Dominion’s Region of Interest

19

20 The ROI is the geographic area considered in searching for candidate ESP sites. More

21 specifically, the ROI is:

22

23 The geographical area initially considered in the site selection process. This area may

24 represent the applicant’s system, the power pool or area within which the applicant’s

25 planning studies are based, or the regional reliability council or the appropriate

26 subregion or area of the reliability council (NRC 1999, 2000).

27

28 In its ESP application, Dominion selected its ROI for examining potential sites as the

29 Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Midwest regions of the United States. These regions were selected

30 because of Dominion’s interest in continuing to grow and operate deregulated marketplaces in

31 the region (Dominion 2006). The staff determined that Dominion’s basis for deferring its ROI did

32 not arbitrarily exclude desirable candidate areas. Within this ROI, Dominion used the candidate

33 site criteria identified by NRC (NRC 1999) to identify candidate sites (Dominion 2006). The staff

34 concludes that the ROI used by Dominion in its ESP application is appropriate for consideration

35 and analysis of potential ESP sites because it consistent with the major load centers to be

36 supplied by the proposed plant and that desirable candidate area have not been excluded on

37 the basis of an arbitrarily defined ROI.

38

39 8.3.2 Dominion’s Alternative Selection Process

40

41 Dominion evaluated its proposed North Anna ESP site and the three alternative sites using

42 45 site suitability/screening criteria (Dominion 2006). Dominion reviewed the alternative site
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-8 July 2006

1 selection evaluation to determine the impact of the North Anna site merit score. Dominion

2 determined that the changes to the cooling system design had minimal impact on the North

3 Anna site ranking versus the alternative sites and did not affect its overall conclusion

4 (Dominion 2006). The increase in power level affects all sites equal and did not affect the

5 relative ranking of sites. The criteria were grouped into four major categories: (1) economic,

6 (2) engineering, (3) environmental, and (4) socioeconomic (see Table 8-1). The economic

7 category was given a relative weight of 40 percent by Dominion, and the other three categories

8 were weighted 20 percent each. A ranking or score for each of the 45 criteria was assigned by

9 Dominion (from 0 to 5, with 5 being the most favorable). The relative importance of each

10 criterion to the overall evaluation was established by assigning weights that reflected the

11 collective judgment of Dominion’s experts involved in the process. The sum of the weighted

12 scores for all criteria represented a total site merit score. The preferred site was chosen based

13 on the highest site merit score. Based on its study, Dominion found the North Anna site to be

14 the preferred ESP site followed by the Savannah River, Portsmouth, and Surry sites,

15 respectively (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). (In this report, Dominion and Bechtel evaluated a

16 fourth site, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (now known as the

17 Idaho National Laboratory) near Idaho Falls, Idaho, but Dominion did not consider it in this ESP

18 action because it was outside the ROI.) Accordingly, Dominion submitted its ESP application

19 for the North Anna site. However, Dominion concluded that all four sites are suitable locations

20 for deployment of new nuclear power plants.

21

22 Among the issues reviewed by Dominion in its site selection process were cooling water use,

23 ground water, aquatic and terrestrial resources transmission lines, socioeconomic, land use, air

24 quality, and population density. The range of issues evaluated by Dominion in its site selection

25 process was sufficient for the staff to use to determine that Dominion had employed a

26 reasonable site selection processthat resulted in identifying reasonable alternative sites within

27 Dominion’s ROI.

28

29 8.3.3 NRC’s Evaluation of Alternative Sites

30

31 The staff independently performed an evaluation of the alternative sites identified by Dominion,

32 i.e., the Surry, Portsmouth, and Savannah River sites. Because the sites were evaluated at an

33 overview level using readily available information rather than using the more detailed approach

34 applied to the North Anna ESP site, which included independent analysis and modeling as 

35

36 necessary, this evaluation is viewed as a “reconnaissance” level evaluation. All three

37 alternative sites previously had been characterized by their operators, but the basis for these

38 characterizations was not specific to an ESP action. In the Study of Potential Sites for the

39 Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States, Dominion and Bechtel evaluated DOE

40 sites at Portsmouth, Savannah River, and Idaho Falls along with the Dominion Surry site

41

42
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 8-1. Dominion Site Screening Criteria

2

3 Economic Engineering Environmental Socioeconomic

4 Electricity Projections Site Size Terrestrial Habitat Present/Planned Land

Use

5 Transmission System Site Topography Terrestrial Vegetation Demography

6 Stakeholder Support Environmentally

Sensitive Areas

Aquatic Habitat/

Organisms

Socioeconomic Benefits

7 Site Development Costs Emergency Planning Groundwater Agricultural/Industrial

8 Labor Supply Surface Water Aesthetics

9 Transportation Access Population Historic/Archaeological

10 Security Transportation Network

11 Hazardous Land Use Environmental Justice

12 Ease for

Decommissioning

13 Water Rights and Air

Quality Permits

14 Regulatory

15 Schedule

16 Geologic Hazards

17 Site-Specific Safe

Shutdown Earthquake

18 Capable Faults

19 Liquefaction Potential

20 Bearing Material

21 Near-Surface Material

22 Groundwater

23 Flooding Potential

24 Ice Formation

25 Cooling Water Source

26 Temperature and

Moisture

27 Winds

28 Rainfall

29 Snow

30 Atmospheric Dispersion

31

32 with relation to economic, engineering, environmental, and sociological factors using

33 preliminary advanced reactor design information (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). This report,

34 funded by DOE, concluded that the three DOE sites and the two Dominion sites (North Anna

35 and Surry) were suitable for potentially siting new nuclear power plants. This report also

36 concluded that the North Anna site ranked highest overall of the sites evaluated and scored

37 slightly higher with regard to environmental issues than the Surry, Portsmouth, and Savanna

38 River sites. 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-10 July 2006

1 Dominion reviewed the alternative site selection evaluation to determine the impact of the

2 change to the cooling system on North Anna site merit score. Dominion determined that the

3 changes to the cooling system design had minimal impact on the North Anna site ranking

4 versus the alternative sites and did not affect its overall conclusion (Dominion 2006). The

5 increase in power level affects all sites equally and did not affect the relative ranking of sites.

6

7 In its evaluation of the alternative sites, the staff toured each of sites and discussed topics

8 specifically relevant to the ESP evaluation process including potential sources of cooling

9 water, transmission line access, local ecology, and socioeconomics with site experts. The

10 staff relied primarily on direct observation, information provided by the site experts, DOE

11 environmental reviews on the Portsmouth and Savannah River Federal sites, and site-specific

12 information provided in the Dominion and Bechtel report for DOE (Dominion and Bechtel

13 2002). In the case of the Surry alternative site, the staff relied on the Generic Environmental

14 Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 6 Regarding Surry

15 Power Station, Units 1 and 2 for much of the site background documentation (NRC 2002). 

16 The staff also reviewed reports from relevant State and Federal agencies and other regional

17 information sources in evaluating the alternative sites.

18

19 8.3.4 Greenfield and Brownfield Alternative Sites

20

21 Dominion also considered other existing nuclear power plant, greenfield, and brownfield sites

22 within the ROI. In as much as sites of current nuclear facilities have space for additional units,

23 the greenfield and brownfield sites were determined not to be environmentally preferable

24 because of the large land area that would need to be disturbed to build a new plant and to

25 support necessary transmission line rights-of-way. The associated land use, ecological

26 resource impacts, and the aesthetic impacts were determined to be large in comparison to

27 impacts at alternative sites with existing nuclear power plants.

28

29 The staff reviewed Dominion’s alternative site-selection process as it applies to greenfield and

30 brownfield sites and concludes that the approach used and the findings of impacts are

31 reasonable.

32

33 8.4 Generic Issues Consistent Among Alternative Sites

34

35 The power increase for Units 3 and 4 is consistent among the proposed and alternative sites. 

36 In evaluating the alternative sites, the NRC staff found that certain impact areas would not

37 vary significantly among sites, and as a result, would not affect the evaluation of whether an

38 alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. These impact areas include

39 air quality, nonradiological health, and radiological health during construction and operations

40 for members of the public and workers, and radiological health during construction and

41 operations for biota. The staff evaluated the fuel cycle impacts for the proposed and alternate
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 sites in Chapter 6 and Appendix G of this EIS and found the impacts to be SMALL at all sites. 

2 Decommissioning impacts were analyzed in Chapter 6 for all sites and were determined to be

3 unresolved, because the reactor design has not been selected at the ESP stage. The impacts

4 from decommissioning are likely to affect all sites equally. In Chapter 5 the staff concluded

5 that severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) are unresolved for North Anna ESP site,

6 because the reactor design is not known at the ESP stage. SAMAs are also unresolved at all

7 the alternative sites for the same reason. The analysis of SAMAs is likely to show the same

8 result at all sites. In addition, the impacts to public service facilities (e.g., schools, water, and

9 wastewater treatment) would not materially impact whether an alternative site is selected or

10 not. As a result, air quality, health impacts, and radiation exposures are not evaluated as part

11 of the site-specific alternatives analysis, but rather are discussed generically in the following

12 sections.

13

14 8.4.1 Air Quality Impacts

15

16 During construction at any of the proposed alternative ESP sites, it is expected that some

17 minor air quality impacts would occur in terms of fugitive dust emissions from general

18 construction activities and the potential for elevated ambient levels of criteria pollutants

19 caused by automotive emissions from the workforce traffic and emissions from construction

20 equipment. The criteria pollutants of concern would be particulate matter less than 10

microns in diameter (PM10 21 ), reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and

22 sulfur dioxides from combustion engines of the construction equipment.

23

24 Air pollutants and fugitive dust would be emitted from operations of construction equipment

25 and earth-moving and material-handling activities, respectively. In addition, operation of other

26 equipment for hauling debris, equipment, and supplies on unpaved roads will produce fugitive

27 dust emissions. Estimation of direct and indirect emissions is beyond the scope of the

28 reconnaissance-level information. However, all activities would be conducted in accordance

29 with State air quality agency requirements for visible and fugitive dust emissions as well as

30 emission standards for mobile sources. If the Surry site were chosen as the alternative site,

31 the same requirements set forth for the North Anna ESP site would apply because both are in

32 the Commonwealth of Virginia. If the Savannah River Site were chosen, then requirements

33 established by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control would

34 apply. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency would be consulted if the Portsmouth site

35 were chosen. In addition, if construction activities include burning of construction materials, a

36 permit would need to be secured from the State, and Dominion would need to contact local

37 county officials to determine which local ordinances, if any, must be followed.

38

39 Dominion estimated that during construction activities, approximately 5000 workers would be

40 divided between two 10-hr shifts (Dominion 2006). Using an assumption of 1.8 workers per

41 vehicle, this would represent 2800 additional vehicles per day traveling on roads into and out

42 of the proposed site (Dominion 2006). For any of the proposed alternative sites, the estimate
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-12 July 2006

1 of work is similar to that proposed for the North Anna ESP site. Some roadways leading into

2 the site chosen may or may not experience congestion. This situation will impact the local

3 ambient air quality because of emissions from vehicles both during normal operation and

4 during congestion periods when vehicles are idling. However, because the current ambient

5 air quality pollutant levels at the proposed alternative sites are well below current national

6 standards, the resulting impact is estimated to be insignificant and would not create an air

7 quality impact. Therefore, the staff concludes that air quality impacts from construction at any

8 of the alternative sites would be SMALL, temporary and similar to those at the proposed site.

9

10 The meteorological and air quality impacts would be limited to additional nonradiological

11 pollutants during the operation of the wet cooling portion of the combination wet and dry

12 cooling system, auxiliary boilers, emergency generators, and emissions from onsite service

13 vehicles. The amount of pollutants emitted to the atmosphere is anticipated to be less than

14 [metric equivalent] (100 tons/yr) for any alternative site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) and is

15 considered insignificant. However, Dominion would require approval under the existing

16 Federal, State, or local air quality laws and regulations on new sources for any activities

17 undertaken.

18

19 The current status of compliance regarding criteria pollutants in the regions surrounding the

20 alternative sites is the following (EPA 2005; 70 FR 30396, 70 FR 33771):

21

22 & Various areas around the Surry site have been designated as non-attainment areas

23 regarding the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8-hr ozone level

24 requirements. This includes James City and Isle of Wight Counties along with the City

25 of Williamsburg.

26

27 & No non-attainment areas were identified in the counties near the Portsmouth site.

28

29 & None of the counties around the Savannah River Site have been designated as

30 non-attainment. However, an Early Action Compact (EAC) was developed among the

31 counties in the region called the Lower Savannah Area; this includes Aiken, Allendale,

32 and Barnwell Counties that surround the Savannah River Site as well as Columbia and

33 Richmond counties in Georgia. The concept of EACs was developed by the EPA for

34 those areas that were classified as non-attainment with regard to the new 8-hr ozone

35 criteria pollutant level, to delay official designation as non-attainment and allow the

36 areas to develop their own means to achieve attainment. Some EACs, such as the

37 Lower Savannah Area EAC, were established and are participating in the EAC review

38 and evaluation process to demonstrate their support of cleaner air statewide including

39 ozone pollutant levels.

40

41 Although there are some existing air quality issues near the Surry and Savannah River

42 alternative sites, this is not expected to be a limiting factor in considering these sites, and the
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 staff concludes that the air quality impacts from operation at any of the alternative sites would

2 be SMALL and similar to those at the proposed site.

3

4 8.4.2 Nonradiological Health Impacts

5

6 Nonradiological health impacts from construction of the proposed nuclear power plants on

7 the construction workers at all the alternative sites would be similar to those evaluated in

8 Section 4.8. They would include noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, and dust emissions. During the

9 plant construction phase, activities would comply with applicable State regulations regarding

10 fugitive dust emissions and air pollution control. The alternative sites considered by Dominion

11 are in rural areas, and construction impacts on the surrounding population would be minimal. 

12 Accordingly, the staff concludes that health impacts to construction workers resulting from the

13 construction of two new units at any of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

14

15 Occupational health impacts to operational employees would be expected to be the same for

16 all the alternative sites. Thermophilic microorganisms would not be a concern at alternative

17 sites for any facilities using either a wet or a combination wet and dry cooling process

18 because the temperatures in the water bodies receiving the cooling system discharges are

19 below those known to be conducive to the optimal growth and survival of thermophilic

20 pathogens. Health impacts to workers from noise and electromagnetic fields would be similar

21 among the sites. Noise and electromagnetic fields would be monitored and controlled in

22 accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. 

23 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the occupational health impacts to

24 construction or operations employees of proposed units at any of the alternative sites would

25 be SMALL.

26

27 With respect to transmission systems, the potential exists for impacts to members of the

28 public from operation of the transmission system in terms of electrical shock, electromagnetic

29 field exposure, noise, and aesthetics. The impacts at the alternative sites are expected to be

30 similar to those evaluated in Section 5.8.

31

32 8.4.2.1 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

33

34 All transmission lines, either constructed or used as part of an existing nuclear site, are

35 designed to standards established by the most current version of the National Electrical

36 Safety Code (NESC) (IEEE 2001), which is the standard that is applicable to the systems and

37 equipment operated by utilities. The areas of particular concern are (1) the potential to create

38 an electric shock that could disrupt the operation of pacemakers and health assistance

39 devices and (2) the potential for chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with

40 the transport of electric current through large conductors, such as high-voltage transmission

41 lines.

42
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-14 July 2006

1 Currently, to limit the potential for electric shock, NESC requires transmission lines to be

2 designed so that electrostatic effects from operation do not create a steady-state current that

3 exceeds 5 mA root mean square. For the alternative sites considered, it is likely that NESC

4 requirements for preventing electric shock from induced current would be met, and the impact

5 to the public would be insignificant. 

6

7 8.4.2.2 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

8

9 There has been considerable debate in scientific circles regarding the potential impact from

10 exposure to 60-Hz electromagnetic fields resulting from energized transmission lines. The

11 potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and consensus results

12 are still outstanding. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs

13 related research through the DOE. A recent NIEHS report contains the following conclusion

14 (NIEHS 1999):

15

16 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field)

17 exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

18 exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

19 warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

20 United States uses electricity and is exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is

21 warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated

22 community on means aimed at reducing exposure. The NIEHS does not believe that other

23 cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently

24 warrant concern.

25

26 This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to consider the potential impact as significant

27 to the public. In any event, the impacts would be similar at the proposed site and any of the

28 alternative sites.

29

30 8.4.3 Radiological Health Impacts

31

32 Exposure pathways for gaseous and liquid effluents from the proposed new Units 3 and 4 at

33 the North Anna ESP site would be similar for the alternative locations. Gaseous effluent

34 pathways would include external exposure to the airborne plume, external exposure to

35 contaminated soil, inhalation of airborne activity, and ingestion of contaminated agricultural

36 products. Liquid effluent pathways would include ingestion of aquatic foods, ingestion of

37 drinking water, external exposure to shoreline sediments, and external exposure to water

38 through boating and swimming.

39
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.4.3.1 Radiation Doses and Health Impacts to Members of the Public

2

3 Section 5.9 of the SDEIS provides an estimate of doses to the maximally exposed individual

4 and the general population at the North Anna ESP site for both the liquid effluent and gaseous

5 effluent pathways during operation. The same bounding liquid and gaseous effluent releases

6 would be used to evaluate doses to the maximally exposed individual and the population at

7 each alternative site. However, there would be differences in the estimated doses at each of

8 the sites. The differences would result from the use of site-specific atmospheric and water

9 dispersion data, different exposure pathways, and site-specific population data for the dose

10 calculations.

11

12 Section 5.9 shows that the estimated dose to the maximally exposed individual at the North

13 Anna ESP site would be well within the design objectives (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I). 

14 Considering the differences in pathways analyzed, atmospheric and water dispersion factors

15 and population, doses estimated to the maximally exposed individual for the alternative sites

16 would also be expected to be well within the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I design objectives. 

17 Population dose within 80 km (50 mi) of these alternative sites would be expected to be small

18 compared to the population dose from natural background radiation.

19

20 Based on the forgoing, the staff concludes that the proposed system would likely result in

21 annual doses to the public well within regulatory limits, and there would be no observable

22 health impact to the public from construction or normal operation of the proposed North Anna

23 ESP facility or from any of the alternative sites. Therefore, the staff concludes that radiation

24 doses and resultant health impacts from construction or operation of the proposed new

25 nuclear units at the alternative sites would be SMALL.

26

27 8.4.3.2 Occupational Doses to Workers

28

29 Doses to construction workers during construction of the two proposed units were estimated

30 and compared against the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20. These doses were well below

31 limits for members of the public. In addition, annual collective doses were estimated and

32 appeared realistic and reasonable. Occupational doses to workers during construction would

33 be expected to be approximately the same for the alternative sites as for the proposed North

34 Anna ESP site. Therefore, the staff concludes that health impacts from radiological doses to

35 construction workers would be SMALL.

36

37 Occupational doses to workers during operations would be expected to be approximately the

38 same for the proposed ESP facilities at the alternative sites as for the North Anna ESP site. 

39 The same (accumulated) annual occupational dose estimates of 1.5 person-Sv

40 (150 person-rem) would be expected for all the proposed units regardless of the site location. 

41 The staff concludes that the occupational radiation doses from operation of the proposed units

42 at the alternative sites would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-16 July 2006

1 8.4.3.3 Impacts to Biota

2

3 Table 5-12 provides the annual whole body dose estimates to surrogate biota species for the

4 two proposed units at the North Anna ESP site. The staff reviewed the available information

5 relative to the radiological impact on biota, other than humans, and performed an independent

6 estimate of dose to the biota. The staff concludes that no measurable radiological impact on

7 populations of biota would be expected from the radiation and radioactive material released to

8 the environment as a result of the construction or routine operation of the proposed units, or of

9 operation at any of the alternative sites. The staff concludes that the impacts to biota of

10 radiation doses from the construction or operation of the proposed units at the alternative sites

11 would be SMALL.

12

13 8.4.4 Postulated Accidents

14

15 A suite of design basis accidents (DBAs) has been considered for the new nuclear units at the

16 North Anna ESP site. The evaluation involved calculation of doses for specified periods at the

17 exclusion area and low population zone boundaries, and comparison of those doses with

18 doses based on regulatory limits and guidelines. Similar analyses have not been conducted

19 for the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, differences in the results

20 would be expected to be caused by differences in meteorological conditions and distances to

21 the site boundaries. The release characteristics would be similar at all sites because the

22 reactor designs are the same.

23

24 For the North Anna ESP site meteorology, the doses for each accident sequence considered

25 were well below the corresponding regulatory limits and guidelines. Because the general

26 climatological conditions at the North Anna ESP site are sufficiently similar to the conditions at

27 the alternative sites, it is highly unlikely that differences in local meteorological conditions

28 would be sufficient to cause doses from DBAs for new nuclear units at any of the alternative

29 sites to exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. Similarly, because each of the alternative sites

30 is located at a nuclear facility (although not a necessarily a nuclear reactor site), it is unlikely

31 that differences in distances to the exclusion area and low population boundaries would be

32 sufficient to cause doses from DBAs for new nuclear units at any of the alternative sites to

33 exceed regulatory limits or guidelines. Similarly, doses at the alternative site are unlikely to be

34 significantly lower than doses estimated at the North Anna ESP site. Therefore, the staff

35 concludes that for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impact of DBAs at

36 each of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

37

38 A detailed analysis of the potential consequences of severe accidents for the postulated

39 plants has been conducted for the North Anna ESP site. Similar analyses have not been

40 conducted for the alternative sites. Had such evaluations been conducted, the differences in

41 the results would likely have been limited to site-specific factors such as meteorological
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-17 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 conditions, population distribution, and land-use distribution. The release characteristics

2 would be similar at all sites because the reactor designs would be the same. 

3

4 The probability-weighted consequences estimated for severe accidents for the proposed units

5 at the North Anna ESP site would be well below the consequences estimated for severe

6 accidents at current generation reactors (see Section 5.10). This result suggests that, as at

7 the North Anna ESP site, the consequences of severe accidents at any of the alternative sites

8 would be less than the consequences of a severe accident for a current-generation operating

9 plant at each site. These risks are well below the NRC safety goals. In addition, the

10 Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents

11 is SMALL for all existing plants (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart B, Table B-1). On this basis, the

12 staff concludes that for the purposes of consideration of alternative sites, the impact of severe

13 accidents at each of the alternative sites would be SMALL.

14

15 8.5 Evaluation of Surry Power Station Site

16

17 The Surry site, operated by Dominion, was recently evaluated in a supplemental EIS prepared

18 in connection with a license renewal application (NRC 2002). The analysis of environmental

19 impacts for this section of the SDEIS draws from the data and conclusions gathered in the

20 licence renewal process, the analysis provided by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), and the

21 staff’s independent review.

22

23 The following assumptions were made by the staff in the review of the Surry site as an

24 alternative to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

25

26 & The units would use closed-cycle cooling.

27

28 & Mechanical draft towers would most likely be employed to avoid visual aspects of

29 natural draft towers.

30

31 & The existing intake structures would be used with possible modifications to

32 accommodate the proposed additional two units.

33

34 & The existing discharge canal would be used for cooling-water discharge.

35

36 & The land for additional reactors would be within the existing Surry site.

37

38 No additional transmission lines are assumed to be needed for power transmission for the

39 proposed alternative units.

40

41 The station is on the Gravel Neck Peninsula on the south side of the James River, in an

42 unincorporated portion of Surry County, Virginia. The station is approximately 40 km (25 mi)

43 upstream of the point where the James River enters Chesapeake Bay. The James River is
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-18 July 2006

1 about 4 km (2.5 mi) wide at the Surry site. The Surry site, shown in Figure 8.1, occupies

2 approximately 340 ha (840 ac).

3

4 The Surry site is 10 km (7 mi) south of Colonial Williamsburg and 13 km (8 mi) east-northeast

5 of the town of Surry. Jamestown Island, part of the Colonial National Historic Park, is to the

6 northwest on the northern shore of the James River. The area within 16 km (10 mi) of the site

7 includes Surry, Isle of Wight, York, and James City Counties, and parts of the cities of

8 Newport News and Williamsburg. The counties surrounding the Surry site are predominantly

9 rural, characterized by farmland, woods, and marshy wetlands. East and south of the site, at

10 distances between 16 and 48 km (10 and 30 mi), are the urban areas of Hampton, Newport

11 News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth, Virginia, and others, collectively known as Hampton Roads.

12

13 The site has two Westinghouse-designed light-water reactors, each with a design rating for a

14 gross electrical power output of 855 megawatts-electric (MW(e)). The Surry site was originally

15 planned for four units. Construction permits were issued for Units 3 and 4; however, the units

16 were never built. Cooling for the existing Surry site reactors is provided by a once-through 

17 cooling system to remove waste heat from the reactor-steam electric system. Cooling water is

18 withdrawn from and returned to the James River.

19

20 Distinctive features of the Surry site include the 40-m (135-ft)-diameter cylindrical containment

21 buildings with hemispherical domes and the cooling canal. When the plant was designed,

22 there was a concern about the containment structures being visible from historic Jamestown

23 Island; consequently, the containment buildings were designed so the elevation would be

24 sufficiently low so as to blend with the surrounding forested lands. In addition to the two

25 nuclear reactors and their turbine building, intake and discharge canals, and auxiliary

26 buildings, the Surry site is the location of Dominion’s Gravel Neck Combustion Turbine

27 Station, a switchyard, and an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

28

29 Gravel Neck Peninsula is at the upstream limit of saltwater incursion to the James River;

30 upstream of Gravel Neck is tidal river and downstream is an estuary. Surry extends as a band

31 across the peninsula. Steep bluffs drop to the river on either side and to the tip of the

32 peninsula. Hog Island Wildlife Management Area, a Commonwealth of Virginia wildlife

33 management area, is located on the tip of the Gravel Neck Peninsula, and contains primarily

34 tidal marshes. Areas within 16 km (10 mi) of the site to the west, south, and east are

35 predominantly rural, characterized by farmland, forests, and marshy wetlands. The tidal flats 

36 and marshes of Hog Island State Wildlife Management Area provide habitat for large numbers

37 and numerous species of migratory shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl. It also provides

38 habitat for numerous amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and upland game birds.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-19 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Figure 8-1. Surry Vicinity Map

2
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-20 July 2006

1 The terrestrial community at the Surry site consists of remnants of mixed pine-hardwood

2 forests interspersed with early succession fields and developed areas. Wildlife species, found

3 primarily in the forested portions of the site, are those typically found in upland forests of

4 coastal Virginia. With the exception of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Federally

5 and State-listed as threatened), terrestrial species that are Federally and/or State-listed as

6 endangered or threatened are not known to exist at the Surry site or along the rights-of-way of

7 its associated transmission lines (NRC 2002). The barking tree frog (Hyla gratiosa), State8 listed as threatened, is believed to be in the general vicinity but has not been observed at the

9 Surry site.

10

11 The Surry site is located in one of the strongest economic areas in Virginia, and Dominion is

12 the major employer in Surry County (NRC 2002). At present, because of the location of the

13 Surry Power Station in Surry County, Dominion has a significant impact on the economic well14 being of the county.

15

16 The following sections examine the major environmental issues reviewed by the staff. 

17 Section 8.5.1 evaluates land-use issues, including the site and transmission lines. 

18 Section 8.5.2 examines hydrology, water use, and water quality. Sections 8.5.3 and 8.5.4

19 evaluate the terrestrial and aquatic resources including endangered species, and Section

20 8.5.5 evaluates socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources and environmental justice

21 issues.

22

23 8.5.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

24

25 Similar to the North Anna ESP site, the Surry site was originally designed for the construction

26 of four reactor units. Surry Units 3 and 4 were to be constructed to the east of Unit 2 where

27 the existing construction building and parking area are now situated. The original plans called

28 for Units 3 and 4 to be offset from Units 1 and 2, with the turbine building roughly in line with

29 the Units 1 and 2 containment buildings. The containment buildings for Units 3 and 4 were

30 originally to be located farther north of the intake canal than the existing Units 1 and 2

31 containment buildings.

32

33 For purposes of its ESP application, Dominion determined that the originally planned location

34 for Units 3 and 4 continues to be the best choice for two proposed nuclear units at the Surry

35 site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The proposed location of new nuclear generating units at

36 the Surry site is shown in Figure 8-2 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The proposed location is

37 east of the radwaste facility and includes construction, maintenance, and miscellaneous

38 buildings and the uncleared area west of the ISFSI. Relocation of these existing buildings to

39 another onsite location would therefore be necessary. The existing cleared area measures

40 approximately 300 m (900 ft) in the east-west direction. According to Dominion and Bechtel

41 (2002), an additional 300 m (900 ft) could be cleared to the east, while still maintaining
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-21 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Figure 8-2. Surry Power Station Site

2

3
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-22 July 2006

1 approximately 150 m (500 ft) to the ISFSI outer fence. An earthen berm around the

2 ISFSI would likely be constructed to reduce construction and occupational radiation doses. 

3 Any expansion of the ISFSI would be to the east, away from the nuclear power units. In the

4 north-south direction, the cleared area measures approximately 350 m (1100 ft), including the

5 contractor parking area. An additional 30 to 45 m (100 to 150 ft) could be cleared without

6 encroaching too close to the north site boundary. The areas to the north and east of the ISFSI

7 could also be used, if needed.

8

9 The Surry site is in a district classified as M-2 General Industrial District by Surry County

10 (Surry County 1975). Location of nuclear power plants and associated radioactive

11 waste-handling facilities is permitted as a conditional use in this district upon approval by the

12 County Board of Supervisors. Dominion has received such approval for Surry Units 1 and 2,

13 but would need additional approval for proposed units.

14

15 The Surry site has an existing exclusion area that is consistent with NRC regulations. New

16 nuclear units sited at the Surry site would likely have the same exclusion area as the existing

17 units.

18

19 The residential locations of employees currently working at Surry are shown in Table 8-2

20 (NRC 2002). Approximately 60 percent of the employees live in Isle of Wight, James City, or

21 Surry Counties, or the City of Newport News, Virginia. The remaining 40 percent of

22 employees reside in other counties and cities within Virginia and adjacent states. The staff

23 assumes that the residences of the workforce needed to construct two units at the Surry site

24 would be similarly dispersed. Offsite land-use impacts associated with construction of the

25 proposed units would likely be relatively limited, given the temporary nature of the

26 construction (about 5 years). Construction of new rental housing and/or manufactured home

27 and recreational vehicle parks could be expected to accommodate construction workers. 

28

29 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) requires

30 that applicants seeking a Federal permit to conduct an activity that affects a coastal zone area

31 provide to the permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the

32 enforceable policies of the State’s coastal zone program. Surry is within the Virginia coastal

33 resources management area (VDEQ 2004). If construction of new nuclear units at Surry were

34 planned, Dominion would need to submit a certification to the Virginia Department of

35 Environmental Quality (VDEQ) stating that construction of the new units is consistent with the

36 Virginia Coastal Management Program. This submission would be reviewed by VDEQ.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-23 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

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

2 County/City 3

4 County/Independent

5 City

Number of

Personnel

Percentage of Total

Personnel Cumulative Percentage

6 212 24 24 Isle of Wight County

7 98 11 35 James City County

8 97 11 46 Newport News (city)

9 90 10 57 Surry County

10 71 8 65 Hampton (city)

11 52 6 71 Suffolk (city)

12 42 5 75 Chesapeake (city)

13 25 3 78 Chesterfield County

14 23 3 81 Portsmouth (city)

15 21 2 83 Virginia Beach (city)

16 20 2 85 York County

17 19 2 88 Prince George County

18 18 2 90 Sussex County

19 11 1 91 Southampton County

20 79 9 100 Others

21 878 100 Total

22 Source: NRC 2002.

23

24 New land-use impacts associated with operation of new nuclear generating units at the Surry

25 site would be expected to be limited. Some new housing in surrounding communities would

26 likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The incremental

27 property tax revenue from the new units could affect future land use in Surry County as a

28 result of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue. In the supplemental

29 EIS related to renewal of the operating licenses for Surry Units 1 and 2, the staff determined

30 that tax revenue impacts on land use during the 20-year license renewal term would be small

31 (NRC 2002). The staff concludes that although the new units would be licensed for 40 years,

32 the impacts would be similar. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the land-use

33 impacts on the site and vicinity of construction and operation would be SMALL.

34

35 The transmission line rights-of-way from the Surry site consist of three 500-kV transmission

36 lines from the breaker, a 500-kV switchyard, and six 230-kV transmission lines from the 230-

37 kV switchyard. The lines are not at or near capacity (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). For the

38 addition of two advanced boiling water reactor-size units, it appears that the 500-kV

39 transmission line rights-of-way would be able to transmit the new load; however, system-study

40 (load-flow) modeling of the transmission lines and the new nuclear units would need to be

41 performed to be certain whether any additional lines are required from the site. Based on the

42 evaluation conducted by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), it is likely that no additional electrical
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-24 July 2006

1 transmission line rights-of-way would be needed to transmit the power generated by additional

2 units at the Surry site to the regional power grid. This impact would be similar to land-use

3 impacts for construction and operation in the transmission line rights-of-way and offsite areas

4 associated with the North Anna ESP site. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the staff

5 concludes that the land-use impacts of transmission system construction and operation would

6 be SMALL.

7

8 8.5.2 Water Use and Quality

9

10 The Surry site is located adjacent to the James River estuary. The consumptive use of water

11 to support mechanical-draft cooling towers for the proposed units would be undetectable

12 relative to the supply available in the estuary. Discharges to the James River could contain

13 water treatment chemicals that would be subject to regulation by the VDEQ to ensure

14 protection of the environment. The additional small amount of heat from blowdown water

15 would likely be undetectable if commingled with the once-through discharge of Surry Units 1

16 and 2. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts to water use

17 and water supply at the Surry site from construction and operation of two new units would be

18 SMALL.

19

20 8.5.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

21

22 A maximum of approximately 200 ha (500 ac) of land would be disturbed to develop two

23 additional units with cooling towers at the Surry site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Much of

24 this area has been previously disturbed during development of the existing nuclear units and

25 associated facilities. Habitats in the area are a mixture of industrial areas, early successional

26 grasslands, and remnant mixed pine-hardwood forests. There are no threatened,

27 endangered, or other important terrestrial species known to exist within the Surry alternative

28 site, although Federally threatened bald eagles are known to nest near the Surry site. 

29 Federally and State-listed threatened or endangered species reported to occur in Surry

30 County are listed in Table 8-3.

31

32 Potential construction impacts include erosion, dust generation, and noise which are typical of

33 large construction projects. These impacts could be mitigated using standard industrial

34 procedures or best management practices. Standard practices to limit potential construction

35 impacts including silt fences to control sedimentation and water sprays to limit dust generation

36 should protect wetlands and other ecological resources in the site vicinity.

37

38 Construction noise could affect bald eagles nesting in the vicinity of the site. Prior to initiation

39 of major construction activities, the presence and distribution of bald eagle nests in relation to

40 the location of planned facilities would need to be determined. If eagle nests are in the area, 
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-25 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 8-3. Federally and State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species

2 Reported Within Surry County, Virginia

3

4 Scientific Name Species Federal

Status

State Status

5 Birds

6 bald eagle T T Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Lanius ludovicianus(a) 7 loggerhead shrike SC

8 peregrine falcon T Falco peregrinus

9 Mammals

10 eastern big-eared bat E Plecotus rafinesquii macrotis

11 Amphibians

12 barking tree frog T Hyla gratiosa

13 Mabee’s salamander T Ambystoma mabeei

14 Insects

15 Diana fritillary SC Speyeria diana

16 Vascular Plants

17 sensitive joint-vetch T T Aeschynomene virginica

18 T = threatened, E= endangered, SC = species of concern.

19 Sources: VDGIF 2004; VDCR 2004.

20 (a) The migrant subspecies L.I. migrans is a Federal species of concern; all loggerhead shrikes in Virginia are

21 State threatened.

22

23 mitigation measures would need to be developed. According to the Bald Eagle Protection

24 Guidelines for Virginia (FWS and VDGIF 2000), no major construction activities should occur 

25 within 400 m (1300 ft) of an active eagle nest, and loud noises (such as blasting) should not

26 occur during the nesting/breeding season. No active nests currently exist within 400 m

27 (1300 ft) of the Surry construction site.

28

29 The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operation of new nuclear units, including operation

30 of the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on terrestrial threatened or

31 endangered species as follows. If new reactor units are constructed, very little usable habitat

32 would remain within the development area at the Surry site. Operation of additional units

33 would typically result in some noise generation, salt drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. 

34 Noise would likely be typical of operating reactor units and cooling towers, which have been

35 found to be a SMALL impact (NRC 1996). However, it is possible that the such noise could

36 deter bald eagles from nesting near the site. There are no sensitive habitat areas adjacent to

37 the site that would be adversely affected by noise from plant operations. The terrestrial

38 vegetation in the immediate vicinity of he Surry site is not believed to be unusually sensitive to

39 salt drift, fogging, or icing (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). However, because the cooling tower

40 makeup water from the James River estuary is brackish (up to 17 parts per thousand of salt),

41 the cooling tower drift could have higher salt content than at freshwater sites. Because it is

42 likely that mechanical-draft towers with their much shorter towers would be used rather than
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-26 July 2006

1 natural-draft towers, bird collisions would not be likely (NRC 1996). Based on the above

2 evaluation, the staff concludes that the impacts of operating two new units on terrestrial

3 threatened and endangered species would be SMALL.

4

5 According to the analysis performed by Dominion and Bechtel (2002), no additional

6 transmission lines would be needed to transmit electrical power generated by new units at the

7 Surry site to the regional distribution grid. The staff based its evaluation on the assumption

8 that new transmission lines would not be required to support two new units. Therefore,

9 maintenance and operation of the existing transmission line rights-of-way would likely not be

10 affected by two new nuclear units at the Surry site. NRC determined that the impacts of

11 continued operation of these transmission lines and maintenance of the rights-of-way would

12 have a small impact on terrestrial ecosystems (NRC 2002). However, some monitoring and

13 mitigation for nesting bald eagles might be warranted.

14

15 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impact to terrestrial ecological

16 resources of both construction and operation of two new units and associated cooling systems

17 and transmission line rights-of-way at the Surry site would be SMALL. However, some

18 monitoring and mitigation for nesting bald eagles might be warranted

19

20 8.5.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

21

22 The aquatic environment near the Surry site is associated with the James River. The James

23 River rises in the Allegheny Mountains near the Virginia/West Virginia border and flows in a

24 southeasterly direction to Hampton Roads (that area of Virginia that includes Newport News,

25 Norfolk, Portsmouth, Hampton, and surrounding cities and towns), where it enters

26 Chesapeake Bay. The James River flows 692 km (430 mi) from its headwaters (the

27 confluence of the Cowpasture and Jackson Rivers) to Chesapeake Bay, crossing portions of

28 the Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain physiographic regions. The

river drains an area of 25,900 km2 (10,000 mi2 29 ), which is just over 25 percent of the total land

30 area of Virginia. Overall, about 71 percent of the basin is forested, 23 percent is agricultural,

31 and 6 percent is urban. The lower James River flows through the Coastal Plain of Virginia,

32 which is virtually flat in tidewater areas, generally ranging from 0 to 30 m (0 to 100 ft) above

33 mean sea level (MSL).

34

35 Two major tributaries enter the river between Richmond and Hampton Roads. The

36 Appomattox River enters the James River from the south, in the stretch of river between

37 Richmond and Petersburg. The Chickahominy River enters from the north, just west of

38 Williamsburg. Although the James River downstream of Richmond was severely polluted for

39 many years, the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and implementation of associated

40 regulations, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, have reduced the

41 flow of point-source pollutants into the James River watershed. Pollution prevention

42 measures and programs carried out by industrial entities in the area have further reduced
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-27 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 chemical discharges to the James River. At present, nutrients from sewage treatment

2 facilities, agricultural operations, and urban runoff and bacteria from combined sewer systems

3 (those that combine storm water and sewage) are considered the chief threats to the water

4 quality of the lower James River.

5

6 In the vicinity of the Surry site, the James River is approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) wide. Cobham

7 Bay lies west (just upstream) of the Gravel Neck Peninsula and represents the approximate

8 limit of saltwater incursion, effectively dividing the James River into a tidally influenced

9 freshwater river upstream (to the fall line at Richmond) and an estuary downstream. The U.S.

10 Army Corps of Engineers historically has dredged the main channel of the lower James River

11 so ocean-going vessels can proceed upriver as far as Hopewell, approximately 80 river km

12 (50 river mi) northwest of the Surry site.

13

14 The lower James River supports a diverse assemblage of finfish species, ranging from

15 exclusively marine species near Chesapeake Bay to exclusively freshwater species at the fall

16 line in Richmond. Approximately 80 fish species are known from the brackish portion of the

17 James River downstream of Surry, with another 40 or so species recorded from the tidally

18 influenced freshwater portion of the river upstream of the Surry site. Distributions and

19 abundances of particular species vary between seasons and years, depending on salinity

20 differences and natural fluctuations in fish populations.

21

22 Dominion’s predecessors conducted extensive surveys of James River aquatic biota in the

23 1970s. While preparing its ER for the ESP application, Dominion contacted the Virginia

24 Institute of Marine Sciences for more recent information (Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences

25 2001). The following paragraphs describe the historic Virginia Electric and Power Company

26 (Virginia Power) data and the more recent data collected by the Virginia Institute of Marine

27 Sciences.

28

29 From 1970 to 1978, Virginia Power collected 63 fish species in monthly haul seine surveys

30 conducted to characterize fish populations of the shore zone in the vicinity of the Surry site. 

31 Five species made up more than 75 percent of fish collected. These were the Atlantic

32 menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), inland silverside

33 (Menidia beryllina), bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius).

34 Over the same period, 42 fish species were collected in otter trawl samples that were intended

35 to characterize fish populations in deeper waters (the shelf zone) adjacent to the main river

36 channel. Five species comprised more than 80 percent of fish collected in trawl samples: the

37 hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), channel catfish

38 (Ictalurus punctatus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), and bay anchovy.

39

40 Between 1996 and 2000, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences conducted approximately

41 350 deep-water ichthyoplankton trawl surveys in the James River in the vicinity of Hog Island. 

42 In those collections, four species comprised more than 80 percent of the catch: hogchoker,
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-28 July 2006

1 white perch (Morone americana), Atlantic croaker, and bay anchovy. Spot was the fifth most

2 abundant species. Salinity appears to be the most important factor influencing the relative

3 abundances of fishes between the two sampling periods.

4

5 In addition to finfish, several invertebrate aquatic species were found in the vicinity of the

6 Surry site. These include zooplankton (dominated by copepods), amphipods (notably the

7 scud [Gammarus spp.]), and a variety of benthic organisms (e.g., polychaetes and shellfish). 

8 Shellfish formed the bulk of the benthic biomass from the transition zone in the vicinity of the

9 Surry site to Chesapeake Bay. The brackish water clam (Rangia cuneata), a species capable

10 of tolerating a wide range of salinities, dominated the benthic community in the vicinity of the

11 Surry site. Larval American oysters (Crassostrea virginica) occurred in the area as

12 meroplankton, but adults were uncommon. The more recent trawl survey collected American

13 oysters, blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), spider crabs (Libinia emarginata), eight species of

14 shrimp (Penaeidae), and five species of clams (Bivalvia). The diversity of benthic

15 macroinvertebrate is usually low in a transition zone, increasing downstream to seawater and

16 upstream (moderately) to freshwater. A combination of physical, chemical, and biological

17 factors influence the distribution of benthic organisms, but as with the finfish, salinity appears

18 to exert the greatest influence.

19

20 No areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as critical habitat for

21 endangered species exist in the James River (Virginia Natural Heritage Program 2003). 

22 Virginia Power and its contractors conducted extensive surveys of fish and aquatic

23 invertebrates in the lower James River in the vicinity of the Surry site in the 1970s. Based on

24 these historical surveys and a review of the scientific literature, no Federally listed aquatic

25 species is found in the lower James River. On Virginia’s endangered species list, Jenkins and

26 Burkhead (1994) identify only one threatened or endangered fish species in the entire James

27 River drainage, the orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti), which occurs in the headwaters of

28 the river, several hundred miles upstream of the Surry site.

29

30 The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus), a candidate for Federal listing, was reported

31 in the vicinity of the Surry site in the early 1970s and was subsequently collected in research

32 and monitoring studies conducted by Virginia Power and Virginia Power-funded entities in the

33 mid-to-late 1970s. A number of authorities on the fishes of Virginia and the mid-Atlantic coast

34 also list this species as occurring in the lower reaches of the James River. The blackbanded

35 sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon), listed as endangered by the Commonwealth of Virginia, is

36 reported to occur in Prince George, Surry, and Sussex Counties west of the Surry site. 

37 However, this sunfish primarily inhabits thickly vegetated ponds, swamps, and pools and is

38 not reported to occur in the James River Drainage (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994.)

39

40 Although not recorded in Virginia for more than 100 years, the shortnose sturgeon

41 (Acipenser brevirostrum) is on the Commonwealth’s list of rare animal species. This listing is

42 based on the fact that the species occurs in major river systems north and south of the
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-29 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Chesapeake Bay, is presumed to have spawned in the four major estuarine drainages of the

2 Chesapeake Bay (including the James River) in Virginia as late as the 19th century, and may

3 reappear in the future if restoration efforts are successful. At present, the shortnose sturgeon

4 is listed as endangered by the National Marine Fisheries Service and by Virginia. It also

5 appears on the Virginia Department of Cultural Resources list of “Extinct and Extirpated

6 Animals of Virginia.”

7

8 The staff evaluated the potential impacts of operating the proposed new nuclear units,

9 including operating the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on aquatic

10 threatened and endangered species. Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the

11 impacts of operating the proposed new units on aquatic threatened and endangered species

12 at the Surry site would be SMALL.

13

14 The potential for impingement and entrainment of aquatic resources is expected to be minimal

15 because of closed-cycle cooling. The potential impacts of heated water would be expected to

16 be mitigated by the placement of the discharge structures. The overall impact on aquatic

17 ecological resources of construction and operation of two new units and associated cooling

18 towers and transmission facilities at the Surry site would be SMALL.

19

20 8.5.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

21

22 In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of construction at the Surry site, the staff used the

23 license renewal supplemental EIS information (NRC 2002) and Dominion and Bechtel’s

24 (2002) analysis of potential sites. The staff also conducted a reconnaissance survey of the

25 site using readily obtainable data from the internet or published sources. No new data were

26 collected. The socioeconomic sections follow the organizational structure of the

27 socioeconomic discussions in Sections 2.8, 4.5, and 5.5. Both construction and station

28 operation impacts are addressed.

29

30 8.5.5.1 Physical Impacts

31

32 Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise,

33 odor, vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions. The use of public

34 roadways, railways, and barges would be necessary to transport construction materials and

35 equipment. Dominion anticipates that the roadways could need some minor repairs or

36 upgrading, such as patching and filling potholes, to allow safe transport of these materials and

37 equipment. However, no extensive work is planned to the existing roads or railways, and no

38 new routes would be needed (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). All construction activities would

39 occur within the existing Surry site. Offsite areas that would support construction activities

40 (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and disposal sites) are expected to be already permitted and

41 operational. Impacts on those facilities from construction of the new units would be small

42 incremental impacts associated with their normal operation.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-30 July 2006

1 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions,

2 and visual intrusions. Noise would be produced by the operation of pumps, cooling fans,

3 transformers, turbines, generators, switchyard equipment, and traffic. Dominion states in its

4 ER that any noise coming from the North Anna ESP site would be controlled in accordance

5 with applicable local county regulations. By inference, this is also expected to apply to the

6 Surry site. Virginia has no regulations or guidelines regarding noise limits. Commuter traffic

7 would be controlled by speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would

8 minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting to the Surry site

9 (Dominion 2006).

10

11 The new units would have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems. Permits

12 obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. In

13 addition, the generators would be operated on a limited short-term basis. During normal plant

14 operation, the new units would not use a significant quantity of chemicals that could generate

15 odors exceeding odor threshold values. Good access roads and appropriate speed limits

16 would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce (Dominion and Bechtel

17 2002).

18

19 Construction activities would be temporary and would occur mainly within the boundaries of

20 the Surry site. Offsite impacts would represent small incremental changes to offsite services

21 supporting the construction activities. During station operations, noise levels would be

22 managed in accordance with local ordinances. Air quality permits would be required for the

23 diesel generators, and chemical use would be limited, which should limit odors. Based on the

24 foregoing, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of construction and operation would

25 be SMALL.

26

27 8.5.5.2 Demography

28

29 The population base is considered to be the population of significant population centers within

30 a 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Surry site. The combined population of the Richmond31 Petersburg and Norfolk-Virginia Beach and Newport News, Virginia Metropolitan Statistical

32 Area is 2,566,050 (USCB 2000a). The estimated population within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of

33 the Surry site is 2,387,353 and is projected to grow by approximately 41 percent to 3,365,040

34 by 2030 (NRC 2002).

35

36 Most of the construction workforce is expected to come from within the region, and those who

37 might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the larger population base. 

38 While the station operation workforce is expected to relocate into the region, their numbers

39 are small (720 new operating employees and their families) when compared to the total base

40 population and their locations of residence would probably be scattered throughout the region. 

41 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that any environmental impacts caused by

42 population increases within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the site would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-31 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.5.5.3 Community Characteristics

2

3 Economy

4

5 The Surry site is located in one of the strongest economic areas in Virginia. The Richmond6 Petersburg area is the primary economic driving force in the area within an 80-km (50-mi)

7 radius of the Surry site. The Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News area is characterized by

8 the U.S. Navy’s significant presence in the area (NRC 2002). Hampton Roads relies heavily

9 on defense-related industry, particularly shipbuilding. In recent years, the regional economy

10 has become more diversified with major businesses, financial and health care components,

11 and a growing “high-tech” sector. Regionally, the service sector now offers the most

12 employment opportunities. The construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the

13 Surry site would be expected to benefit the economy of the region, especially Surry County.

14

15 Based on the foregoing, the staff reviewed the impacts of station construction and operation

16 on the economy of the region and concludes that the impacts would be SMALL everywhere in

17 the region except Surry County, where the impacts could be beneficially MODERATE. The

18 magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic bases of the

19 Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News area, including Isle of Wight, Surry, York, and James

20 City Counties. With Surry County’s smaller economic base, the economic impacts would be

21 more noticeable.

22

23 Availability of Workers

24

25 Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers more than 5 years

26 to build two new nuclear units at the Surry site (Dominion 2006). Dominion is expected to be

27 able to attract the necessary workforce for construction activities at the Surry site because of

28 its proximity to the major population centers of Richmond-Petersburg and Norfolk-Virginia

29 Beach Newport News. While the availability of craft workers for outages at Surry is reported

30 as very limited, this can be attributed to the short duration of the projects. However, the

31 availability of craft workers for regular construction projects of longer duration is reported to be

32 good (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The construction workforce within 80 km (50 mi) of the

33 site were estimated to number approximately 98,000 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

34

35 Approximately 990 employees work at Surry Units 1 and 2, (about 110 contract employees

36 and 880 permanent employees). The addition of the proposed new units would result in an

37 increase in the operations workforce of 720 employees. In its ER, Dominion stated that it

38 expected most of the operations workforce for the new units to relocate from outside the

39 region. The ER does not address from where these employees would come (Dominion 2006). 

40 Some nuclear defense sites are reducing their workforces as they change missions (such as

41 the Portsmouth and the Savannah River sites), and workers from these sites could be

42 potential pools of labor for the operating workforce at Surry.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-32 July 2006

1 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts are SMALL because construction

2 labor would be available from within the region, and there would be little problem recruiting the

3 required labor skills to enable the construction of the nuclear units at the Surry site and the

4 operations workforce would relocate to the region.

5

6 Transportation

7

8 The area around the Surry site is served by several major freeways and State and Federal

9 highways (NRC 2002). The most direct vehicular access to the Surry site is from the more

10 populous cities and counties on the north bank of the James River via State Route (SR) 31

11 and the James River Ferry service, operated by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 

12 The principal road access to the Surry site is via SR 650, which is a two-lane paved road. SR

13 650 carries a level-of-service (LOS) designation of “A,” which reflects a free flow of traffic and

14 users unaffected by the presence of others.

15

16 The construction of new nuclear units would involve additions to the workforce. In addition,

17 construction materials, wastes, and excavated materials would be transported both to and

18 from the site. These activities would result in increases in operation of personal-use vehicles

19 by commuting construction workers, in commercial truck traffic, and in traffic associated with

20 daily operations. However, five of the seven reactor types under consideration for this project

21 are generally smaller and modular in nature. Consequently, transportation of plant equipment

22 could be less challenging and workforce needs are expected to be less than those for

23 conventional nuclear plants (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

24

25 The LOS designation on SR 650 would likely be degraded from “A” to “C” (which reflects a

26 stable flow that marks the beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual

27 users is significantly affected by interactions with the traffic stream) during the peak

28 construction period for a new nuclear plant at the Surry site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). 

29

30 SR 650 intersects SR 10 approximately 8 km (5 mi) from the plant. SR 10 in the vicinity of the

31 site, from Surry County Courthouse to the divergence of the business and bypass north of

32 Smithfield, carries a LOS designation of “C.” Portions of Highway 10 would receive

33 significantly more traffic during plant construction (NRC 2002; Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

34

35 No direct rail access is available to the Surry site, so large equipment would have to be

36 offloaded and transported by road and/or barge from the nearest rail access points in

37 Richmond or Norfolk. Surry has an excellent barge slip adjacent to the cooling water intake. 

38 This slip was used for the transport of the replacement steam generators in the late 1970s and

39 is regularly used to receive spent fuel storage casks and other large loads (Dominion and

40 Bechtel 2002).

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-33 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The Williamsburg-Jamestown Airport, Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport,

2 Norfolk International Airport, and the Richmond International Airport all serve the area. The

3 airports in Richmond and Norfolk provide regular freight and passenger jet services and are of

4 sufficient size to accommodate the relatively small air shipments normally associated with a

5 construction project (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

6

7 The impact of station operation employees on the transportation system would be less than

8 the impact incurred during construction. There would be increases in operation of personal9 use vehicles by commuting operators of both the existing and new units and in traffic

10 associated with daily operations. Portions of SR 10 may be impacted by commuters to the

11 plant site, particularly during shift changes. During new plant operation, the LOS designation

12 on SR 650 may retain its “A” status or perhaps degrade to “B” designation, which reflects a

13 condition of stable flow instead of the free flow indicated under an “A” designation. This

14 change in designation indicates that the freedom to select speed is unaffected, but the

15 freedom to maneuver is slightly diminished (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

16

17 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction workforce and

18 related transportation of construction supplies and materials on transportation infrastructure at

19 Surry would be SMALL to MODERATE (but temporary). Some of the local roads could have

20 their LOS degraded during construction to the point where operations of individual drivers

21 could be significantly affected by interactions with other traffic. This would be at LOS levels of

22 C or lower. Also it is possible that, given the heavy loads carried by vehicles transporting

23 construction materials to the Surry site, some of the roads may need repair to carry the

24 additional load. The impacts during operation would be SMALL.

25

26 Taxes

27

28 Construction and operations workers would pay income, sales, and use taxes to Virginia and

29 the local governments in the region where sales take place and property taxes to the counties

30 in which they own a residence. Sales and use taxes would be paid from the sales of

31 construction materials and supplies purchased for the project and on expenditures of both the

32 construction and operations workforce for goods and services. Dominion estimates that

33 about half of the day-to-day expenditures during construction would occur in the region

34 (Dominion 2006). Corporate income taxes on profits would also be paid by those companies

35 engaged in construction at the site.

36

37 There are two types of property taxes in Virginia. The first is the tangible personal property

38 tax paid by contractors during construction of the additional units. This tax is based on the

39 value of property owned by the contractors that acquire taxable status in Surry County during

40 the construction period. The second is the real property tax levied for the incremental

41 increase in value to the entire site from the operation of the additional units. It is expected
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-34 July 2006

1 that Surry County would be the only beneficiary of this tax. Dominion has a significant impact

2 on the economic well-being of Surry County, with Dominion paying well over 70 percent of the

3 property taxes between 1996 and 2000 (NRC 2002).

4

5 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impacts from construction and

6 operation of taxes collected through the income, sales and use, and property taxes would be

7 SMALL (with the exception of Surry County for property taxes). The taxes paid, while

8 substantial, are nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes

9 collected by Virginia and local governments in the region. The staff concludes that the overall

10 impacts of the property taxes collected in Surry County would be beneficially MODERATE

11 (construction) and LARGE (operation) relative to the total amount of taxes the county collects

12 through property taxes.

13

14 Aesthetics and Recreation

15

16 Although the Surry site is clearly an industrial site, its current structures are not visually

17 intrusive from any vantage point, even from across the James River. However, Surry Units 1

18 and 2 are visible from the highest amusement rides at Busch Gardens (Dominion and

19 Bechtel 2002) and at certain points of Jamestown Island and the Colonial Parkway. The

20 reasons for the lack of visual intrusiveness are the general wooded habitat surrounding the

21 site and the fact that the Units 1 and 2 reactor containment buildings are sunk into the ground

22 to minimize visual obtrusion from offsite. The licensee for Units 1 and 2 took this unusual step

23 because of the highly sensitive nature of the historic resources across the James River

24 (i.e., Jamestown and Williamsburg) (VEPCo 1970). Not all of the seven new reactor

25 technologies being considered for the Surry site could be designed to allow the reactor

26 containment building to be placed lower in the ground. For example, the AP1000, which has a

27 reactor containment building approximately 71 m (234 ft) above grade, could potentially be

28 more easily seen from Williamsburg across the James River from the Surry site. The design

29 of this building includes a hatch that determines the height that it must be above ground. 

30 Dominion states that redesigning the AP1000 would be prohibitively expensive to allow the

31 building to be placed lower in the ground. In its ER, Dominion did not address the feasibility of

32 adapting the remaining reactor technology to minimize visual intrusiveness (Dominion and

33 Bechtel 2002).

34

35 The Surry site is a minimum of 5 km (3 mi) from any point across the James River. Except for

36 the west side of the site, which is open to the James River, the dense tree stands surrounding

37 the site effectively screen the existing unit from all but a few locations. No parks or

38 recreational areas are within 3 km (2 mi) of the Surry site. The closest recreational park is

39 Chippokes Plantation State Park located 4 km (2.5 mi) to the southwest (NRC 2002). The

40 only distinguishable view of the transmission lines by offsite observers is available from the

41 James River (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

42
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-35 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The addition of new units at the site would likely involve the use of cooling towers. Given the

2 historical nature of some of the surrounding communities (e.g., Jamestown), Dominion would

3 be more likely to use mechanical-draft cooling towers rather than the taller, natural-draft

4 towers, which may be considered unacceptable. Traditionally, visible plumes generated by

5 the operation of cooling towers could cause a negative aesthetic effect. These plumes would

6 be visible a majority of the time.

7

8 Most construction activities would be screened from offsite viewing. The exception may be

9 the reactor containment building as it nears completion. The AP1000 at 71 m (234 ft) would

10 be visibly intrusive. During operations, visible plumes could be generated by the cooling

11 towers.

12

13 Concerns regarding the design and operation of additional units on the viewshed of the

14 Colonial National Historic Park were raised by the National Park Service. The Colonial

15 National Historic Park includes Jamestown, the Yorktown Battlefield, and the Colonial

16 Parkway. The staff and its contractor met with the Park Service prior to conducting a

17 supplemental visit to the Surry site to assess the potential adverse effects at Surry as an

18 alternative site to the proposal for the North Anna ESP site. The survey of the site visit is

19 contained in a trip report dated September 19, 2005 (ML061720366) (NRC 2005). In its letter

20 dated October 25, 2005, the National Park Service suggested that the physical size of the

21 units and the operational impacts, would have our adverse effect on the view shed from both

22 Jamestown and the Colonial Parkway (NPS 2005).

23

24 In its summary, the staff found:

25

26 The Colonial National Historical Park (NHP), particularly the Jamestown Unit and the

27 associated initial stretch of the Colonial Parkway that extends eastward along the

28 shoreline of the James River, and the Jamestown National Historic Site would be the most

29 directly visually impacted. The Colonial NHP is managed by the National Park Service

30 while the adjoining Jamestown National Historical Site is owned and managed by the

31 Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. In the words of the co-managers:

32 “Jamestown is a world-class cultural historic site that needs to be promoted, explored, and

33 fully presented to communicate its significance in history.”

34

35 and

36

37 Based on the high level of historical significance attributed to the Jamestown historical

38 features and the fact that current views of the Surry Power Plant range from full to partial,

39 from both the island and the Colonial Parkway, an even more visible plant infrastructure

40 and the added cooling towers and condensation plumes would constitute a major visual

41 intrusion from this significant historic property. ... In the context of a new ESP at the Surry
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-36 July 2006

1 site, the visual impacts to Colonial NHP and the Jamestown National Historical Site would

2 be considered significant.

3

4 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and operation on

5 aesthetics in the vicinity of the Surry site generally would be SMALL to MODERATE, but that

6 a LARGE impact could occur at historically important sites (Section 8.5.5.4).

7

8 Housing

9

10 A 10 percent vacancy rate out of a total 110,250 housing units currently exists in Isle of Wight,

11 Surry, and James City Counties and the city of Newport News Independent City. Surry

12 County has the highest vacancy rate at 20 percent (NRC 2002). Given the proximity of the

13 Surry site to four major metropolitan areas, housing for construction workers, most of whom

14 will be coming from within the region, and the operations workforce is expected to be

15 available.

16

17 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of a construction and operations

18 workforce on the demand and housing availability would be SMALL. The conclusion is based

19 on approximately 10,000 vacant housing units in the region and the Surry site’s proximity to

20 the larger metropolitan areas in the region.

21

22 Public Services

23

24 Water Treatment Facilities

25

26 Isle of Wight County has municipal water supply systems in the towns of Windsor, Smithfield,

27 and Franklin. Permitted groundwater wells supply these systems. Surry County has

28 municipal water supply systems in the towns of Claremont, Dendron, and Surry. The

29 municipal water supply for James City County is provided by the Newport News Waterworks

30 and the James City Service Authority. Newport News Waterworks is one of the top

31 100 largest water utilities in the United States and one of the three largest in Virginia. James

32 City Service Authority’s water system consists of the central system with 29 well facilities and

33 six independent water systems with five well facilities servicing them. Public water supply for

34 Newport News is provided by the Newport News Waterworks. Water is supplied to nearly

35 400,000 residents of Poquoson, Hampton, and Newport News, and to portions of York and

36 James City Counties. The primary source of raw water is the Chickahominy River. Water

37 supply needs in the intermediate term are expected to be met, with all towns and cities in the

38 region having excess capacity (NRC 2002).

39

40 Water supply needs near the Surry site are not a current concern with all towns and cities in

41 the region having excess capacity. Most of the construction workforce would come from

42 within the region and, therefore, are already accounted for in the demands being placed on
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-37 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 the systems and their excess capacities. The station operating workforce, while relocating to

2 the region, would probably take up residence across the region, thus not particularly impacting

3 any one community or jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the

4 impacts of construction and operation on water supply treatment facilities would be SMALL.

5

6 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

7

8 In the larger metropolitan areas of Richmond and Henrico County and the cities of Norfolk,

9 Hampton Roads, and Virginia Beach, police, fire, and medical facilities would not be materially

10 impacted by an increase in the construction workforce. Many of the construction workers are

11 anticipated to already live in the region and would commute to the Surry site. As a result,

12 these workers are already served by existing services and facilities.

13

14 The operations workforce of about 720 workers and their families is anticipated to relocate to

15 the site from outside the region. Most likely they would locate in residences across the region

16 and would not concentrate in one location. As such, inordinate demands are not likely to be

17 placed on these services and facilities.

18

19 Most construction workers already live within the region. The incoming operations workforce

20 would likely have residences scattered across the region. As a result, there should be

21 minimal new demands placed on these services and facilities by either construction or

22 operations employees. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of

23 construction and operations workforce on police, fire, and medical facilities would be SMALL.

24

25 Social Services

26

27 Social services in the Commonwealth are provided in each county by the Virginia Department

28 of Social Services. The Department, which provides a variety of services to children and

29 adults, has 131 local departments located throughout Virginia (VDSS 2004). During the

30 construction phase at the Surry site, there may be an increased demand for social services.

31

32 Generally, construction and operation of new units on the Surry site would be viewed as

33 economically beneficial to the disadvantaged population segments served by the Department. 

34 The workforce associated with the Surry site would be relatively higher paid than other

35 employment categories in the region. Construction and operation of the new units, through

36 the multiplier effect, may enable members of the disadvantaged population to improve their

37 social and economic position by moving up to higher paying jobs. At a minimum, the

38 expenditures of the construction and operations workforce in the counties for items such as

39 food and services could, through the multiplier effect, increase the number of jobs that could

40 be filled by the disadvantaged population.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-38 July 2006

1 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the demand for social and related services as

2 a result of construction and operation of two new units would be SMALL. Construction and

3 operation of two new units would be expected to have a beneficial economic impact to the

4 economically disadvantaged population of the region, which should lessen the demand for

5 social services. There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the

6 beginning of the construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited.

7

8 Education

9

10 The Surry County School system has just over 1200 students (Great Schools 2004). There

11 currently is no overcrowding in the system (NRC 2002). In the other counties and cities of the

12 region, it is anticipated that the construction and operations workforce would minimally impact

13 school infrastructure. Many construction workers already live within the region. Those that do

14 not live within the area are not expected to move their families into the area. This conclusion

15 is based on Dominion’s assertions in its ER for the North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2006), and

16 by inference is applicable to the Surry site because of the geographical proximity of the two

17 sites. The operations workforce, while coming from outside and relocating into the region,

18 would probably be scattered throughout the region, placing little demand on school

19 infrastructure as a result.

20

21 It is anticipated that most of the construction workforce would come from within the area and

22 would not relocate their families. Those construction and operations workers potentially

23 relocating to the region would most likely be scattered throughout the region and, as a result,

24 would not be in sufficient concentrated pockets to place an undue burden on the existing

25 infrastructure. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of the

26 construction and operations workforce on education facilities in Surry County and the area

27 would be SMALL.

28

29 8.5.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

30

31 Historic and cultural resources at the Surry site have been addressed in the recent

32 supplemental EIS relating to renewal of the existing operating licenses for Surry Units 1 and 2

33 (NRC 2002) and supporting information (Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2001). Associated with that

34 effort was consultation with eight Commonwealth of Virginia-recognized Native American

35 Indian Tribes: the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, Chickahominy Indians-Eastern Division,

36 Mattaponi Indian Tribe, Monacan Indian Nation, Nansemond Indian Tribe, the Pamunkey

37 Indian Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, and the Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe.

38

39 While there are no currently recorded historic and cultural resources at the Surry site,

40 evaluations of the potential for such occurrences included acreages with the following

41 designations: No Potential (areas previously disturbed during initial construction of the plant),

42 Low Potential (areas that may or may not have been disturbed during construction and areas
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-39 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 with little potential for human occupation), and Moderate-to-High Potential (areas with little

2 past surface disturbance and with a likelihood for prehistoric and historic sites based on

3 regional comparative data). Should this alternate site be selected for an ESP, the staff

4 expects that Dominion would consult with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources

5 concerning the need for additional field inventory of acreage for historic and cultural resources

6 prior to undertaking any ground-disturbing activities.

7

8 As noted in Section 8.5.5.3, the existing Units 1 and 2 containment structures were originally

9 constructed below grade so as to minimize visibility of the Surry plant from historic Jamestown

10 Island, located across the James River about 4.8 km (3 mi) from the plant. In that new ESP

11 plant would involve construction of a taller containment structure and the addition of

12 mechanical draft cooling towers at Surry, the potential for visual impacts to the area's

13 significant historical resources would be increased through increased visibility of the new

14 structures and view of a condensation plume from the cooling towers during plant operation,

15 or both. In addition to the Colonial National Historical Park, which includes both Jamestown

16 Island and the Colonial Parkway, other historic sites/districts that could be affected include the

17 Williamsburg Historic District and Carter's Grove Plantation on the north side of the James

18 River. South of the river, other historic properties that could experience visual intrusions

19 include Bacon's Castle and Smith's Fort Plantation, both owned and operated as visitor

20 attractions by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and the Chippokes

21 Plantation Historic District, a component of the Chippokes Plantation State Park managed by

22 the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Under certain weather conditions,

23 such as cooler winter days, taller plumes of condensation could possibly be seen from other

24 historic properties, such as some of the James River Plantations located upriver from the

25 Surry plant.

26

27 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the potential impacts within the plant site

28 boundaries on historic and cultural resources from construction and operation of two new

29 nuclear units at the Surry site would be SMALL. However, the potential for visual intrusion at

30 the area's significant historic properties, districts and landscapes, the potential impacts could

31 range from SMALL to LARGE depending on distance and geographic orientation from the

32 Surry site. At the Colonial National Historic Park where there are vantage points from historic

33 Jamestown and the Colonial Parkway, the physical size of additional units and the presence

34 of condensation plumes from operation of units within the bounds of the PPE could be

35 considered a MODERATE to LARGE visual impact to the historic qualities of this nationally

36 significant cultural landscape.

37

38 8.5.5.5 Environmental Justice

39

40 As part of the evaluation of the potential environmental justice impacts related to the Surry

41 site, the staff used information from NRC’s supplemental EIS for the license renewal of Surry

42 Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2002). The pathways through which the environmental impacts
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-40 July 2006

1 associated with the construction of two additional new nuclear units at the Surry site could

2 affect human populations were ascertained. The staff then evaluated whether minority and

3 low-income populations could be disproportionately affected by these impacts. The staff

4 found no unusual resource dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture,

5 hunting, or fishing, through which the populations could be disproportionately affected. In

6 addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent disproportionate impacts affecting

7 these minority and low-income populations.

8

9 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and

10 operation of the new units at the Surry site to minority and low-income populations would be

11 SMALL. No disproportionately high and adverse impacts affecting minority and low-income

12 populations were identified.

13

14 8.6 Evaluation of the Portsmouth Site

15

16 Dominion identified a 138-ha (340-ac) parcel of land in the northeastern portion of the

17 Portsmouth site in Ohio as a possible location for two commercial nuclear units (Dominion and

18 Bechtel 2002). The parcel has been evaluated by DOE and slated for transfer from DOE to

19 the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative for possible reindustrialization (66 FR 64963).

20

21 For this evaluation, the following assumptions were made by the staff about locating the

22 proposed units at the Portsmouth alternative site:

23

24 & The units would use closed-cycle cooling.

25 & Natural- or mechanical-draft cooling towers would be employed.

26 & Groundwater would be the source of cooling water (ostensibly from the Scioto River).

27 & The plant would discharge blowdown water to the Scioto River.

28 & The land-area needed for the site would be approximately 140 ha (340 ac).

29 & Additional transmission lines would be needed.

30

31 The Portsmouth site is located in Pike County, Ohio, approximately 35 km (22 mi) north of the

32 Ohio River and 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the town of Piketon. The Portsmouth site vicinity is

33 shown in Figure 8-3.

34

35 Pike County’s largest community, Waverly, is about 16 km (10 mi) north of the Portsmouth site

36 and has a population of about 4400 residents. The nearest residential center to the site is

37 Piketon, which is about 5 km (3 mi) north on U.S. 23; its population in 2000 was approximately

38 1900 people. Additional population centers within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant are Portsmouth

39 (population 20,909), 35 km (22 mi) south; Chillicothe (population 21,796), 43 km (27 mi) north;
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-41 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 and Jackson (population 6184), 29 km (18 mi) east (Bechtel Jacobs 2003). Approximately

2 90 percent of Portsmouth site workers reside in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties. 

3

4 In 2003, the estimated population of the four counties was 215,700 (DOE 2003). The primary

5 facility at the Portsmouth site is the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a gaseous diffusion

6 uranium enrichment plant previously operated first by DOE until 1993 and since then by the

7 United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). Uranium enrichment operations were

8 discontinued in May 2001, and the plant was placed in cold standby, a nonoperational

9 condition in which the plant retains the ability to resume operations within 18 to 24 months.

10

11 In December 2002, USEC announced that the Portsmouth site will be the location for a Lead

12 Cascade Demonstration Facility for advanced centrifuge enrichment technology (SAIC 2004). 

13 NRC has recently authorized possession and use of source and special nuclear material at

14 the proposed enrichment facility (69 FR 3956). In addition, USEC announced on

15 January 12, 2004, that the Portsmouth site was selected as the location for a new $1.5 billion

16 advanced centrifuge commercial plant (referred to as the American Centrifuge Uranium

17 Enrichment Plant), expected to be operational by the end of the decade (DOE 2003). USEC

18 submitted a license application for this proposed facility to the NRC on August 23, 2004.

19

20 The Portsmouth site encompasses approximately 1500 ha (3714 ac), including a 320-ha

21 (800-ac) fenced core area that contains the former production facilities. The 1180-ha

22 (2914-ac) area outside the core area includes restricted buffers, waste management areas,

23 plant management and administrative facilities, gaseous diffusion plant support facilities, and

24 vacant land. The site is 3 km (2 mi) east of the Scioto River in a small valley that runs parallel

25 to and approximately 37 m (120 ft) above the Scioto River floodplain (Bechtel Jacobs 2003). 

26 Wayne National Forest borders the plant site on the east and southeast, and Brush Creek

27 State Forest is located to the southwest, slightly more than 1.6 km (1 mi ) from the site

28 boundary. On the basis of an analysis of Landsat satellite imagery from 1992, dominant land

29 cover categories in Pike County include deciduous forest (64.6 percent), pasture/hay

30 (21.6 percent), and row crops (10.3 percent) (DOE 2003).

31

32 Water for the Portsmouth site comes from an onsite water treatment plant that in turn draws

33 water from offsite supply wells adjacent to the Scioto River. The Ohio Valley Electric

34 Corporation supplies the site with electrical power.

35

36 The topography of the Portsmouth site area consists of steep hills and narrow valleys, except

37 where major rivers have formed broad floodplains. The site is underlain by bedrock

38 composed of shale and sandstone. The most common type of vegetation on the Portsmouth

39 site is managed grassland, which makes up approximately 30 percent of the site or about

40 445 ha (1100 ac). Approximately 28 percent of the site is forested, predominately by stands

41 of oak-hickory and mixed hardwood (DOE 2003).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-42 July 2006

1 Figure 8-3. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site Vicinity Map

2

3
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-43 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The Portsmouth site is located in the humid continental climatic zone and has weather

2 conditions that vary greatly throughout the year. The site is in a rural setting, and no

3 residences or other sensitive locations (e.g., schools or hospitals) exist in the immediate

4 vicinity of the site. The Portsmouth site has direct access to major highway and rail systems,

5 a nearby regional airport, and barge terminals on the Ohio River. Use of the Ohio River barge

6 terminals requires transportation by public road to or from the Portsmouth site.

7

8 The site is located within the Western Allegheny Plateau ecological province (Omernik 1987). 

9 The hilly, forested areas of the 138-ha (340-ac) site were harvested for timber before the

10 Portsmouth facilities were established. The eastern portion of the site has steep forested

11 slopes while the central and western areas are composed mainly of old fields and managed

12 grasslands that are not considered unique habitat or environmentally sensitive areas. Little

13 Beaver Creek runs through the southwestern part of the 138-ha (340-ac) alternative site area

14 and is identified as having riparian forest along its banks (DOE 2003). Oak-hickory forest

15 borders the riparian forest. Other than Little Beaver Creek, there is only about 1 ha (2 ac) of

16 wetlands within the alternative site. There is one Federally listed endangered species, the

17 Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and one non-listed Federal species of concern, (the timber

18 rattlesnake Crotalus horridus), that potentially could be found on the site.

19

20 The Portsmouth site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the surrounding

21 communities over the last 50 years, including jobs with above-average salaries. DOE does

22 not pay property taxes to the local communities around the Portsmouth site. However, it has

23 provided $12.9 million in grants to the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative. Other economic

24 benefits include the collection of sales tax on uranium enrichment services. Sales, property,

25 and income taxes have been paid over the years to Ohio and local governments by

26 employees working at the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

27

28 Major economic activities around Portsmouth consist mainly of farming, lumbering, and small

29 businesses. Other industries include a cabinet manufacturer and an automotive parts

30 manufacturer. The site itself has no prime agriculture lands. Sufficient public transportation

31 (rail and road) is present to support activities at the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

32

33 8.6.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

34

35 The alternative ESP parcel at the Portsmouth site is irregular in shape. At its widest points,

36 the parcel spans about 1737 m (5700 ft) in the north-south direction and about 1798 m

37 (5900 ft) in the east-west direction. The parcel is in a mostly undisturbed part of the site. No

38 hazardous substances have been stored, released, or disposed of on the parcel (Dominion

39 and Bechtel 2002). The closest disturbed land is used by security personnel for training and

40 as a firing range. The firing range is outside the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel, but is adjacent to the

41 parcel’s boundary lines. The location of the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel is shown in Figure 8-4. 

42 Two commercial nuclear units sited at the Portsmouth site would need to have an exclusion 
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-44 July 2006

1

2 Figure 8-4. Potential New Nuclear Station Site at Portsmouth
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-45 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 area that meets NRC requirements (10 CFR 100.21(a)). The exclusion area is the area

2 surrounding the reactor within which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all

3 activities, including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area

4 (10 CFR 100.3).

5

6 Six wetland areas comprise approximately 1 ha (2 ac) within the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel

7 (66 FR 64963). Five of these areas are ditches within a borrow area. The remaining wetland

8 is associated with a previously disturbed natural area. Dominion determined that construction

9 activities could take place without affecting the wetland areas (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

10

11 Land within 8 km (5 mi) of the Portsmouth site is used primarily for farms, forests, and urban

12 or suburban residences (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). About 10,291 ha (25,430 ac) of

13 farmland, including cropland, wooded lots, and pasture, are within 8 km (5 mi) of the site. The

14 cropland is mostly found on or adjacent to the Scioto River floodplain and is farmed

15 extensively, particularly with grain crops. The hillsides and terraces are used as pasture for

16 both beef and dairy cattle. There are no state or national parks, conservation areas, wild and

17 scenic rivers, or other areas of recreational, ecological, scenic, or aesthetic importance within

18 the immediate vicinity of the Portsmouth site. There are approximately 9874 ha (24,400 ac) of

19 forestland within 8 km (5 mi) of the site. This land includes some commercial woodlands and

20 a small portion of Brush Creek State Forest. A relatively small area of urban land, about 206

21 ha (510 ac), is also within 8 km (5 mi) of the Portsmouth site. This land is situated primarily in

22 and around Piketon, approximately 5.6 km (3.5 mi) north of the center point of the site.

23

24 The Portsmouth site is about 113 km (70 mi) south of Columbus, Ohio, and 121 km (75 mi)

25 east of Cincinnati, Ohio, the two closest metropolitan areas. Huntington, West Virginia, is

26 approximately 140 km (87 mi) southeast of the site. The cities of Portsmouth, Jackson, and

27 Chillicothe, Ohio, are approximately 40 km (25 mi) from the facility (south, east, and north,

28 respectively). There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of the site. Together,

29 these communities could supply an adequate workforce for construction of new generating

30 units and are within a 2-hour commuting distance via local transportation routes (Dominion

31 and Bechtel 2002). The regional transportation network consists of two major highways, 

32 U.S. Route 23 and SR 32, and numerous state routes including SRs 35, 52, 124, and 139. 

33 Offsite land-use impacts associated with construction of new nuclear generating units are

34 likely to be relatively limited, given the temporary nature of the construction. Construction of

35 new rental housing and/or new manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks could be

36 expected to accommodate construction workers.

37

38 The majority of current Portsmouth workers live in Scioto and Pike Counties and in the city of

39 Portsmouth, which is the county seat of Scioto County (DOE 2003). The staff assumed that

40 workers at two units located at the Portsmouth site would also primarily live in Scioto and Pike

41 Counties. Some new housing in Scioto and Pike Counties plus surrounding communities

42 would likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-46 July 2006

1 property tax revenue from the new units could affect future land use in the area surrounding

2 the plant as a result of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue.

3

4 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts on the site and in the

5 vicinity of construction and operation would be SMALL.

6

7 An extensive existing electric power transmission system serves the Portsmouth site. During

8 previous full-power operations of the enrichment facility, the site imported approximately

9 1900 MW(e) of power with a reported system capacity of approximately 2260 MW(e)

10 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). One or more relatively short transmission lines (approximately

11 900 m [3000 ft]) could be used to connect to the existing transmission system serving the

12 Portsmouth site. Transmission lines that would be constructed to connect new power reactors

13 with the existing Portsmouth transmission system would primarily cross previously developed

14 industrial lands within the boundaries of the Portsmouth site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). 

15 Otherwise, relatively little land would be altered for the construction of the new lines. 

16 Accordingly, the staff concluded that the overall impacts of constructing new lines and

17 operating and maintaining them would be SMALL.

18

19 8.6.2 Water Use and Quality 

20

21 Whether the consumptive water use for new nuclear units at the Portsmouth site would be

22 provided indirectly from the Scioto River aquifer via groundwater wells or directly from the river

23 itself, the consumptive water use for a power reactor at the Portsmouth site would impact the

24 Scioto River. Groundwater in the aquifer is directly connected to the Scioto River. The

25 aquifer is a major source of water to domestic, industrial, and agricultural users in the region.

26

27 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 28

(3849 mi2 29 ) and has data for the period from 1921 to present. Using these data, the staff

30 independently estimated the lowest 7-day discharge for low water condition that is estimated

31 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 32 /s (202 cfs) and the 30Q2 was estimated to

be 11.4 m3 33 /s (403 cfs). The 7Q10 provides an estimate of the short-term, low-flow conditions

34 in a dry year. The 30Q2 provides an estimate of the intermediate-term low-flow conditions in

35 an average year.

36

The maximum make-up water flow rate for a single unit is estimated in the PPE as 2.78 m3 37 /s

38 (98.0 cfs); however, the portion of the flow not evaporated is ultimately returned to the river as

39 blowdown flow. Based on the PPE, the maximum evaporation for a single unit using

mechanical draft cooling towers is 1.23 m3 40 /s (43.5 cfs). For either one or two units, this

41 represents a significant fraction of both the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 values. Some mitigation,

42 such as aquifer recharge, offstream storage, etc., may be warranted to limit the impacts to
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-47 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 other water users in the region. Therefore, the staff estimates water use impacts at the

2 Portsmouth site during construction would be SMALL, and during operation would be SMALL

3 to MODERATE except during drought years when the impact is expected to be MODERATE. 

4 Discharge of thermal and chemical effluents would be regulated by the State of Ohio’s

5 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process to limit water

6 quality impacts to the Scioto River, therefore water quality impacts during construction and

7 operation would be expected to be SMALL.

8

9 8.6.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

10

11 Site preparation and construction of one or more nuclear reactor units at the Portsmouth

12 alternative site would result in the loss of wildlife habitat in the developed portion of the

13 approximately 140 ha (340-acre) site. In general, the types of habitat that would be lost are

14 relatively common in south-central Ohio, and are not considered to be unique or sensitive. 

15 Less than 0.4 ha (1 ac) of wetlands would be disturbed for the development of this site

16 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Site development would have the potential to result in erosion,

17 dust generation, and noise impacts that are typical of large construction projects. These could

18 be mitigated using standard methods of erosion control, dust suppression, and noise

19 abatement.

20

21 Site development could result in the loss of habitat for several Federally or State-listed

22 species (Table 8-4). The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) could inhabit the riparian forest along

23 Little Beaver Creek, while the rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) and sharp-shinned

24 hawk (Accipiter striatus) may inhabit the forested portions of the Portsmouth site. The timber

25 rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) has not been observed on the Portsmouth site, but is believed

26 to occur in the vicinity. DOE has indicated that additional field surveys and evaluations would

27 be needed prior to development of this location (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

28

29 Development of the site could adversely affect at least two Ohio State-listed plant species, the

30 Virginia meadow-beauty (Rhexia virginica) and the Carolina yellow-eyed grass (Xyris

31 difformis). Evaluations for these species would be necessary prior to site development. 

32 Pending site-specific surveys for Federally and State-listed species, site preparation and

33 construction within the Portsmouth alternative site would not result in noticeable or

34 destabilizing impacts to the terrestrial ecology of the site. Therefore, pending more detailed

35 evaluations of threatened and endangered species, the construction impacts would be

36 SMALL. If the Federally or State-listed animal species are observed at the site, the impacts

37 could be larger.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-48 July 2006

1

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

3 Potentially Near the Portsmouth Alternative Site

4

5 Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

6 Mammals

7 Indiana bat E E Myotis sodalis

8 Birds

9 sharp-shinned hawk E Accipiter stiatus

10 Reptiles

11 timber rattlesnake E Crotalus horridus

12 rough green snake S Opheodrys aistivus

13 Plants

14 Virginia meadow-beauty P Rhexia virginica

15 Carolina yellow-eyed grass E Xyris difformis

16 E = endangered, S = Special concern, P = potentially threatened.

17 Source: DOE 2003.

18

19 If new reactor units were constructed at the Portsmouth alternative site, it would be expected

20 that very little usable habitat would remain within the site. Operation of the facility would likely

21 result in noise generation, and if wet cooling towers were employed, there could be impacts

22 caused by salt drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise is likely to be typical of operating

23 reactor units and cooling towers, which has been found to have a minimal impact in most

24 instances (NRC 1996). There are no sensitive habitat areas adjacent to the Portsmouth site

25 that would be adversely affected by noise from plant operations. The terrestrial vegetation in

26 the vicinity of the site is not believed to be unusually sensitive to salt drift, fogging, or icing

27 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Bird collision impacts would not be expected to be different

28 from most other power plants (NRC 1996). Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that

29 the impacts of operation of one or more reactor units at the Portsmouth alternative site on

30 terrestrial systems would be SMALL.

31

32 Transmission lines that would be constructed to connect new power reactors with the existing

33 Portsmouth transmission system would primarily cross either industrial lands or early34 successional plant communities that are not considered to be unique in the region or

35 otherwise sensitive. One exception is the potential for Indiana bats to inhabit the riparian

36 zone along Little Beaver Creek. Additional evaluations and habitat preservation precautions

37 may be necessary if the transmission lines cross this habitat. Otherwise, very little land would

38 be altered for the construction of the new lines, and the overall impacts of constructing new

39 lines would be minimal and would be similar to those of the construction of the reactor units.

40

41 Dominion has not indicated the specific maintenance procedures that would be followed for

42 the new transmission lines, but they would likely include regular mowing and herbicide
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-49 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 applications as needed. The primary area of potential concern is whether the lines must cross

2 Little Beaver Creek, where precautions to protect Indiana bats and their habitat may be

3 required. Additionally, there are at least two rare plant species (Table 8-4) that could occur

4 within transmission lines rights-of-way and could therefore be affected by transmission line

5 maintenance. Additional evaluations for the Indiana bat and rare plant species would be

6 needed. Otherwise, because the transmission lines that would be needed are short, entirely

7 within the bounds of the Portsmouth site and cross areas that have been previously disturbed,

8 the impacts of operation and maintenance of the transmission line system on the terrestrial

9 ecology would be expected to be minimal. No special mitigation measures would be

10 warranted, except protection of the riparian zone along Little Beaver Creek and conservation

11 of rare plant species, if present.

12

13 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impact on terrestrial ecological

14 resources of the construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units and associated

15 cooling systems and transmission facilities at the Portsmouth alternative site would be

16 SMALL, pending additional surveys for threatened and endangered species within the

17 construction area or transmission line rights-of-way. If such species were found, some

18 mitigation measures may be warranted.

19

20 8.6.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

21

22 The aquatic resources near the Portsmouth site would not be expected to be impacted by the

23 construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units. The water used for cooling at

24 Portsmouth would be withdrawn from groundwater wells. The cooling water would be

25 expected to be discharged to the Scioto River. Discharge limits would be controlled by

26 Federal and State regulations for protection of the river. Based on the foregoing, the staff

27 concludes that the overall impact on aquatic ecological resources (including threatened and

28 endangered species) of construction and operation of two commercial nuclear units and

29 associated cooling towers and transmission facilities at the Portsmouth site would be SMALL.

30

31 8.6.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

32

33 The potential impacts on socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental

34 justice from construction and operation of two units at the Portsmouth site were evaluated

35 using a reconnaissance survey of the site. That is, readily obtainable data from the Internet or

36 published sources were used in the evaluation, and no new data were collected. The

37 subsections that follow reflect the organizational structure of the socioeconomic discussions

38 found in Sections 2.8.4, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts resulting from both construction and

39 operation of two units are addressed.

40
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-50 July 2006

1 8.6.5.1 Physical Impacts

2

3 Construction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts due to matters

4 such as noise, odor, vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emission. The

5 use of public roadways, railways, and barges would be necessary to transport construction

6 materials and equipment to the site. SR 32 and U.S. Route 23 appear to be well maintained

7 and have been used for transporting heavy loads in the past (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). 

8 The staff expects that all construction activities would occur within the boundaries of the

9 Portsmouth site. Offsite areas that would support construction activities (e.g., borrow pits,

10 quarries, disposal sites) are expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on

11 those facilities from constructing two nuclear units would be small incremental impacts

12 associated with their normal operation.

13

14 Potential impacts from station operation could result from matters including noise, odors,

15 exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. Noise would be produced from the

16 operation of cooling towers, pumps, transformers, turbines, generators, and switchyard

17 equipment, and from traffic. Dominion states in its ER that any noise coming from the North

18 Anna ESP site would be controlled in accordance with applicable local county regulations. By

19 inference, this is also expected to apply to the Portsmouth site. Good road conditions and

20 appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level generated by the workforce

21 commuting to the Portsmouth site.

22

23 The nuclear units would be expected to have emissions from auxiliary power systems and

24 standby diesel generators. It is expected that the combined annual emissions of any pollutant

25 would be less than 91 MT/yr (100 tons/yr) (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Air permits acquired

26 for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. Paved access

27 roads and appropriate speed limits would minimize the amount of dust emissions generated

28 by the commuting workforce.

29

30 The nuclear facility with its two units and associated buildings and its cooling towers and

31 associated plume would change the landscape and would be visible from the sparsely

32 populated area north of the site.

33

34 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the physical impacts of construction and

35 operation would be SMALL. Construction activities would be temporary and occur mainly

36 within the boundaries of the Portsmouth alternative site. Offsite impacts would represent

37 small incremental changes to offsite services supporting construction activities. During station

38 operations, noise levels would be managed to meet local ordinance requirements. Air quality

39 permits would be required for equipment such as diesel generators and auxiliary boilers,

40 which should limit air emissions and ensure that applicable standards are met.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-51 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.6.5.2 Demography

2

3 The Portsmouth site is located in Pike County, Ohio, approximately 35 km (22 mi) north of the

4 Ohio River and 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the town of Piketon. Pike County’s largest

5 community, Waverly, has a population of 4433 residents. The nearest residential center to the

6 site is Piketon with a population of 1907. Additional population centers within 80 km (50 mi) of

7 the plant are Portsmouth (population 20,909), 35 km (22 mi) south; Chillicothe (population

8 21,796), 43 km (27 mi) north; and Jackson (population 6184), 29 km (18 mi) east. 

9 Approximately 90 percent of Portsmouth site workers reside in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and

10 Scioto Counties. The population for the four counties in 2000 was 212,876 (USCB 2000b).

11

12 Most of the construction and operations workforce are expected to come from within the

13 region, and those who might relocate to the region would represent a small percentage of the

14 larger population base. Those who do relocate to the region would most likely take up

15 residency across the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that any

16 environmental impacts caused by population increases within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the

17 Portsmouth site attributable to construction or operation of two units would be SMALL.

18

19 8.6.5.3 Community Characteristics

20

21 Economy

22

23 Economic activities near the Portsmouth site consist primarily of farming, timber harvesting

24 and processing, and small businesses. The only significant industry in the vicinity is an

25 industrial park south of Waverly. Industries include a cabinet manufacturer and an automotive

26 parts manufacturer (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

27

28 The unemployment rate in Ohio was 6.1 percent as of July 2004. At that time, the

29 unemployment rates in Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties were 9.2, 8.3, 7.8 and

30 8.5 percent, respectively (ODJFS 2004). This data indicates that this area of Ohio has not

31 fully recovered from the recession of 2001. The Portsmouth site itself has provided significant

32 socioeconomic benefits for the surrounding communities over the last 50 years, providing jobs

33 that paid above average wages and salaries. The overall economic impacts of constructing

34 and operating two units at the Portsmouth alternative site would be beneficial to the local

35 economy.

36

37 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of station construction

38 and operation on the economy of the region would be SMALL everywhere in the region except

39 Pike County, where the beneficial impact level on the region would be MODERATE. The

40 magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic bases of the

41 region; whereas, within the smaller economic base of Pike County and given the fact the new
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The estimate is based on a methodology explained in Dominion and Bechtel (2002) and updated

using 2000 census data.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-52 July 2006

1 units would be located in the county, the economic impacts could be more noticeable and

2 have a greater beneficial impact. 

3

4 Availability of Workers

5

6 Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers more than 5 years

7 to build two nuclear units at the Portsmouth site. The Portsmouth site would draw its workers

8 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) 9

10

11 Except for electricians, skilled craft workers in the Portsmouth area are reported as fully

12 employed. The concentration of industrial facilities within this region (e.g., oil refineries and

13 steel mills) provides yearly employment for the building trades. This could present significant

14 competition for manpower if this site were selected for construction of new nuclear units. 

15 Moreover, this area has a reputation as a complicated labor environment, and the shutdown of

16 the Portsmouth enrichment facility operations has contributed to this climate (Dominion and

17 Bechtel 2002).

18

19 The Portsmouth site currently provides employment for more than 1800 people. The site

20 employs a highly skilled workforce with decades of nuclear-related experience. During the

21 last several years, Portsmouth has undergone a major downsizing. Dominion would need

22 approximately 720 new employees to operate the proposed new nuclear units. The addition

23 of commercial nuclear generation would be expected to add jobs of similar or higher quality to

24 the existing workforce, many of which could be filled by current or former Portsmouth site

25 employees (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

26

27 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that there appears to be a large supply of

28 construction workers but a limited availability of skilled craft workers. Dominion may have to

29 recruit from outside the region to fill its requirements for skilled craft workers. Employees for

30 station operation would be expected to be available from within the region because of the

31 downsizing of the Portsmouth site workforce.

32

33 Transportation

34

35 Two major highways serve the Portsmouth site: U.S. 23 and SR 32. At their nearest points,

36 these highways run within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the site. Access to the site is by the main access

37 road, a four-lane interchange with U.S. 23, and the north access road, which initially is a
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-53 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 two-lane road that transitions to four lanes with SR 32. SR 32 and U.S. 23 both appear to be

2 well maintained and have been used for the transport of heavy loads (Dominion and

3 Bechtel 2002).

4

5 As previously mentioned, constructing the two units would employ a construction workforce of

6 5000. Operating two nuclear units would employ an operations workforce of 720. During the

7 Portsmouth site operational period, between the 1970s and 2001, the total workforce

8 numbered about 5000 at its peak. Currently 1800 people work at the site. Based on this

9 previous peak, nearby access roads should be capable of supporting both construction and

10 operations commuter traffic at this level with some roadway upgrades and traffic signal

11 improvements. In addition, there are adequate transportation routes in the area to handle

12 transportation of bulk materials to and from the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

13

14 Two major rail lines service the site: CSX and Norfolk and Southern. Both railways appear to

15 be in excellent condition. Approximately 35 km (22 mi) south of the Portsmouth site, two main

16 rail lines run east-west along the Ohio River. The river is used for barge transportation, so

17 materials could be off-loaded from barges onto rail cars, making transportation to the

18 Portsmouth site by either rail or road achievable (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

19

20 Numerous airports are within 161 km (100 mi) of the site, including the airports at Columbus,

21 Cincinnati, and Dayton, Ohio, and Charleston, West Virginia. All these airports conduct

22 regular freight and passenger air services. In addition, there are numerous smaller airports in

23 the immediate vicinity. Thus, air passenger service and freight service for shipment of small

24 items via air are readily available (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

25

26 The Portsmouth site is in a rural, low-population area. The regional transportation network is

27 adequate for commuter and transient traffic in the area. The transportation system around

28 the Portsmouth site was capable of handling 5000 workers during previous periods of peak

29 operations. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the transportation impacts of a

30 construction or operating workforce on the transportation infrastructure would be SMALL.

31

32 Taxes

33

34 The State of Ohio has a 5-percent sales tax. In addition to the State sales tax, each county in

35 Ohio has a county sales tax. Jackson, Ross, and Scioto Counties each have a sales tax rate

36 of 1.5 percent, and Pike County has a sales tax rate of 1 percent (NRC 2004). Sales taxes

37 would be paid from the sales of construction materials and supplies purchased for the project. 

38 The State of Ohio has a personal income tax rate with a top marginal rate of 5.2 percent for

39 incomes in excess of $40,000 (NRC 2004).

40

41 The average property tax rates for Ohio cities are divided into three separate classifications:

42 Class I Real (residential and agricultural); Class II Real (commercial, industrial, mineral, and
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The proposed ESP site would not be on land owned by Dominion. Most likely, should the Portsmouth

site be chosen for the new plant, the site for the new units would be leased to Dominion by DOE.

(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 the proposed nuclear plant would pay to Pike County would depend on assessed value

and millage rate per thousand of assessed value). On the assumption that there is a rough

comparison between what Dominion pays to Louisa County and what they might pay to Pike County, it

can be concluded that the potential percentage of the proposed facility’s property taxes to the total of

all property taxes paid in Pike County would be significant.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-54 July 2006

1 public utility); and Class III Tangible Personal (general and public utility) (NRC 2004). For

2 Waverly in Pike County, the rate was $0.07412 per $1000 for all three classifications in 2001;

3 for Portsmouth in Scioto County, the rate was $0.06013 per $1000 for all three classifications

4 in 2001; for Wellston in Jackson County, the rate was $0.05500 per $1000 for all three

5 classifications; and for Chillicothe in Ross County, the Class I rate was $0.05407, the Class II

6 rate was $0.05394, and the Class III rate was $0.05402 per $1000. Finally, because the units

7 would be built by a private company (Dominion) and not DOE, a property tax might be levied

8 on the value of the property that hosts the units as they are constructed and on the appraised

9 value of the units once construction is completed and the units are brought online. These

10 taxes would most likely go to Pike County.

11

12 DOE does not pay property taxes to the local communities around the Portsmouth site. 

13 However, DOE has provided $12.9 million in grants to the Southern Ohio Diversification

14 Initiative. Other economic benefits include the collection of sales tax on uranium enrichment

15 services. Adding commercial nuclear capacity at the Portsmouth site would be expected to

16 increase the tax base for these localities for the life of the two units (Dominion and Bechtel

2002).(a) 17

18

19 Workers living outside Ohio and commuting to Portsmouth likely will have to pay income taxes

20 to their state of residence (West Virginia and Kentucky). They may also have to pay sales

21 taxes to the State and local governments in the region where sales take place and property

22 taxes to the counties in which they might own a residence.

23

24 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes the overall beneficial impacts of construction and

25 operation of the new facility on taxes collected in the region through the income, sales and

26 use, and property taxes (except for Pike County) would be SMALL. The taxes paid, while

27 substantial, are nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes

28 collected by states and local governments in the region. For property taxes for Pike County,

29 the staff considers the overall beneficial impacts of the property taxes collected would be

LARGE(b) 30 (operations) relative to the total amount of taxes the county collects through

31 property taxes.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-55 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Aesthetics and Recreation

2

3 There are no significant recreational or residential areas within 3 km (2 mi) of the proposed

4 Portsmouth alternative site. Mechanical-draft cooling towers or natural-draft towers could

5 function as part of the new nuclear units’ cooling system, which could produce visible plumes

6 offsite. Nearby trees may serve as a visual buffer for the transmission facilities. The preferred

7 location at the Portsmouth site is situated in an area with open terrain. Because the preferred

8 site is close to the northeast corner of the existing site boundary, it is possible that the

9 proposed units would have an identifiable nuclear power plant view offsite (Dominion and

10 Bechtel 2002), especially if natural draft towers were used for cooling.

11

12 Recreational facilities in the Portsmouth area include Brush Creek State Forest. Use of Lake

13 White State Park is occasionally heavy and is concentrated on the 43 ha (107 ac) of land

14 closest to the lake. The number of visitors in 1992 was 55,876 with a daily average of 153

15 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

16

17 The AP1000 reactor has a tall containment building, approximately 71 m (234 ft) above grade

18 level. Natural-draft cooling towers would be about 170 m (550 ft) above grade and

19 mechanical-draft towers would be about 18 m (60 ft) above grade. The design of the AP1000

20 containment building includes a hatch that determines the height that it must be above grade. 

21 This building would be expensive to redesign to allow the building to be placed lower in the

22 ground. Thus, depending on the type of cooling tower chosen, the height of the AP1000

23 containment building could set the upper bound of what buildings would be visible from offsite.

24

25 There are no significant residential areas or recreational facilities within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. 

26 Plumes from mechanical-draft cooling towers could be visible offsite. Trees ordinarily serve

27 as a visual buffer for the power transmission infrastructure. Based on the foregoing, the staff

28 concludes that the impacts of construction and station operation on aesthetics at a wooded

29 site would be SMALL. But the impacts could also be MODERATE, if the Portsmouth site is on

30 a mostly undisturbed part of the site and on open terrain, enabling the reactors and the

31 cooling towers and their plumes to be viewed from offsite.

32

33 Housing

34

35 In the four-county area of Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties, there were 89,026

36 housing units in 2000. Of these, 22,824 were rental units, 2150 of which were vacant, for an

37 8.6 percent vacancy rate (USCB 2000c). The Portsmouth site is about 113 km (70 mi) south

38 of Columbus, Ohio, (population in 2000 of 711,470), and 121 km (75 mi) east of Cincinnati,

39 Ohio, (population in 2000 of 331,285), which are the two closest metropolitan areas (USCB

40 2000b). Huntington, West Virginia (population 51,475), is approximately 140 km (87 mi) away

41 to the southeast. These three cities have a total housing stock of 519,075, of which 256,326

42 are renter-occupied and 24,868 units are available for rent for a vacancy rate of 8.8 percent
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-56 July 2006

1 (USCB 2000c). Because it is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours

2 (one way) per day, there appears to be enough vacant rental housing to house those who

3 might relocate to the region.

4

5 In the four-county area of Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Scioto Counties there were 58,246

6 owner-occupied housing units in 2000. In the four-county area, 1085 units were for sale, or

7 1.8 percent of the total of owner-occupied houses. In the three-city area of Columbus,

8 Cincinnati, and Huntington, there were 218,258 owner-occupied housing units and 4778 units

9 for sale, or 2.1 percent of total of owner-occupied houses (USCB 2000c). In both the local

10 and larger metropolitan areas (i.e., Columbus, Cincinnati, and Huntington), the percentage of

11 houses for sale in relation to owner-occupied housing is very low, indicating a fairly tight

12 housing market.

13

14 The operations workforce is expected to come from current or former employees at the

15 Portsmouth site. If, however, a substantial number of workers have to be recruited into the

16 area, upward pressure on housing values could emerge. This assumption is based on the low

17 number of homes for sale in the area and the fact that the workforce, which would be on the

18 higher end of the salary scale when compared to other job classifications in the area, may

19 tend to buy more upscale homes. In this case, the operational impacts could be moderate.

20

21 It is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day to the

22 job site, and many of the construction workers are assumed to already live within the region. 

23 There appears to be sufficient vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate to the

24 region. If, as expected, most of the operations workforce have residences already in the

25 region, then the impacts on housing because of station operation would be small. Based on

26 the foregoing, and assuming the operations workforce comes from within the region, the staff

27 concludes that the impacts to housing from construction and operation of the two units would

28 be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. If the operations workforce, the impacts would be

29 SMALL.

30

31 Public Services

32

33 Water and Wastewater Treatment

34

35 The capacity of communities to absorb an increase in population depends on the availability

36 of sufficient community resources, such as water and wastewater treatment. Two large

37 metropolitan areas (Columbus and Cincinnati) are within 145 km (90 mi) of the site. 

38 Huntington, West Virginia, is approximately 140 km (87 mi) away. The cities of Portsmouth,

39 Jackson, and Chillicothe, Ohio, are within about 50 km (30 mi) from the facility (south, east

40 and north, respectively). There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of

41 Portsmouth. All these towns and cities are within a 2-hour commuting distance via local
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-57 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 transportation routes of the site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002) and could provide public

2 services such as water and wastewater treatment to the construction and operations

3 workforce who might relocate to the area.

4

5 Many of the construction and operations workforce would come from within the region, and

6 those that choose to relocate to the region would most likely take up residence throughout the

7 region, thus placing minimal demands on the existing infrastructure. Based on the foregoing,

8 the staff concludes that the impacts of the construction and operations workforces on water

9 and wastewater treatment in the region would be SMALL.

10

11 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities

12

13 The hospital nearest to the Portsmouth site is the Pike Community Hospital, located

14 approximately 12.1 km (7.5 mi) north of the facility on SR 104 south of Waverly. No other

15 acute-care facilities are located in Pike County. There is an urgent-care facility, Adena Health

16 Center, also on SR 104 near the hospital. In addition, two licensed nursing homes are located

17 near Piketon, and one nursing home is located in Wakefield; all are located within 8 km (5 mi)

18 of the Portsmouth site (NRC 2004). Other medical facilities exist in Jackson, Chillicothe, and

19 Waverly.

20

21 Several State, county, and local police departments provide law enforcement in the region

22 (NRC 2004). Any additional demands on law enforcement services could potentially be met

23 by the increased tax revenues available to support the services. There would most likely be a

24 time delay between the demand for the services and the collection of the tax revenues, which

25 could cause some short-term financial issues for the impacted jurisdictions.

26

27 Many of the potential construction and operations workforce probably already live within an

28 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region. There are a number of towns within a 2-hour commuting

29 distance of the site. Any new workers relocating to the area would most likely have places of

30 residency located throughout the region, which would not place an undue burden on any one

31 jurisdictional entity’s infrastructure. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the

32 impacts of the construction and operations workforce on police, fire and medical facilities in

33 the Portsmouth area would be SMALL.

34

35 Social Services

36

37 In Ohio, social services at the state level are overseen by the Ohio Department of Jobs and

38 Family Services. It develops and oversees programs and services designed to help Ohio

39 residents become independent through education, employment, job skills, and training. A

40 major responsibility of the department is to work with county departments of job and family

41 services, child support enforcement agencies, and public children’s services agencies to

42 develop social service programs to strengthen families, protect children, and provide children
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-58 July 2006

1 with an opportunity for a better life. The Department also administers the unemployment and

2 medicaid programs for Ohio. During construction, there could be increased demand for these

3 social services.

4

5 Generally, construction and operation of new nuclear units at the Portsmouth site would be

6 viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the

7 Department. The workforce associated with the new units would most likely be better paid

8 than workers in other employment categories in the region. It is expected that, through the

9 multiplier effect, the number of jobs that could be filled by the disadvantaged population would

10 increase.

11

12 Construction and operation would have a beneficial economic impact to the economically

13 disadvantaged population in the region, which should lessen the demand for social services. 

14 There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the beginning of the

15 construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited. Based on the foregoing,

16 the staff concludes that the impacts of construction and station operation of two units at the

17 Portsmouth site on social and related services would be SMALL.

18

19 Education

20

21 Twenty-four public school districts provide public education for approximately 36,000 students

22 in the region. The two school systems nearest the Portsmouth site are in Pike and Scioto

23 Counties. In 2002, the combined enrollment of these schools was approximately 2387

24 (NRC 2004). Within the same area, three facilities provide daycare or schooling for

25 preschool-aged children and after-school care for school-aged children. Two of these

26 facilities accommodate 390 children (NRC 2004).

27

28 Many in the potential construction and operating workforce probably already live within the

29 region, and any new workers relocating to the area would most likely take up residency

30 throughout the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of

31 construction and station operation on educational facilities and services as a result of

32 construction and operation of two units would be SMALL.

33

34 8.6.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

35

36 The area of southern Ohio where the Portsmouth site is located contains evidence from each

37 of the major prehistoric periods for eastern North America, including the Paleo-Indian, Archaic,

38 Woodland, and Fort Ancient periods. In early historic times, the area was occupied by the

39 Shawnee Tribe. The Euro-American historic period occupation in the vicinity began

40 about 1800. Doe completed archaeological and historic architectural surveys in 1996 at the

41 Portsmouth site. Consultation is ongoing with the Ohio State Historic Preservation Officer

42 concerning the results of these surveys (DOE 2003). Consultations with the Shawnee Indian
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-59 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Tribe have not identified any traditional cultural properties or other resources of Native

2 American cultural value at the site.

3

4 The DOE survey found three archeological sites near the 138-ha (340-ac) parcel. The three

5 sites are northeast of the parcel (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The closest site to the

6 Portsmouth parcel is the Holt Cemetery, which is located about 183 m (600 ft) from the

7 eastern boundary of the parcel. No national landmarks are near the Portsmouth site, and no

8 properties presently on the National Register of Historic Places are within the Portsmouth site. 

9 The nearest National Register locations are Buzzardroost Rock and Lynx Prairie in Adams

10 County, about 48 km (30 mi) southeast of the Portsmouth site.

11

12 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural

13 resources would be SMALL for construction at the Portsmouth site. Potential impacts from

14 operation of the proposed two units at the Portsmouth alternative site would also be SMALL,

15 because any such potential impacts would be identified and appropriate mitigation measures

16 could be effected during the construction phase.

17

18 8.6.5.5 Environmental Justice

19

20 DOE recently performed an environmental assessment (DOE 2001) for the Portsmouth site as

21 part of its winterization activities for placing the facility in cold standby. As part of that

22 assessment, an evaluation of potential environmental justice impacts was conducted. DOE

23 evaluated the distribution of minority populations in a four-county area around the Portsmouth

24 site. DOE defined a minority population as any area in which minority representation was

25 greater than the national average of 24.2 percent. In all four counties, minority populations

26 are smaller than the national average. Hence, using this definition, environmental justice was

27 not a concern (DOE 2001), nor is it a concern using the NRC criteria defined in 69 FR 52040

28 (which is different than that used by DOE – see Section 2.8.4). DOE then carried the analysis

29 a step further and examined the minority populations in the census tracts closest to the site. 

30 None of the tracts closest to the site had minority representation greater than the national

31 average of 24.2 percent (DOE 2001).

32

33 Individuals with incomes below the poverty level were identified in the four-county region. A

34 low-income population included any census tract (1990 data) in which the percentage of

35 people with income below the poverty level was greater than the national average of

36 13.1 percent (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Nearly all (41 of 48) of the census tracts in the

37 four-county area qualified as low-income populations, but none of the low-income populations

38 would suffer disproportionate impacts as a result of the construction and operation of new

39 nuclear units at the Portsmouth site.

40

41 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and

42 operation of two units at the Portsmouth alternative site on minority and low-income
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-60 July 2006

1 populations would be SMALL. No disproportionately high and adverse impacts were

2 identified.

3

4 8.7 Evaluation of the Savannah River Site

5

6 Dominion selected a 100-hectare (250-acre) parcel of land in the northern portion of DOE’s

7 Savannah River Site as a possible location for two commercial nuclear units (Dominion and

8 Bechtel 2002). For this evaluation, the following assumptions were made by the staff about

9 locating the proposed units at the alternative site at the Savannah River site.

10

11 & The units would use closed-cycle cooling.

12 & Natural- or mechanical-draft cooling towers would be employed.

13 & The Savannah River would be the source of cooling water.

14 & The existing intake structure is sufficient.

15 & Blowdown water would be discharged to the Savannah River or to Par Pond.

16 & The land area would be approximately 100 ha (250 ac).

17 & New transmission lines would be needed.

18

DOE’s Savannah River Site occupies an area of approximately 800 km2 (310 mi2 19 ) adjacent to

20 the Savannah River, in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. The site is

21 approximately 40 km (25 mi) southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and 31 km (19.5 mi) south of

22 Aiken, South Carolina. The site is bounded along its southwest border by the Savannah River

23 for approximately 56 river km (35 river mi). The Savannah River Site vicinity is shown in

24 Figure 8-5.

25

26 The average population density in the counties surrounding the site is approximately 85

27 people per square mile, with the largest concentration in the Augusta metropolitan area. 

28 Approximately 70 percent of the site employees live in South Carolina, primarily Aiken County,

29 and 30 percent live in Georgia (Westinghouse 2001).

30

31 The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, predecessor agency to DOE, established the Savannah

32 River Site in the early 1950s. Historically, the mission of the site has been the production of

33 special radioactive isotopes to support national programs. DOE produced these isotopes in

34 five production reactors. After the material was produced at Savannah River Site, it was

35 shipped to other DOE sites for further processing.

36

37 Approximately 73 percent of the surface area of the Savannah River Site is composed of open

38 fields and upland forest. The forested areas consist primarily of upland pine and mixed

39 hardwoods. The remaining area consists of wetlands, streams, and reservoirs (22 percent)

40 and developed industrial and administrative areas (5 percent) (DOE 1999).
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-61 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1

2

3 Figure 8-5. Savannah River Site Vicinity Map

4

5 The Savannah River is the principal surface water system associated with the Savannah River

6 Site. Five of its major tributaries (Upper Three Runs, Fourmile Branch, Pen Branch, Steel

7 Creek, and Lower Three Runs) flow through and drain the site. The Savannah River is a

8 domestic and industrial water source for the site and several downstream communities (the

9 cities of Port Wentworth and Savannah in Georgia and Beaufort and Jasper Counties in South

10 Carolina). In addition, the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, located across the Savannah

11 River from the Savannah River Site, uses water from the river for its cooling system

12 (DOE 1999).
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-62 July 2006

1 The southeastern United States has a humid subtropical climate characterized by relatively

2 short, mild winters and long, warm, humid summers. Summer-like weather typically lasts from

3 May through September. The humid conditions often result in scattered afternoon

4 thunderstorms. Average seasonal rainfall is usually lowest during the fall (DOE 1999).

5

6 The Savannah River Site is within the Southeastern Plains ecological province (Omernick

7 1987) near the transition between northern oak-hickory-pine forest and southern mixed forest. 

8 Thus, species typical of both associations are found on the Savannah River Site (DOE 1995). 

9 Farming, fire, soil, and topography have strongly influenced Savannah River Site vegetation

10 patterns.

11

12 The Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people, many

13 of whom have nuclear facility training and who are highly skilled. Salaries are above average

14 for the area. During the last decade, the Savannah River Site has undergone a major

15 downsizing primarily because of the end of the Cold War. Because of downsizing, the

16 Savannah River Site has contracted many nonclassified operations to private companies for

17 support services (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

18

19 The Savannah River Site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the

20 surrounding communities over the last five decades. The facility injects about $1.5 billion

21 annually into the economies of South Carolina and Georgia, the two states bordering the site. 

22 The facility provides thousands of jobs with above-average salaries, conducts environmental

23 and nuclear technology research, and offers business development programs for local

24 communities (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

25

26 8.7.1 Land Use Including Site and Transmission Lines

27

28 The Savannah River Site has extensive undeveloped land that is potentially suitable for

29 commercial nuclear power generation. DOE conducted a review of potential locations on the

30 site for possible location of an accelerator for the production of tritium (DOE 1999). DOE

31 identified six possible locations that satisfied its siting criteria. The preferred site from the

32 DOE review is approximately 10.4 km (6.5 mi) from the Savannah River Site boundary, 5 km

33 (3 mi) northeast of the Tritium Loading Facility, and north of Roads F and E (Dominion and

34 Bechtel 2002). The site, which is divided by the boundary line between Aiken and Barnwell

35 Counties, is bordered on the southwest by a 115-kV transmission line, a buried super-control

36 and relay cable, and Monroe Owens Road. Three other secondary roads cross the site. The

37 elevation of the site is 91 to 100 m (300 to 330 ft) MSL. Dominion has adopted the DOE site

38 for the accelerator as an alternative site for new nuclear generation. For this analysis, the site

39 boundaries are shown in the upper center portion of Figure 8-6, and the site is referred to as

40 the Savannah River alternative site.

41

42
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-63 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1

2

3

4

5 Figure 8-6. Potential New Nuclear Station Site within the DOE Savannah River Site
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-64 July 2006

1 Dominion did not identify any current or possible future land-use restrictions that would prohibit

2 the construction of new units on the Savannah River alternative site (Dominion and

3 Bechtel 2002). DOE, however, would need to approve any such construction.

4

5 New nuclear generating units located at the Savannah River alternative site would need to have

6 an exclusion area that meets NRC requirements (10 CFR Part 100). The exclusion area is the

7 area surrounding the reactor within which the reactor licensee has the authority to determine all

8 activities, including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the area.

9

10 Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) requires that

11 applicants seeking a Federal permit to conduct an activity that affects a coastal zone area

12 provide to the permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the

13 enforceable policies of the state’s coastal zone program. However, the Savannah River Site is

14 not within the coastal zone of South Carolina for purposes of the Act (SCDHEC 2004).

15

16 Approximately 90 percent of the workforce for the Savannah River Site lives in Aiken, Allendale,

17 Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

18 Georgia. There are numerous small towns within 80 km (50 mi) of the site. These communities

19 could supply an adequate construction and operating workforce and are within a 2-hour

20 commuting distance via local transportation routes. Offsite land-use impacts associated with

21 construction of two commercial nuclear units are likely to be relatively limited, given the

22 temporary nature of the construction. Some new rental housing or new manufactured home

23 and recreational vehicle parks would be expected to be constructed to accommodate

24 construction workers.

25

26 The staff assumed that workers at new units that would be located at the Savannah River

27 alternative site would live primarily in the aforementioned counties. Some new housing in these

28 counties would likely be constructed to accommodate permanent workers at the new units. The

29 property tax revenue from the new units could affect future land use in these counties as a

30 result of infrastructure improvements made possible by the tax revenue. Based on the

31 foregoing, the staff concludes that the land-use impacts of construction and operation are

32 expected to be SMALL.

33

34 The transmission system on the Savannah River Site consists of multiple 115-kV transmission

35 lines forming a ring network around the site. Three switching stations for the 115-kV

36 transmission lines exist around the site to feed the different area loads. Construction of one or

37 more new 500-kV transmission lines or several 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to

38 transmit power from new nuclear units located on the site to the regional grid (Dominion and

39 Bechtel 2002). Several options for transmitting the electrical output of new nuclear units were

40 evaluated by Dominion. The likely option would be to construct transmission lines either to the

41 west through the Savannah River Site, then cross the Savannah River to connect with the

42 existing system near the Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant in Burke County, Georgia, or to a
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-65 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 connection point approximately 97 km (60 mi) west of the Savannah River Site. Because the

2 detailed routing of these transmission line rights-of-way are not known at this time, a detailed

3 evaluation of the impacts to land use cannot be made. However, if a tie-in to the Vogtle Nuclear

4 Power Plant is used, there would be minimal impacts to land use because most of the rights-of5 way would be located on the Savannah River Site. The staff concludes that the impact of

6 construction of new transmission capability at the Savannah River alternative site would likely

7 be in the range of SMALL to MODERATE.

8

9 8.7.2 Water Use and Quality

10

11 The water consumed by the new units at the Savannah River alternative site would be pumped

12 from Par Pond. In dry years, local inflows to Par Pond may be inadequate to offset

13 consumption water demands for the new units. During such times, water to refill Par Pond

14 would be pumped from the Savannah River. Therefore, new units at the Savannah River

15 alternative site would impact the Savannah River. The staff reviewed streamflow records

16 reported by the U.S. Geological Survey for stream gauge 02197000 (Savannah River at

Augusta, Georgia). This gauge reflects runoff from a drainage of 19,450 km2 (7508 mi2 17 ) and

18 has provided data for the period from 1884 to 2001. Using these data, the staff independently

19 estimated the lowest 7-day discharge for low water condition that is estimated every 10 years

20 (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 21 /s (2150 cfs) and 30Q2 was estimated to be

130 m3 22 /s (4600 cfs). The 7Q10 provides an estimate of the short-term, low-flow conditions in a

23 dry year. The 30Q2 provides an estimate of the moderate-term, low-flow conditions in an

24 average year.

25

The maximum makeup water flow rate for a single unit is estimated in the PPE as 2.78 m3 26 /s

27 (98.0 cfs); however, the portion of the flow not evaporated is ultimately returned to the Par Pond

28 as blowdown flow. Based on the PPE, the maximum evaporation for a single unit using

mechanical-draft cooling towers would be 1.23 m3 29 /s (43.5 cfs). For either one or two units, this

30 would represent a small fraction of both the 7Q10 and the 30Q2 values. Discharge of thermal

31 and chemical effluents would be regulated by the State of South Carolina’s NPDES permitting

32 process to limit impacts to the Savannah River. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the staff

33 concludes the impact of construction and operation of two units on water use and quality at the

34 Savannah River alternative site would be SMALL.

35

36 8.7.3 Terrestrial Resources Including Endangered Species

37

38 The Savannah River alternative site is within the Southeastern Plains ecological province

39 (Omernick 1987) near the transition between northern oak-hickory-pine forest and
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-66 July 2006

1 southern mixed forest. Thus, species typical of both associations are found on the site

2 (DOE 1995). Farming, fire, soil, and topography have strongly influenced vegetation patterns

3 at the Savannah River Site.

4

5 A variety of plant communities occur in the upland areas. Typically, scrub oak communities are

6 found on the drier, sandier areas. Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), turkey oak (Quercus laevis),

7 bluejack oak (Q. incana), and blackjack oak (Q. marilandica) dominate these communities,

8 which typically have understories of wiregrass (Aristida stricta) and huckleberry (Vaccinium

9 spp.). Oak-hickory communities are usually located on more fertile, dry uplands; characteristic

10 species are white oak (Q. alba), post oak (Q. stellata), red oak (Q. falcata), mockernut hickory

11 (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (C. glabra), and loblolly pine (P. taeda), with an understory of

12 sparkleberry (V. arboreum), holly (Ilex spp.), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy

13 (Toxicodendron radicans) (DOE 1995).

14

15 Before the Federal government established, the Savannah River Site, the area was mainly

16 farmland that had been highly eroded. Approximately 90 percent of the site has been planted

17 with loblolly, slash pine (P. elliottii), and hardwood trees. The Savannah River alternative site

18 consists of mostly forested land, made up predominantly of loblolly and slash pine that have

19 been planted since the late 1950s. The site is part of a designated forest timber unit under the

20 Savannah River Site land-use system. The Savannah River Institute (formerly known as the

21 Savannah River Forest Station) coordinates the removal and sale of marketable timber from the

22 site (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

23

24 The departure of residents in 1951 and the subsequent reforestation have provided the wildlife

25 of Savannah River Site with excellent habitat. The site has extensive, widely distributed

26 wetlands, most of which are associated with floodplains, creeks, or impoundments. In addition,

27 approximately 200 Carolina bays occur on the site (DOE 1995). Carolina bays are unique

28 wetland features of the southeastern United States.

29

30 Federally and State-listed rare, threatened, and endangered species, including the bald eagle,

31 wood stork (Mycteria americana), and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), reside

32 within the Savannah River Site. Federally and State threatened or endangered species

33 potentially occurring in Aiken or Barnwell Counties are listed in Table 8-5. In addition to the

34 species listed in Table 8-5, a large number of species, although not listed as threatened or

35 endangered, are still of concern or interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

36 (FWS 2004a, b) and/or the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR 2004).

37

38 Operation of the new units would likely result in noise generation, and if wet cooling towers were

39 employed, there could be impacts caused by drift, icing, fogging, and bird collisions. Noise

40 would likely be typical of operating reactor units and cooling towers, which has been determined

41 to be a SMALL impact in most instances (NRC 1996). There are no sensitive habitat areas

42 adjacent to the Savannah River alternative site that would be adversely affected by noise from
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-67 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 plant operations. The nearest bald eagles and wood storks are approximately 5 km (3 mi)

2 distant. Red-cockaded woodpeckers have not been observed at the Savannah River alternative

3 site, but could be deterred from using the area if there were increased noise and human activity.

4

5 The terrestrial vegetation in the vicinity of the Savannah River alternative site is not believed to

6 be unusually sensitive to drift, fogging, or icing (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Bird collisions

7 would not be expected to be different from most other power plants (NRC 1996), and if

8 mechanical-draft towers are selected, bird strikes are likely to be very rare. Overall, it would be

9 expected that the impacts of operation of one or more nuclear units at the Savannah River

10 alternative site on terrestrial systems would be minimal.

11

12 The actual routes of transmission lines that would connect new units at the Savannah River

13 alternative site with the regional grid have not been determined (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). 

14 Maintenance of the transmission line rights-of-way could impact wetlands, threatened or

15 endangered species habitat areas, or other sensitive ecological resources. Therefore, the 

16

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

18 Potentially Occurring in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina

19

20 Scientific Name Species Federal Status State Status

21 Birds

22 bald eagle T E Haliaeetus leucocephalus

23 wood stork E E Mycteria americana

24 red-cockaded woodpecker E E Picoides borealis

25 Mammals

26 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat SC E Corynorhinus rafinesquii

27 Amphibians

28 gopher frog SC E Rana capito

29 Reptiles

30 spotted turtle -- T Clemmys guttata

31 gopher tortoise SC E Gopherus polyphemus

32 Plants

33 relict trillium E E Trillium reliquum

34 harperella E E Ptilimnium nodosum

35 smooth coneflower E E Echinacea laevigata

36 pond berry E E Linderna melissifolia

37 Canby’s dropwort E E Oxypolis canbyi

38 American chaffseed E E Schwalbea americana

39 E = endangered, T = threatened, SC = species of concern.

40 Sources: FWS 2004a, b; SCDNR 2004.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-68 July 2006

1 potential impacts of construction, operation, and maintenance of the transmission line rights-of2 way on terrestrial ecosystems cannot be determined without more detailed information

3 concerning the location of the transmission line rights-of-way and the maintenance procedures

4 that would be employed. However, large impacts could be avoided by careful route selection;

5 therefore, the staff concludes the impact of construction on terrestrial resources (including

6 threatened and endangered species) would be SMALL to MODERATE depending on the

7 routing of the transmission line rights-of-way. Based on the foregoing, the overall impact on

8 terrestrial resources including threatened or endangered species of operating two units and

9 associated cooling systems at the Savannah River alternative site would be SMALL. 

10 Depending on the location of transmission line rights-of-way, the construction and operational

11 impacts on threatened and endangered species could be SMALL to MODERATE.

12

13 8.7.4 Aquatic Resources Including Endangered Species

14

15 The aquatic environment at the Savannah River Site is associated with the Savannah River. 

16 The two main bodies of water onsite, Par Pond and L-Lake, were constructed to support site

17 operations. Par Pond, which was constructed to provide cooling water for, and to receive

18 heated cooling water from, P-Reactor and R-Reactor, has a surface area of about 1093 ha

19 (2700 ac). The 405-ha (1000-ac) L-Lake was constructed to receive heated cooling water from

20 L-Reactor. The Savannah River Site is bounded on its southwest border by the Savannah

21 River for about 56 river km (35 river mi). Five major streams from the Savannah River Site feed

22 into the river.

23

24 All the water for cooling is expected to be withdrawn from the Savannah River. The cooling

25 water blowdown would likely be discharged to Par Pond or the Savannah River. Because the

26 expected cooling system would be a closed-cycle system, the impacts to aquatic resources

27 would be expected to be minimal. The potential for impingement and entrainment of aquatic

28 resources would be expected to be mitigated by the current operation of the intake structure. 

29 The potential impacts of heated water would be expected to be mitigated by the placement of

30 the discharge structures.

31

32 There are two endangered species in the Savannah River alternative site. They are the

33 shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and the fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria). Both are

34 protected under current management practices used by DOE at the Savannah River Site. The

35 staff evaluated the potential impacts of operating the proposed new nuclear units, including

36 operating the plants, cooling systems, and transmission systems on aquatic threatened and

37 endangered species.

38

39 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall impact on aquatic ecological

40 resources, including threatened and endangered species, of construction and operation of two

41 units and associated cooling towers and transmission facilities at the Savannah River

42 alternative site would be SMALL.
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-69 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.7.5 Socioeconomics, Historic and Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice

2

3 In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating two units at the

4 Savannah River Site, the staff undertook a reconnaissance survey of the site. That is, readily

5 obtainable data from the Internet or published sources were used in the evaluation, and no new

6 data were collected. The subsections that follow reflect the organizational structure of the

7 socioeconomic discussions found in Sections 2.8.4, 4.5, and 5.5. The impacts resulting from

8 both construction and operation of the two units are addressed.

9

10 8.7.5.1 Physical Impacts

11

12 Construction activities can result in temporary and localized physical conditions such as noise,

13 odor, vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting, and dust emissions that affect the

14 environment. Further, the use of public roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary

15 to transport construction materials and equipment to the site. There would, as a result, be

16 increased use of these infrastructures, both in terms of increased volume and type of vehicular

17 traffic.

18

19 Road access to the Savannah River Site is via SR 125. U.S. 278 cuts through a portion of the

20 Savannah River Site. Easy access to the Savannah River alternative site could be

21 accommodated by installing access roads from U.S. 278. Most roads leading to the site are

22 two-lane roads, but appear to be kept in excellent condition (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

23

24 The CSX Transportation, Inc., provides rail service to the Savannah River Site. Some upgrades

25 would likely be needed to accommodate the large and heavy loads associated with construction

26 of new nuclear units (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

27

28 On the Savannah River, there is a barge slip situated on DOE property. This barge slip has

29 been used in the past for heavy loads and large components such as steam generators. 

30 Shipment of heavy loads by barge to the Savannah River Site depends on the water level in the

31 Savannah River. The Savannah River alternative site is on the opposite side of the property

32 from the barge slip and some additional heavy-haul routes would need to be constructed to

33 reach it (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

34

35 All construction activities would likely occur within the boundaries of the Savannah River Site. 

36 Offsite areas that would support construction activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, disposal

37 sites) are expected to be already permitted and operational. Impacts on those facilities from

38 constructing new nuclear units are expected to be small incremental impacts associated with

39 their normal operation. The alternative site is approximately 10.5 km (6.5 mi) from the

40 Savannah River Site boundary (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-70 July 2006

1 Station operation could cause noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. 

2 Noise would be produced by operation of cooling towers, pumps, transformers, turbines,

3 generators, and switchyard equipment, and from traffic. The Savannah River Site is a Federal

4 Reservation. Dominion would need to comply with State and local ordinances which apply to

5 the Department of Energy, (NCA 1972). Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits

6 would minimize the noise level generated by the workforce commuting to the site. Nearby trees

7 would serve as a visual buffer, minimizing visual effects.

8

9 The new units would be expected to have emissions from auxiliary power systems, standby

10 diesel generators, and standby gas turbine generators (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). It is

11 expected that the combined annual emissions of any pollutant would be less than 91 MT/yr

12 (100 tons/yr) (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). Air quality permits acquired for these generators

13 would ensure that air emissions comply with regulations. Paved access roads and appropriate

14 speed limits would minimize the amount of dust generated by the commuting workforce.

15

16 Direct site-specific impacts from construction activities would be temporary and would occur

17 mainly within the boundaries of the Savannah River Site. Offsite impacts would represent small

18 incremental changes to offsite services supporting the construction activities. During station

19 operations, noise levels would be managed to comply with State and local ordinances as

20 required by Section 4(b) of the Noise Control Act (42 USC 4903). Air quality permits would be

21 required for the diesel generators, auxiliary boilers, and other equipment, which should limit air

22 emissions and meet applicable standards. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the

23 physical impacts of construction and operation of new units would at the Savannah River

24 alternative site be SMALL.

25

26 8.7.5.2 Demography

27

28 The center of the Savannah River Site is approximately 40 km (25 mi) southeast of the city

29 limits of Augusta, Georgia. The population for Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, was

30 195,182 in 2000 (USCB 2000d). The site is 161 km (100 mi) from the Atlantic Coast, and about

31 175 km (110 mi) south-southeast of the North Carolina border. The largest nearby population

32 centers are Aiken, South Carolina, with a population of 25,337 in 2000 (USCB 2000d), and

33 Augusta, Georgia. The only towns within 24 km (15 mi) of the center of the Savannah River

34 Site are New Ellenton, with a population of 2250; Jackson with a population of 1625; Barnwell

35 with a population of 5035; Snelling, with a population of 246; and Williston with a population of

36 3307 (USCB 2000d). All of these towns are in South Carolina.

37

38 Most of the construction and operations workforce are expected to come from within the region

39 (see more detailed discussion in Section 8.7.5.3), and those who might relocate to the region

40 would represent a small percentage of the larger population base. Those who do relocate to

41 the region would most likely take up residency across the region. Based on the foregoing, the

42 staff concludes that any environmental effects caused by population increases within an 80-km
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-71 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 (50-mi) radius of the Savannah River Site resulting from construction and operation of new units

2 would be SMALL.

3

4 8.7.5.3 Community Characteristics

5

6 Economy

7

8 The unemployment rate in the Augusta-Aiken Metropolitan Statistical Area was 5.7 percent in

9 June 2004 (Georgia Department of Labor 2004). This compares to a 4.6 percent

10 unemployment rate for Georgia (Georgia Department of Labor 2004) and a 6.6 percent

11 unemployment rate for South Carolina in June 2004 (South Carolina 2004a). Regional

12 unemployment statistics for selected South Carolina counties in the vicinity of the Savannah

13 River Site include Barnwell County at 12.3 percent unemployment in June 2004 and Aiken

14 County at 7.1 percent (South Carolina Department of Social Services 2004).

15

16 The Savannah River Site itself has provided significant socioeconomic benefits for the

17 surrounding communities over the last 50 years, and currently provides employment for more

18 than 13,000 people who are highly skilled workers, most of whom are college educated. 

19 Salaries are above average salaries of the area. The site injects about $1.5 billion annually into

20 the economies of South Carolina and Georgia (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

21

22 During the last decade, a major downsizing has occurred at the site because of the end of the

23 Cold War. Construction and operation of new units would increase employment at the site. These

24 jobs would provide economic benefits to the local communities (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

25 The magnitude of the economic impacts would be diffused in the larger economic bases of

26 the region, whereas with the smaller economic base of Barnwell County and the higher

27 unemployment rate (compared to Aiken County and the State of South Carolina), the economic

28 impacts could be more noticeable and have a greater beneficial impact. Based on the

29 foregoing, the staff concludes that the beneficial impacts of construction and operation of two

30 units on the economy of the region would be SMALL everywhere in the region except Barnwell

31 County, where the beneficial impacts to the county could be MODERATE.

32

33 Availability of Workers

34

35 Dominion estimates it would take approximately 5000 construction workers over 5 years to build

36 two commercial nuclear units (Dominion 2006). As discussed in the previous section on the

37 economy, the Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people. 

38 However, during the last decade, some loss of jobs occurred because of the end of the Cold

39 War (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

40

41 Construction of a nuclear generating facility would draw workers from South Carolina and

42 Georgia. The estimated number of construction workers in the two-state region is
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-72 July 2006

1 approximately 459,725 (BEA 2000). With the extensive local transportation network in the area,

2 nearby cities could supply an adequate workforce and are well within a 2-hour commuting

3 distance of the Savannah River Site. Therefore, a minimal influx of project-related population

4 during plant construction and operation could be expected (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

5

6 Dominion would need approximately 720 new employees to operate the proposed new facility. 

7 The Savannah River Site currently provides employment for more than 13,000 people but also

8 has undergone downsizing. The addition of a new power generating facility would be expected

9 to add jobs for skilled craft workers (i.e., with skills comparable to or higher than skills of the

10 existing Savannah River Site workforce). Many of the jobs for skilled craft workers could be

11 filled by current or former Savannah River Site employees (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

12

13 There appears to be a large supply of construction labor and skilled craft workers available. 

14 Dominion may have to add incentives to draw craft workers from out-of-state with specific skills

15 to the area because of the lower prevailing wages when compared to other areas outside

16 Georgia and South Carolina, but it believes it can successfully manage this issue. The

17 unemployment rates in Aiken and Barnwell Counties are above the State of South Carolina

18 average unemployment rate. Likewise, the unemployment rate in Augusta is above the average

19 rate for the State of Georgia. Employees for station operation are expected to be available from

20 within the region because of the downsizing at Savannah River Site. Based on the foregoing,

21 the staff concludes that Dominion would be able to obtain a ready supply of construction and

22 operations labor for the new units.

23

24 Transportation

25

26 Two interstate highways serve the vicinity of the Savannah River Site. Several other highways

27 (U.S. Highways 221, 278, 301, 321, and 601) provide additional transport routes for the area. 

28 Approximately 84 percent of the Savannah River Site workforce of 13,000 resides in Aiken and

29 Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia

30 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

31

32 The regional transportation networks in the Savannah River Site vicinity serve Aiken, Allendale,

33 Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

34 Georgia. Approximately 88 percent of the Savannah River Site commuter traffic originates from

35 these counties. On the site itself, there are more than 322 km (200 mi) of primary roads and

36 more than 1600 km (1000 mi) of unpaved secondary roads.

37

38 In general, heavy traffic occurs in the early morning and late afternoon when workers commute

39 to and from the Savannah River site. For the roads in the general region, the worst-case LOS is

40 associated with routes near the Savannah River bridges, including I-20 and U.S. 1 and urban

41 routes in North Augusta and Aiken, including South Carolina SRs 230, 25, 19, and 118. 

42 Significant congestion occurs during peak traffic periods onsite on U.S. Highways 1-A and 278
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.

July 2006 8-73 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 and on SRs 19 and 125 at Savannah River Site access points. Long delays are also

2 experienced offsite along I-20 and U.S. Highways 25 and 1 where they cross the Savannah

3 River. The Savannah River Site has implemented changes to remedy the congestion at some

4 access points (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

5

6 Other transportation in the area also includes a rail line for CSX Transportation, Inc. The

7 Savannah River Site has its own railroad system. Rail traffic is separated into two categories

8 depending on which track system it would use: CSX operations and the Savannah River Site

9 railway (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

10

11 The nearest major airport to the Savannah River Site is in Atlanta, Georgia, and the closest

12 regional airport is in Augusta, Georgia. The Augusta airport conducts regular freight and

13 passenger airline services and is large enough to accommodate the relatively small air

14 shipments normally associated with a large construction project. The Atlanta airport can

15 accommodate large air shipments. Ground transportation from the Augusta airport takes

16 approximately 1 hour, and from the Atlanta airport, approximately 3 hours (Dominion and

17 Bechtel 2002).

18

During peak new plant construction, 5000 construction workers would be needed.(a) 19 The units

20 operations workforce would be approximately 720. The extensive existing roadway network in

21 the area and the rail lines near the Savannah River alternative site are expected to be capable

22 of handling an additional 38 percent of the workforce commuting to the site during construction

23 and the transportation of bulk materials to and from the site. In addition, the workforce would

24 still be far below the peak levels of employment achieved in 1993. With implementation of

25 traffic mitigation measures, the construction of two units at the Savannah River alternative site

26 is expected to result in impacts that are manageable for traffic patterns, workforce commuter

27 traffic, and rail/truck delivery of materials (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

28

29 The Savannah River alternative site is in a limited-access DOE site adjacent to a rural, low30 population area. The regional transportation network is adequate for commuter and transient

31 traffic in the area. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the transportation impacts of

32 a construction workforce resulting in an approximately 38 percent increase to the existing

33 workforce at Savannah River Site would be SMALL. Because the increase in employment with

34 the operations workforce is less than 5.5 percent of the existing site workforce, the staff

35 concludes the transportation impacts of the operations workforce would be SMALL.

36
Impacts of the Alternatives

(a) The proposed site of the 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 the

proposed nuclear plant would pay to Barnwell County would depend on assessed value and millage

rate per thousand of assessed value). On the assumption that there is a rough comparison between

what Dominion pays to Louisa County and what they might pay to Barnwell County, it can be

concluded that the potential percentage of the proposed facility’s property taxes to the total of all

property taxes paid in Barnwell County would be significant.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-74 July 2006

1 Taxes

2

3 In lieu of property taxes, DOE pays a fee to the localities bordering the site. For 2002, Barnwell

4 County received a fee of approximately $2 million, Aiken County approximately $800,000, and

5 Allendale County approximately $100,000 (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

6

7 Construction and operation workers would pay personal income taxes to Georgia and South

8 Carolina, sales taxes to the State and local governments in the region where sales take place,

9 and property taxes to the counties in which they might own a residence. In addition, sales taxes

10 would be paid from the sales of construction materials and supplies purchased for the project. 

11 Finally, because the units would be built by a private company (Dominion) and not DOE, a

12 property tax might be levied on the value of the property that becomes part of the additional

13 units as they are constructed. These taxes would most likely go to Aiken and Barnwell

Counties.(a) 14 Georgia and South Carolina both have corporate income taxes, with the tax rates

15 being 6 and 5 percent, respectively (Federation of Tax Administrators 2004).

16

17 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the overall beneficial impacts of taxes collected

18 in the region through the income, sales and use, and property taxes would be SMALL to

19 LARGE. The staff also concludes that the overall impacts of taxes collected through the

20 income, sales and use, and property taxes collected in the region would be SMALL for

21 jurisdictions other than Barnwell County. The taxes paid, while large in absolute value, are

22 nevertheless a small sum when compared to the total amount of taxes collected by State and

23 local governments in the region. For property taxes in Barnwell County, the staff concludes that

24 the overall beneficial impacts of the property taxes collected would be MODERATE

25 (construction) and LARGE (operation), relative to the total amount of property taxes the county

collects.(b) 26

27
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-75 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Aesthetics and Recreation

2

3 The preferred location for the two units on the Savannah River Site is more than 10 km (6 mi)

4 from the closest site boundary. There are no public amenity areas within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. 

5 Most of the site is dense forest; therefore, nearby trees would provide a visual buffer for the

6 construction and operation of the units to the public. Because the location is at least 10 km

7 (6 mi) away from the existing site boundary, offsite observers would not have an identifiable

8 nuclear power plant view (Dominion and Bechtel 2002).

9

10 Cooling towers, could produce visible plumes offsite, are being proposed as part of the new

11 nuclear units cooling system. Dry cooling towers could be an alternative method for plant

12 cooling. Nearby trees would serve as a visual buffer for the transmission lines (Dominion and

13 Bechtel 2002).

14

15 The surrogate AP1000 reactor has a tall containment building that is approximately 71 m

16 (234 ft) above grade. The design of this building includes a hatch that determines the height

17 that it must be above ground. This building would be expensive to redesign to allow the building

18 to be placed lower in the ground. Thus, the height of the AP1000 containment building sets the

19 upper bound of what would be visible from offsite. In addition, if natural draft cooling towers are

20 used, the height of the towers is roughly 170 m (550 ft).

21

22 Prominent geographical features within 80 km (50 mi) of the Savannah River Site are Thurmond

23 Lake (formerly called Clarks Hill Reservoir) and the Savannah River. The principal surface24 water body associated with the Savannah River Site is the Savannah River, which flows along

25 the site’s southwest border (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). The closest State park is Redcliffe

26 Plantation State Park, about 16 km (10 mi) northwest of the site location.

27

28 The proposed plant would be located about 10 km (6 mi) from the nearest site boundary and

29 would be screened by trees. There are no significant residential areas or recreational facilities

30 within 3 km (2 mi) of the site. Plumes from cooling towers could be visible offsite. Based on the

31 foregoing, the staff concludes that the construction and station operation impacts on aesthetics

32 and recreation would be SMALL.

33

34 Housing

35

36 In the four-county area of Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia and Barnwell and Aiken

37 Counties in South Carolina, there were 187,811 housing units in 2000. Of these units, 52,405

38 were rental units, 6424 of which were vacant (10.9 percent vacancy rate) (USCB 2000e). There

39 appears to be vacant rental housing units available for construction workers who might want to

40 relocate to the region.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-76 July 2006

1 In the same four-county area discussed above, there were 117,243 owner-occupied houses;

2 3089 of these houses were for sale (2.6 percent vacancy rate). The percentage of houses for

3 sale in relation to owner-occupied housing is low, indicating the market for resale housing is

4 tight.

5

6 The operations workforce is expected to come primarily from current or former employees at the

7 Savannah River Site. If, however, a substantial number of workers were recruited into the area,

8 there could be upward pressure on housing values. This assumption is based on the low

9 number of homes for sale in the area and the fact that the workforce, which would be on the

10 higher end of the salary scale when compared to other job classifications in the area, could tend

11 to buy more expensive homes.

12

13 It is not unusual for construction workers to commute up to 2 hours (one way) per day to the job

14 site. Many of the construction workers are assumed to already live within the region. 

15 Therefore, there appears to be enough vacant rental housing to house those who might relocate

16 to the region. For the operations workforce, it is expected that most would already have

17 residences in the region, and few would relocate to the area given the potential supply of

18 workers in the region resulting from Savannah River Site downsizing. Based on the foregoing,

19 the staff concludes that the impacts to housing from construction and operation of two units at

20 the Savannah River alternative site would be SMALL.

21

22 Public Services

23

24 Water and Wastewater Treatment

25

26 Four major public sewage treatment facilities with a combined design capacity of 302.2 million

27 liters (79.8 million gallons) per day serve the six-county region composed of Aiken, Allendale,

28 Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina and Columbia and Richmond Counties in

29 Georgia. In 1989 (the latest year for which data were readily available), these systems were

30 operating at approximately 56 percent capacity, with an average daily flow of 170 million L/day

31 (44.9 MGD). Capacity utilization ranged from 45 percent in Aiken County to 80 percent in

32 Barnwell County (DOE 2000).

33

34 There are approximately 120 public water systems in the six-county area. About 40 of these

35 county and municipal systems are major facilities, while the remainder serve individual

36 subdivisions, water districts, manufactured home parks, or miscellaneous facilities. In 1989

37 (again the latest year for which data are readily available), the 40 major facilities had a

38 combined total flow of 576.3 million L/day (152.2 MGD). With an average daily flow rate of

39 approximately 268.8 million L/day (71 MGD), these systems were operating at 47 percent

40 capacity in 1989. Facility utilization rates ranged from 13 percent in Allendale County to

41 84 percent in the City of Aiken (DOE 2000).

42
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-77 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The Savannah River alternative site is approximately 40 km (25 mi) southeast of Augusta,

2 Georgia, and 31.4 km (19.5 mi) south of Aiken, South Carolina. There are numerous towns and

3 cities within 80 km (50 mi) of the site, and all these towns and cities are within a 2-hour

4 commuting distance of the site via local transportation routes (Dominion and Bechtel 2002). In

5 addition, the utility infrastructures of the towns and cities could provide public services such as

6 water and wastewater treatment to members of the construction and operations workforce who

7 might relocate to the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of the

8 construction and operations workforces on water and wastewater treatment in the region would

9 be SMALL.

10

11 Police, Fire and Medical Facilities

12

13 Eight general hospitals operate in the six-county region. Four of the eight general hospitals are

14 in Richmond County (Augusta), Georgia, while Columbia County, Georgia, has no hospital. 

15 Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell Counties in South Carolina each have one general

16 hospital (USHospital.info 2005).

17

18 Fifty-six fire departments provide fire protection in the region. Twenty-seven of these fire

19 departments are classified as municipal fire departments, but many provide protection to rural

20 areas outside municipal limits (DOE 2000).

21

22 County sheriff and municipal police departments provide most of the law enforcement in the

23 region. In addition, State law enforcement agents and State troopers assigned to each county

24 provide protection and assist county and municipal officers (DOE 2000).

25

26 Many of the potential construction and operations workforce probably already live within an

27 80-km (50-mi) radius of the region. There are a number of towns within a 2-hour commuting

28 distance of the site. Any new workers relocating to the area would most likely have places of

29 residency located throughout the region, which would not place an undue burden on the

30 infrastructure of any one jurisdictional entity. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that

31 the impacts of the construction and operations workforce on public facilities in the Savannah

32 River Site area would be SMALL.

33

34 Social Services

35

36 In Georgia, social services at the state level are overseen by the Department of Human

37 Resources. It oversees about 80 wide-ranging programs that include controlling the spread of

38 disease, enabling older people to live at home longer, preventing children from developing

39 lifelong disabilities, training single parents to find and hold jobs, and helping people with mental

40 or physical disabilities live and work in their communities (Georgia Department of Labor 2004).

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-78 July 2006

1 In South Carolina, social services are overseen by the Department of Social Services, which

2 administers its programs through county offices. Services offered by the Department include

3 child care assistance to needy families, adult protective services, child protective services,

4 independent living, and emergency shelters food program, among other services (South

5 Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004). During construction of new nuclear units at

6 the Savannah River alternative site, there may be increased demand for social services from

7 the construction workforce and their dependents.

8

9 Generally, construction and operation of the new units at Savannah River alternative site would

10 be viewed as beneficial economically to the disadvantaged population segments served by the

11 Georgia Department of Human Resources and South Carolina Department of Social Services. 

12 The workforce associated with construction and operation of two units at the Savannah River

13 alternative site would most likely receive higher wages than other employment categories in the

14 region. It is expected that through the multiplier effect, the number of jobs that could be filled by

15 members of the disadvantaged population would increase.

16

17 Construction and operation of two units would have a beneficial economic impact to the

18 disadvantaged population in the region, which should lessen the demand for social services. 

19 There could be an initial increase in demand for social services at the beginning of the

20 construction period, but this is considered manageable and limited. Based on the foregoing, the

21 staff concludes that the impacts of construction and station operation of two units on social and

22 related services would be SMALL.

23

24 Education

25

26 Public education facilities in the six-county region (Aiken, Allendale, Bamberg, and Barnwell

27 Counties in South Carolina, and Columbia and Richmond Counties in Georgia) include

28 approximately 116 elementary or intermediate schools and 28 high schools (Great

29 Schools 2005). In addition to the public schools, there are approximately 50 private schools in

30 the region (NCES 2005). There are several local colleges, technical schools, and training

31 facilities available, such as the University of South Carolina Aiken, Augusta State University,

32 Paine College, Aiken Technical College, and Augusta Technical College.

33

34 Many of the potential construction and operating workforce probably already live within the

35 region, and any new workers relocating to the area would most likely take up residency

36 throughout the region. Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the impacts of

37 construction and operation of two units on educational facilities in the region would be SMALL.

38

39 8.7.5.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

40

41 Historic and cultural resources at the Savannah River Site are managed through a cooperative

42 agreement between DOE and the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology of the University of
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-79 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 South Carolina as the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. Since 1974, more

than 60 percent of the 777-km2 (300-mi2 2 ) site has been inventoried for prehistoric and historic

3 sites and more than 1200 sites have been recorded, ranging in age from the Middle Archaic

prehistoric period to the 20th 4 century (DOE 2002). Archaeological research has provided

5 considerable information about the distribution and content of historic and cultural sites on the

6 Savannah River Site.

7

8 Archaeologists have divided the Savannah River Site into three zones related to their potential

9 for containing sites with multiple archaeological components or dense or diverse artifacts, and

10 their potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

11

12 & Zone 1 is the zone of the highest archaeological site density with a high probability of

13 encountering large archaeological sites with dense and diverse artifacts and a high

14 potential for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

15

16 & Zone 2 includes areas of moderate archaeological site density. Activities in this zone

17 have a moderate probability of encountering large sites with more than three prehistoric

18 components or that would be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic

19 Places.

20

21 & Zone 3 includes areas of low archaeological site density. Activities in this zone have a

22 low probability of encountering archaeological sites and virtually no chance of

23 encountering large sites with more than three prehistoric components; the need for site

24 preservation is low. Some sites in the zone could be considered eligible for nomination

25 to the National Register of Historic Places.

26

27 The Savannah River alternative site parcel identified by Dominion lies in Zone 3. According to

28 Savannah River Site staff (Dominion and Bechtel 2002), no known historic and cultural

29 properties exist in the site.

30

31 In conjunction with previous studies, DOE solicited the concerns of Native American tribes

32 about traditional cultural values in the Central Savannah River Valley. Three Native American

33 groups, the Yuchi Tribal Organization, the National Council of Muskogee Creek, and the Indian

34 People’s Muskogee Tribal Town Confederacy, expressed general concerns about the

35 Savannah River Site and the Central Savannah River Area but did not identify specific sites as

36 possessing religious significance. The Yuchi Tribal Organization and the National Council of

37 Muskogee Creek are interested in several plant species traditionally used in tribal ceremonies.

38

39 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the potential impacts on historic and cultural

40 resources from construction and operation of two units at the Savannah River alternative site

41 would be SMALL.

42
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 2.8.4 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.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-80 July 2006

1 8.7.5.5 Environmental Justice

2

3 DOE has performed an environmental assessment for the construction and operation of a linear

4 accelerator (since dropped from consideration in the general area of the Savannah River

5 alternative site) that would produce tritium (DOE 1999). As part of that assessment, an

6 evaluation of potential environmental justice impacts was conducted (Dominion and

7 Bechtel 2002).

8

9 DOE’s environmental justice assessment evaluated whether minorities or low-income

10 populations could receive disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental

11 impacts. Minority and low-income populations were identified by census tract. DOE’s analysis

12 concluded that releases from the site would not disproportionally affect minority communities

13 (population equal to or greater than 35 percent of the total population) or low-income (equal to

14 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) 15 In addition, regarding

16 downstream communities, DOE evaluated doses to people using the Savannah River for

17 drinking water, sports, and food. Because the identified communities in the areas downstream

18 from the Savannah River Site are well distributed, DOE concluded there were no

19 disproportionate impacts among minority and low-income populations (Dominion and

20 Bechtel 2002).

21

22 Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that the offsite impacts of construction and

23 operation of two units at the Savannah River alternative site on minority and low-income

24 populations would be SMALL. There are no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to

25 these populations.

26

27 8.8 Summaries of Alternative Site Impacts

28

29 Summaries of the impacts of construction and operation on each of the three proposed

30 alternative sites selected by Dominion are presented in Tables 8-6 and 8-7. Discussions of the

31 stated impacts are presented in the individual site sections (Sections 8.5 through 8.7). A

32 comparison of the alternative site impacts with impacts at the proposed North Anna ESP site is

33 presented in Chapter 9.

34
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-81 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 8-6. Characterization of Construction Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

2

3 Category Surry Portsmouth Savannah River

4 -- -- -- Land-use impacts

5 SMALL SMALL SMALL Site and vicinity

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL to Transmission line rights-of-way

MODERATE

7 SMALL SMALL SMALL Air quality impacts

8 -- -- -- Water-related impacts

9 SMALL SMALL SMALL Water use

10 SMALL SMALL SMALL Water quality

11 -- -- -- Ecological impacts

12 SMALL SMALL SMALL to Terrestrial ecosystems

MODERATE

13 SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

14 SMALL SMALL SMALL to Threatened and endangered species

MODERATE

15 -- -- -- Socioeconomic impacts

16 SMALL SMALL SMALL Physical impacts

17 SMALL SMALL SMALL Demography

 Social and economic(a) 18 SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

19 SMALL to Infrastructure and community services

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

20 MODERATE to Historic and cultural resources

LARGE

SMALL SMALL

21 SMALL SMALL SMALL Environmental justice

22 SMALL SMALL SMALL Nonradiological health impacts

23 SMALL SMALL SMALL Radiological health impacts

24 (a) Impacts of construction on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial impacts. 

25 These beneficial impacts are discussed in the applicable sections.

26

27
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-82 July 2006

1 Table 8-7. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the Alternative ESP Sites

2

3 Category Surry Portsmouth Savannah River

4 Land-use impacts -- --

5 SMALL SMALL SMALL The site and vicinity

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL Transmission line rights-of-way

7 SMALL SMALL SMALL Air quality impacts

8 -- -- -- Water-related impacts

9 SMALL SMALL to Water use

MODERATE

SMALL

10 SMALL SMALL SMALL Water quality

11 SMALL MODERATE SMALL Water use in drought year

12 -- -- -- Ecological impacts

13 SMALL SMALL SMALL Terrestrial ecosystems

14 SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

15 SMALL SMALL SMALL to Threatened and endangered species

MODERATE

16 -- -- -- Socioeconomic impacts

17 SMALL to Physical impacts

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL

18 SMALL SMALL SMALL Demographics

 Social and economic(a) 19 SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

20 SMALL to Infrastructure and community services

MODERATE(b)

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

21 MODERATE to Historic and cultural resources

LARGE(b)

SMALL SMALL

22 SMALL SMALL SMALL Environmental justice

23 SMALL SMALL SMALL Nonradiological health impacts

24 SMALL SMALL SMALL Radiological health impacts

25 SMALL SMALL SMALL Impacts of postulated accidents

Fuel cycle impacts(c) 26 SMALL SMALL SMALL

27 (a) Impacts of operation on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial impacts. 

28 The beneficial economic impacts are discussed in the applicable sections.

29 (b) Aesthetic impacts could be LARGE at historically important sites in the vicinity. This is captured in the historic

30 and cultural resources evaluation. (Sections 8.5.5.3 and 8.5.5.4)

31 (c) Fuel cycle impacts are evaluated in Chapter 6

32
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-83 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 8.9 References

2

3 Note: Because the web pages cited in this document may become unavailable, the staff has

4 entered the appropriate pages into ADAMS. The accession number of the package containing

5 the Web-sites used as references in Chapter 8 of the North Anna ESP EIS is ML051580551.

6

7 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for

8 Protection Against Radiation.”

9

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

11 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

12

13 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

14 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

15

16 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

17 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

18

19 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site

20 Criteria.”

21

22 66 FR 64963. “Notice of Wetlands Involvement for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

23 Reindustrialization Program.” Federal Register. Vol. 66, No. 242, December 17, 2001.

24

25 69 FR 3956. “Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

26 Significant Impact for License Application for USEC Inc., Bethesda, MD.” Federal Register.

27 Vol. 69, No. 17, January 27, 2004.

28

29 69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC

30 Regulatory and Licensing Activities.” Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 163, August 24, 2004.

31

32 70 FR 30396. “Early Action Compact Areas for South Carolina/Georgia.” Federal Register.

33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 26, 2005.

34

35 70 FR 33771. “Correction to information on page 30404 of 70 FR 30396.” Federal Register.

36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 9, 2005.

37

38 Bechtel Jacobs Co. 2003. U.S. Department of Energy Portsmouth Annual Environmental

39 Report for 2002 Piketon, Ohio. DOE/OR/11-3132&D1. Accessed at

40 http://www.bechteljacobs.com/ports_reports.shtml on March 5, 2004. 

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-84 July 2006

1 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2000. CA25 Total Full-time and Part-time Employment by

2 Industry. Accessed at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/ on March 30, 2004.

3

4 Clean Water Act (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251, et

5 seq.

6

7 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

8

9 Dominion Energy, Inc. and Bechtel Power Corp (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. Study of

10 Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States.

11 U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-02ID14313. Available at

12 www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/ESP_Study/ESP_Study_Dominion1.pdf

13

14 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

15 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

16

17 Federation of Tax Administrators. 2004. Range of State Corporation Income Taxes 2003

18 (For the tax year 2003 – as of January 1, 2003). Accessed at

19 http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/PDF/state_corp_2003.pdf on

20 August 24, 2004.

21

22 Georgia Department of Human Resources. 2004a. Georgia – Online access to Georgia

23 Government. Accessed at

24 http://dhr.georgia.gov/02/dhr/home/0,2220,5696,00.html;jsessionid=73BA632F785E95B6CBCB

25 2081541FE127 on August 23, 2004.

26

27 Georgia Department of Labor. 2004. Unemployment – Augusta - Aiken Compared to Georgia

28 (June 2004). Accessed at http://www.dol.state.ga.us/pdf/pr/u0604augusta.pdf on August 22,

29 2004.

30

31 Great Schools. 2004. Surry County Public Schools, Virginia. Accessed at

32 http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/va/district_profile/155 on August 19, 2004.

33

34 Great Schools. 2005. Welcome to GreatSchools.net. Accessed at http://www.greatschools.net/

35 on August 24, 2005.

36

37 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2001. National Electrical Safety

38 Code – 2002 Edition. Accredited Standard Committee C2-2002, New York, New York.

39
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-85 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Jaksch J. and M. Scott. 2005. North Anna ESP Site Audit Trip Report – Socioeconomics. 

2 12-8-2003 through 12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2003 through

3 12-12-2003 with Additional Telephone Interviews 2-26-2004 through 9-29-2004 and 7-11-2005

4 through 7-15-2005. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, Accession

5 No. ML052170374.

6

7 Jenkins R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries

8 Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

9

10 Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2001. Cultural Resource Assessment, Surry Power Station, Surry

11 County, Virginia. Surry, Virginia.

12

13 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2005. Search for schools, colleges, and

14 libraries. Accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/globallocator on August 24, 2005.

15

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

17

18 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

19 Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

20 No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

21

22 Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCR), 42 USC 4901, et seq.

23

24 Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS). 2004. Table of County Unemployment

25 Rates. Civilian Labor Force Estimates – For Counties and Cites with Population Over 50,000:

26 July 2004. Accessed at 

27 http://jfs.ohio.gov/releases/unemp/OhioCivilianLaborForceEstimates.pdf on August 20, 2004.

28

29 Omernik J.M. 1987. “Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Map (Scale 1:7500000).” 

30 Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1):118-125.

31

32 Public Service Company of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

33 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England

34 Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

35

36 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 2004. Draft Risk-Based End State

37 Vision and Variance Report for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio.

38 DOE/OR/11-3137&D0v1. Accessed at

39 http://www.bechteljacobs.com/pdf/port/rbesd/RBES2-9-04-2ReportText.pdf on March 5, 2004.

40
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-86 July 2006

1 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. “South

2 Carolina Coastal Zone.” Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed at

3 http://www.scdhec.net/ocrm/images/map.jpg on January 20, 2004.

4

5 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2004. “South Carolina Rare,

6 Threatened, and Endangered Species Inventory.” Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed at

7 http:www.dnr.state.sc.us/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map on July 16, 2004.

8

9 South Carolina Employment Security Commission (South Carolina). 2004a. Workforce Trends

10 Newsline. Accessed at http://www.sces.org/lmi/news/July_2004.pdf on August 22, 2004.

11

12 South Carolina Department of Social Services (South Carolina). 2004. Welcome to the South

13 Carolina Department of Social Services Web Site. Accessed at

14 http://www.state.sc.us/dss/index.html on August 23, 2004.

15

16 Surry County. 1975. “Surry County Land Development Ordinance.” Surry County Planning

17 Commission and Board of Supervisors, Surry, Virginia.

18

19 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. Table p1" Total Population (1) – Universe Total

20 Population. Accessed at

21 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_

22 U&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=4001&-all_geo_types=N&-g

23 eo_id=38000US5720&-geo_id=38000US6760&-format=&-_lang=en on March 28, 2004.

24

25 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. American Fact Finder. Highlights from the Census 2000

26 Demographic Profiles. For Waverly, Piekton, Portsmouth, Chillicothe; Jackson, Ohio and

27 Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto Counties in Ohio and Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio and

28 Huntington, West Virginia. Accessed at

29 http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en on August 19, 2004.

30

31 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. American Fact Finder. Quick Tables. Table QT-H1. 

32 General Housing Characteristics: 2000. For Jackson, Pike, Ross and Scioto Counties in Ohio

33 and Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio and Huntington, West Virginia. Accessed at

34 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_sse=on on August 20, 2004.

35

36 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. American Fact Finder. Highlights from the Census 2000

37 Demographic Profiles. For Augusta-Richmond County (balance) Georgia; Aiken, New Ellenton,

38 Jackson, Barnwell, Snelling, and Willston, South Carolina; and Aiken and Barnwell Counties,

39 South Carolina. Accessed at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en on

40 August 22, 2004.

41
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-87 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. American Fact Finder. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 

2 2000c. American Fact Finder. Quick Tables. Table QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics:

3 2000. For Richmond County and Columbia Counties, Georgia and Aiken and Barnwell

4 Counties, South Carolina. Accessed at

5 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFHousing?_sse=on on August 23, 2004.

6

7 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1995. Savannah River Site Waste Management Final

8 Environmental Impact Statement. DOE-EIS 0217, Washington, D.C.

9

10 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement Construction

11 and Operation of a Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site. DOE/EIS-0271,

12 Washington, D.C.

13

14 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. Savannah River Site Waste Management Final

15 Environmental Impact Statement. DOE-EIS 0217, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

16 http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/enviro/eis-0217/index.html on August 23, 2004.

17

18 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2001. Environmental Assessment: Winterization Activities

19 in Preparation for Cold Standby at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Piketon, Ohio.

20 DOE/EA-1392, Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. As cited in Dominion and

21 Bechtel. 2002.

22

23 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. Savannah River Site High-Level Waste Tank Closure

24 Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0303, Washington, D.C.

25

26 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

27 Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at

28 Portsmouth, Ohio, Site. DOE/EIS-0360. Washington, D.C. Accessed at

29 http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/docs/deis/eis0360/ on March 5, 2004.

30

31 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Services (NPS). 2005. Letter from S. Brooks,

32 NPS to J. Cushing, NRC, regarding the impacts of building a nuclear power plant at the Surry

33 site, October 25, 2005.

34

35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas. 

36 Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/o8index.html on September 13, 2005.

37

38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Letter from M. Knapp, FWS to P. T. Kuo, NRC.

39

40 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. North Anna Power Station Alternate, Barnwell

41 County, South Carolina, FWS log No. 4-6-04-T-110. Letter from T. Hall (FWS) to P. T. Kuo

42 (NRC). January 15, 2004.
Impacts of the Alternatives

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 8-88 July 2006

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS and

2 VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. Accessed at

3 http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf on March 23, 2004.

4

5 USHospital.info. 2005. United States Hospitals and Medical Centers. Accessed at

6 http://www.ushospital.info/index.htm on August 25, 2005.

7

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

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

10

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Environmental Standard Review Plans for

12 Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Supplement, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

13 Washington, D.C.

14

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

16 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C. Available at

17 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement7.

18

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

20 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 6 Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1

21 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, Washington, D.C.

22

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Environmental Assessment of the USEC

24 Inc. American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility at Piketon, Ohio. Office of Nuclear Material

25 Safety and Safeguards Washington, D.C. Accessed at

26 http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ea/EA1495/ea-1495.pdf on August 20, 2004.

27

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. September 19 through 22, 2005 Trip

29 Report Tour of the North Anna River, Lake Anna, and the Surry Alternative Site (ML061720366)

30 (NRC 2005).

31

32 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 2004. Natural Heritage

33 Resources Factsheet. Migratory Songbird Habitat in Virginia’s Coastal Plain. Accessed at

34 http://www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/songfact.htm on March 4, 2004.

35

36 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2004. “Virginia’s Coastal Resources

37 Management Area.” Accessed at http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/thezone.html on

38 January 8, 2004.

39

40 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004. Virginia Fish and Wildlife

41 Information Service. Accessed at http://vafwis.org/WIS/ASP/default.asp on March 1, 2004.

42
Impacts of the Alternatives

July 2006 8-89 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS). 2004. Accessed at

2 http://www.dss.state.va.us/index.html on August 18, 2004.

3

4 Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo). 1970. Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2,

5 Environmental Report. December 31, 1970.

6

7 Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. 2001. Letter from J. E. Olney to Tony Banks, VEPCo

8 related to “Evaluation of potential impacts of operation of Surry Power Station on Federally

9 Managed Species.” April 4, 2001.

10

11 Virginia Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Online Information on Virginia Natural Communities,

12 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. Accessed at

13 http://192.206.31.52/cfprog/dnh/naturalheritage/display_counties.cfm on August 29, 2005.

14

15 Westinghouse Savannah River Company (Westinghouse). 2001. Savannah River Site

16 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).

July 2006 9-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 9.0 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed

2 Action and Alternative Sites

3

4

5 This chapter of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was changed to

6 reflect the higher power level and the proposed cooling system approach for Unit 3 in

7 Revision 6 of the Environmental Report. In addition, to compare the impact of the action at the

8 proposed site to impacts at the alternative sites, the chapter is presented in its entirety.

9

10 The need to compare the proposed early site permit (ESP) site at the North Anna Power Station

11 (NAPS) with alternative sites arises from the requirement in Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of the National

12 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4332(2)(c)(iii)) that environmental impact

13 statements (EISs) include an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear

14 Regulatory Commission (NRC) criterion to be employed in assessing whether a proposed ESP

15 site should be rejected in favor of an alternative site is whether the alternative site is “obviously

16 superior” to the site proposed by the applicant (NRC 1977). An alternative site is “obviously

17 superior” to the proposed site if it is “clearly and substantially” superior to the proposed site.

18

19 The standard of obvious superiority “...is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be

20 rejected in favor of a substitute unless, on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can

21 be confident that such action is called for” (NRC 1978a). The “obviously superior” test is

22 appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by NRC in evaluating alternative ESP

23 sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the alternative site analysis, such as 

24 population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality, aquatic and terrestrial ecological

25 resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics, are difficult to quantify in common

26 metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site would necessarily have a wide

27 range of uncertainty. Second, the applicant’s proposed ESP site has been analyzed in detail,

28 with the expectation that most adverse environmental impacts associated with the site have

29 been identified. By design, the alternative sites have not undergone a comparable level of

30 detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed ESP site may not be rejected in favor of an

31 alternative site when the alternative is “marginally better” than the proposed site, but only when

32 it is “obviously superior” (NRC 1978b). NEPA does not require that a nuclear plant be

33 constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. Rather, “...[a]ll that NEPA

34 requires is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on the environment of

35 building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored into the ultimate

36 decision” (NRC 1978a).

37

38 The NRC staff’s review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test for obvious

39 superiority (NRC 2000). The first part of the test determines whether there are “environmentally

preferred”(a) 40 sites among the candidate ESP sites. The staff considers whether the applicant
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 9-2 July 2006

1 has (1) reasonably identified alternative sites, (2) evaluated the likely environmental impacts of

2 construction and operation at these sites, and (3) used a logical means of comparing sites that

3 has led to the applicant’s selection of the proposed site. Based on its independent review, the 

4 staff then determines whether any of the alternative sites are environmentally preferable to the

5 applicant’s proposed ESP site.

6

7 If the staff determines that one or more alternative sites is environmentally preferable, it would

8 then compare the estimated costs (e.g., environmental, economic, and time) of constructing

9 the proposed plant at the proposed site and at the environmentally preferable site or sites

10 (NRC 2000). To find an obviously superior alternative site, the staff must determine that (1) one

11 or more important aspects, either singly or in combination, of a reasonably available alternative

12 site are obviously superior to the corresponding aspects of the applicant’s proposed site and

13 (2) the alternative site does not have offsetting deficiencies in other important areas. A staff

14 conclusion that an alternative site is obviously superior to the applicant’s proposed site would

15 normally lead to a recommendation that the application for the ESP be denied.

16

17 9.1 Comparison of the Proposed Site with the Alternatives

18

19 The staff reviewed the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

20 LLC (Dominion) (Dominion 2006a), the Dominion and Bechtel study for the U.S. Department of

21 Energy on potential sites for nuclear power plant development (Dominion and Bechtel 2002),

22 and supporting documentation. The staff also conducted site visits at the proposed North Anna

23 ESP site and the alternative sites. As discussed in Section 8.3, the staff concluded that

24 Dominion had reasonably identified alternative sites, evaluated the environmental impacts of

25 construction and operation of new nuclear power facilities at those sites, and used a logical

26 means of comparing the sites. As discussed in Section 8.4, some environmental impacts

27 considered for the North Anna ESP site and the alternative site are generic to all sites and,

28 therefore, do not influence the comparison of impacts between the North Anna ESP site and the

29 alternative sites. These generic environmental impacts common to all sites include air quality,

30 nonradiological and radiological health impacts, fuel cycle, impacts for light water reactors, and

31 environmental impacts from postulated accidents. Fuel cycle impacts for gas-cooled reactors

32 are unresolved for all sites, but are likely to be SMALL. Decommissioning impacts were

33 determined to be unresolved because the reactor design has not been selected at the ESP

34 stage. The impacts from decommissioning are likely to be SMALL and affect all sites in a

35 similar manner. While the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents were

36 resolved for all sites, the severe accident mitigation alternatives were determined to be

37 unresolved because the reactor design has not been selected at the ESP stage. The

38 combination of population characteristics and dispersion potential are not significantly different

39 among the sites to differentiate one from another given the extremely low risk already.

40
Comparison of Impacts

July 2006 9-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 The staff conducted its own evaluation of the sites at a reconnaissance level before writing the

2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna

3 ESP Site (Draft EIS)(NRC 2004), touring the sites, and reviewing existing environmental and

4 socioeconomic assessments and relevant data maintained by State and Federal agencies for

5 information relevant to potential impacts at the alternative sites. Selected staff also revisited the

6 site during the analysis of the new cooling system for Unit 3 and the power increase. For this

7 Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), the staff has evaluated the

8 new information presented in ER Revision 6 and Dominion’s response to the NRC request for

9 additional information (Dominion 2006a, b) and determined expected environmental impacts at

10 the proposed North Anna ESP site and at the three alternative sites.

11

12 The staff’s characterization of the expected environmental impacts of constructing and

13 operating two new nuclear units at the proposed ESP site and alternative sites within the

14 revised plant parameter envelope presented by Dominion in ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a)

15 are summarized in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. These tables include all of the impacts evaluated for

16 reference and context, not just the ones that have changed as a result of the changes to

17 ER Revision 6. For those impacts to environmental resources for which the staff was unable to

18 reach a significance level for the North Anna ESP site or the alternative sites as a result of

19 insufficient information, the most likely level of impact for the purposes of comparison to

20 alternative sites was identified and the staff assumed that impacts would affect all sites in a

21 similar manner. In the following analysis, the staff indicated a likely impact level for these

22 unresolved issues based on professional judgment, experience, and consideration of controls

23 likely to be imposed under required Federal, State, or local permits that would not be acquired

24 until an application for a construction permit or combined license were underway. These

25 considerations and assumptions were similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide

26 a common basis for comparison. These impact levels are, therefore, best estimates of impacts

27 that the staff used for its “obviously superior” determination. No new data were collected.

28

29 The environmental impact categories shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 have been evaluated using

30 NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – developed

31 using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. The rationale for these significance

32 levels is outlined in the footnotes to Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

33 (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

34

35 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will

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

37

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

39 destabilize important attributes of the resource.

40

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

42 destabilize important attributes of the resource.
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 9-4 July 2006

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

2 Sites

3

4 Impact Area Category

North Anna

ESP Site Surry Site

Portsmouth

Site

Savannah

River Site

5 -- -- -- -- Land-use impacts

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL The site and vicinity

7 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL TO Transmission line rights-of-way

MODERATE

8 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Air quality impacts

9 -- -- -- -- Water-related impacts

10 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Water use

11 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Water quality

12 -- -- -- -- Ecological impacts

13 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL TO Terrestrial ecosystems

MODERATE

14 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

15 Threatened and endangered

16 species

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL TO

MODERATE

17 -- -- -- -- Socioeconomic impacts

18 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Physical impacts

19 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Demography

Social and Economic(a) 20 SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

21 Infrastructure and community

22 services

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

23 SMALL MODERATE Historic and cultural resources

to LARGE

SMALL SMALL

24 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Environmental justice

25 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Nonradiological health impacts

26 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Radiological health impacts

27 (a) Impacts of construction on the economy and increases in taxes collected are considered beneficial impacts. 

28 These beneficial impacts are discussed in the applicable sections.

29
Comparison of Impacts

July 2006 9-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table 9-2. Comparison of the Operational Impacts at the Proposed ESP and Alternative Sites

2

3 Impact Area Category

North Anna

ESP Site Surry Site

Portsmouth

Site

Savannah

River Site

4 -- -- -- -- Land-use impacts

5 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL The site and vicinity

6 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Transmission line rights-of-way

7 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Air quality impacts

8 -- -- -- -- Water-related impacts

9 SMALL SMALL SMALL TO Water use 

MODERATE

SMALL

10 *Unresolved, Water quality

but likely

SMALL

*Unresolved,

but likely

SMALL

*Unresolved,

but likely

SMALL

*Unresolved,

but likely

SMALL

11 MODERATE SMALL MODERATE SMALL Water use in drought year

12 -- -- -- -- Ecological impacts

13 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Terrestrial ecosystems

14 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Aquatic ecosystems

15 Threatened and endangered

16 species 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL TO

MODERATE

17 -- -- -- -- Socioeconomic impacts

18 SMALL to Physical impacts

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL

19 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Demographics

20 Social and economic

21

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

BENEFICIAL

to LARGE

BENEFICIAL

22 Infrastructure and community

23 services

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

24 SMALL MODERATE Historic and cultural resources

TO LARGE

SMALL SMALL

25 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Environmental justice

26 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Nonradiological health impacts

27 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Radiological health impacts

28 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Postulated accidents

29 SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Fuel Cycle Impacts

30

31 The socioeconomic impact level category reflects both adverse and beneficial impacts. Positive

32 impacts (e.g., tax receipts to local government) would occur but are not the determining factors

33 in the analysis of an environmentally preferable or obviously superior site. For impact
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 9-6 July 2006

1 categories in which no impact is predicted, the adverse impact level is shown as SMALL. 

2 Within some impact categories, the impact levels varied. Professional judgments were made to

3 conclude, where possible, a single overall level of impact. In several cases, a range of probable

4 impacts is given. 

5

6 The staff determined that the impact level from construction on most of the environmental

7 resources at most of the sites is SMALL, and was not affected by the proposed changes to the

8 Unit 3 cooling system or to the higher power level. In some cases, there are factors related to a

9 site that could cause the impact level to increase from SMALL to MODERATE. In one case, the

10 impact level category for an alternative site could be as high as LARGE. Impacts on the local

11 economy and tax base range from SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL at the various

12 sites. More detailed information on these cases is presented in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 for the

13 North Anna ESP site, and Chapters 6 and 8 for the alternative sites. The staff based its

14 analysis of the environmental impacts on the implementation of mitigation measures in

15 accordance with Federal, State, and local permit requirements and on the mitigation measures

16 identified in the ER. In its analysis of the alternative sites, the staff assumed that similar permit

17 requirements and mitigative measures would apply.

18

19 The staff determined that the impact from operation on most of the environmental resources at

20 most of the sites is SMALL. In some cases, there are factors related to a site that could

21 cause the impact level to range from SMALL to LARGE. Impacts on the local tax base range

22 from SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL at all sites. More detailed information on

23 these cases is presented in Chapter 5 for the North Anna ESP site and Chapter 8 for the

24 alternative sites.

25

26 9.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites

27

28 9.2.1 Construction

29

30 The impacts of construction at the North Anna ESP site are SMALL for most major impact

31 categories. However, as noted in Section 4.5, there are some impact subcategories under

32 infrastructure and community services (housing, public services, and education) for which the

33 impacts could be MODERATE if a larger number of construction workers than the staff assumed

34 relocate to Louisa or Orange Counties. The tax benefits to Louisa County could be LARGE

35 BENEFICIAL, and the impacts on jobs and the economy could be MODERATE BENEFICIAL.

36

37 The impacts of construction at the Surry alternative site are SMALL for all impact categories

38 except infrastructure and community services (economy and taxes) and historic and cultural

39 resources. As noted in Section 8.5, the impacts in this area are SMALL to MODERATE for
Comparison of Impacts

July 2006 9-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 transportation and MODERATE to LARGE because of its potential effect on the Colonial

2 National Historic Park. Impacts on the economy and taxes may be SMALL BENEFICIAL to

3 MODERATE BENEFICIAL.

4

5 The impacts of construction at the Portsmouth alternative site are SMALL for all impact

6 categories except infrastructure and community services. As noted in Section 8.6, the impacts

7 in this area are SMALL to MODERATE for aesthetics. In addition, the impacts on the economy

8 and taxes are SMALL BENEFICIAL to MODERATE BENEFICIAL.

9

10 The impacts of construction at the Savannah River alternative site are SMALL for all impact

11 categories except terrestrial resources (including endangered species). As noted in

12 Section 8.7, the impacts on terrestrial resources are SMALL to MODERATE. The staff arrived

13 at this range of potential impacts because the routing for the new transmission line rights-of-way

14 that would be needed is not known with certainty and, consequently, neither are the impacts of

15 construction. In addition, the impacts on the economy and tax base are SMALL BENEFICIAL to

16 MODERATE BENEFICIAL.

17

18 While there are minor differences in most of the construction impacts at the four sites, none of

19 these differences is sufficient to determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally

20 preferable to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

21

22 9.2.2 Operations

23

24 The impacts of operations at the North Anna ESP site are SMALL for all major impact

25 categories except water use and socioeconomic categories. As discussed in Section 5.3, the

26 impacts of Unit 3 operations on water use are SMALL most years. However, during a significant

27 drought, the impacts could be MODERATE. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.5, the

28 impacts for aesthetics and housing are SMALL to MODERATE, and impacts to recreation may

29 be MODERATE during drought years. The impacts on the economy and taxes are SMALL

30 BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL and impacts on community services would be SMALL to

31 MODERATE.

32

33 The impacts of operations at the Surry alternative site are SMALL for all impact categories

34 except community characteristics and historical and cultural resources. As noted in Section 8.5,

35 the impacts in this area are SMALL to MODERATE for aesthetics and infrastructure in the

36 vicinity and MODERATE to LARGE because the particular impacts that could be realized on the

37 Colonial National Historic Park’s resources. The impacts on the economy and taxes are SMALL

38 BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

39

40 The impacts of operations at the Portsmouth alternative site are SMALL for all impact categories

41 except water use and socioeconomic categories. As noted in Section 8.6, the impacts of plant

42 operations on water use are SMALL to MODERATE most years. However, during a significant
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 9-8 July 2006

1 drought, the impacts would be MODERATE. In addition, impacts under infrastructure and

2 community services are SMALL to MODERATE for aesthetics. The impacts on the economy

3 and taxes are SMALL BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

4

5 The impacts of operations at the Savannah River alternative site are SMALL for all impact

6 categories except threatened and endangered species and socioeconomics. As noted in

7 Section 8.7, the impacts to threatened and endangered species are SMALL to MODERATE

8 because the routing for the new transmission line rights-of-way that would be needed for plant

9 operation is not known and so the associated impacts of operation and maintenance must be

10 assigned a range of potential impacts. The impacts on the economy and taxes are SMALL

11 BENEFICIAL to LARGE BENEFICIAL.

12

13 In summary, although the water-use impacts at the North Anna ESP site are projected to be

14 MODERATE during years when there is a severe drought, this event is expected to be an

15 infrequent and temporary as are any associated impacts. Aesthetic impacts are expected to be

16 periodic and MODERATE. The operational impact of the units at North Anna is also expected

17 to have a MODERATE impact in the recreational subcategory of community characteristics

18 during a severe drought, at which time the lake marinas could be affected. The Portsmouth

19 alternative site has a similar water-use issue, and the Savannah River alternative site has

20 unknown impacts associated with the transmission line rights-of-way, which could range from

21 SMALL to MODERATE. The Surry alternative site has a cultural and historical impact that could

22 be LARGE. The impacts on economy and taxes are generally beneficial and similar across

23 sites, and the impacts on infrastructure and community services are similar and up to

24 MODERATE.

25

26 For those impacts to environmental resources for which the staff was unable to reach a

27 significance level for the North Anna ESP site or the alternative sites as a result of insufficient

28 information, the most likely level of impact for the purposes of comparison to alternative sites

29 was identified and the staff assumed that impacts would affect all sites in a similar manner. In

30 the following analysis, the staff indicated a likely impact level for these unresolved issues based

31 on professional judgment, experience, and consideration of controls likely to be imposed under

32 required Federal, State, or local permits that would not be acquired until an application for a

33 construction permit or combined license were underway. These considerations and

34 assumptions were similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide a common basis

35 for comparison. These impact levels are, therefore, best estimates of impacts that the staff

36 used for its “obviously superior” determination. No new data were collected. For example,

37 insufficient information was provided for operational water quality, gas-cooled reactor fuel cycle,

38 decommissioning and severe accident mitigation alternatives. While there is insufficient

39 information to reach a conclusion on the significance levels for the unresolved issues, the staff

40 does not expect, based on the information available, that there would be significant differences

41 in impact categories among the proposed and alternative sites. While there are some
Comparison of Impacts

July 2006 9-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 differences in the environmental impacts of operation at the four sites, none of these differences

2 is sufficient for the staff to determine that any of the alternative sites is environmentally

3 preferable to the proposed North Anna ESP site.

4

5 9.3 Obviously Superior Sites

6

7 None of the alternative sites was determined to be environmentally preferable to the proposed

8 North Anna ESP site. Therefore, the staff concluded that none of the alternative sites is

9 obviously superior to the North Anna ESP site.

10

11 9.4 Comparison with the No-Action Alternative

12

13 The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC would deny the ESP application. 

14 If the ESP application for the North Anna ESP site were denied, the impacts of the site

15 preparation activities would not occur. Further, denial of the ESP application would prevent

16 early resolution of safety and environmental issues for the site. These issues would have to be

17 addressed during a future licensing action (ESP, construction permit, or combined license),

18 should an applicant decide to pursue construction and operation activities for a nuclear facility at

19 the site at a later time.

20

21 In the event of NRC’s denial of the ESP application, Dominion could follow several paths to

22 satisfy its electric power needs. The potential paths include (1) seeking an ESP for a different

23 proposed site, (2) purchase of power from other electricity providers, (3) conservation and

24 demand-side management programs, (4) construction of new generation facilities other than

25 nuclear at the North Anna site, (5) construction of new generation facilities at other locations,

26 (6) delayed retirement of existing generating facilities, and (7) reactivation of previously retired

27 generating facilities. These paths could be pursued individually or in combination. Each of the

28 paths would have associated environmental impacts. Nonetheless, since 10 CFR Part 52 does

29 not require an ER or EIS for an ESP to include consideration of energy alternatives or the

30 benefits of construction and operation of a reactor or reactors at the ESP site, Dominion did not

31 addressed those matters in its ER, and this EIS does not consider such matters. Accordingly,

32 should the NRC ultimately determine to issue an ESP for the North Anna ESP site, and a

33 construction permit or combined license application that references such an ESP is docketed,

34 these matters would be considered in the EIS on the CP or COL application.

35

36 The activities that may be permissible under an ESP are limited to the site preparation and

37 limited construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e). Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.25, such

38 activities are permissible only if the final environmental impact statement concludes that the

39 activities would not result in any significant impacts that could not be redressed, and an ESP

40 that incorporates the site redress plan is granted. The results of the staff ’s assessment of the

41 site redress plan are discussed in Section 4.11 of the DEIS. As discussed in that section, the

42 staff concludes that the potential site-preparation activities described in Dominion’s redress plan

43 would not result in any significant adverse impacts that could not be redressed. Because the

44 site preparation and preliminary work could be redressed by the site redress plan described in

45 Section 4.11 of the DEIS, the impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative

46 would be similar.
Comparison of Impacts

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 9-10 July 2006

1 9.5 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Domestic Licensing of

4 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

5

6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

8

9 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits

10 Standard Design Certification and Combined License for Nuclear Power Plants.”

11

12 Dominion Energy, Inc. and Bechtel Power Corporation (Dominion and Bechtel). 2002. 

13 Study of Potential Sites for the Deployment of New Nuclear Plants in the United States.

14 U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC07-02ID14313,

15 Washington, D.C.

16

17 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

18 Application  Part 3  Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

19

20 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

21 NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

22 dated May 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

23

24 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006c. North Anna Early Site Permit

25 Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

26

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

28

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

30 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), aff’d, New England Coalition

31 on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, 95-96 (1st Cir 1978).

32

33 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 34 Circuit 1978).

35

36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978b. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling

37 Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 397 (1978), aff’d, CLI-80-23, 11

38 NRC 731 (1980).

39
Comparison of Impacts

July 2006 9-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

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

2 Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.

3

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

5 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 6 Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1

6 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, Washington, D.C.

7

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

9 (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Draft Office of

10 Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Washington, D.C.

11

July 2006 10-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

2

3

4 This chapter of the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was changed to

5 reflect the higher power level and the proposed cooling system approach for Unit 3 in

6 Revision 6 of the Environmental Report and presented in its entirety.

7

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

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

10 for a location adjacent to North Anna Power Station (NAPS) Units 1 and 2. The North Anna

11 ESP site is located in Louisa County, Virginia, approximately 10 km (6 mi) northeast of the town

12 of Mineral. Dominion submitted revisions to the Environmental Report (ER) on October 2, 2003,

13 July 15, 2004, September 7, 2004, May 12, 2005, July 25, 2005, and April 13, 2006

14 (Dominion 2006a). On December 10, 2004, the staff prepared a Draft Environmental Impact

15 Statement (Draft EIS) with its evaluation of the Dominion application through ER Revision 3

16 (NRC 2004). Any reference in this Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

17 (SDEIS) to the ER refers to Revision 6, including Dominion’s responses to the staff’s request for

18 additional information on Revision 6 (Dominion 2006b), unless otherwise stated.

19

20 In Revision 6 to the North Anna ESP application, Dominion proposed (1) changing its approach

21 for cooling the proposed Unit 3 reactor from the once-through cooling system (as described in

22 previous versions of the ER) to a closed-cycle system and (2) increasing the maximum power

23 level per unit from 4300 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)) to 4500 MW(t) for proposed Units 3 and 4

24 (referred to hereafter as Units 3 and 4). Under the revised cooling system approach, Unit 3

25 would use a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The proposed increase in

26 power level corresponds to the revision of the maximum power of an economic simplified boiling

27 water reactor (ESBWR), one of the reactor designs included in the plant parameter envelope

28 (PPE) and evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

29

30 The NRC staff determined that the changes to the proposed action were substantial; therefore,

31 the staff decided to prepare a Supplement to its Draft EIS (referred to as the SDEIS) pursuant to

32 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 51.72. On May 16, 2006, following

33 receipt of Dominion’s ER Revision 6, the staff published a Notice of Intent to prepare a

34 Supplement to the Draft EIS for the North Anna ESP application in the Federal Register

35 (71 FR 28392). The scope of this SDEIS is limited to the environmental impacts associated with

36 the change in the cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in the power level for both units. 

37 The evaluation presented in this SDEIS replaces the evaluation of the impacts associated with

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

39 related to the power level increase. These revised evaluations, along with public comments

40 received on the analysis presented in this SDEIS, will be incorporated into the Final EIS

41 together with comments received concerning the Draft EIS and the staff’s consideration of such

42 comments. 

43
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 10-2 July 2006

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

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

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

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

5 which is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound the

6 design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be built at a selected site;

7 alternatively an ESP may refer to a detailed reactor design. An ESP is not a license to build a

8 nuclear power plant; rather, the application for an ESP initiates a process undertaken to assess

9 whether a proposed site is a suitable location for such a plant should the applicant decide to

10 pursue a CP or COL.

11

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

13 that Federal agencies prepare an EIS for major Federal actions that significantly affect the

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

15 10 CFR Part 51. Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to ESPs. 

16 In addition, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.18, the Commission has determined that an EIS will be

17 prepared during the review of an application for an ESP. The purpose of Dominion’s proposed

18 action, issuance of the ESP, is to provide stability in the licensing process by addressing site

19 safety and environmental issues before the plants are built rather than after construction is

20 completed. Part 52 of Title 10 describes the ESP as a “partial construction permit.” An

21 applicant for a CP or COL for a nuclear power plant or plants to be located at a site for which an

22 ESP has been issued can reference the ESP, and matters resolved in the ESP proceeding are

23 considered resolved in the subsequent proceeding. However, issuance of either a CP (and OL)

24 or COL to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a major Federal action that requires its

25 own environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.

26

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

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

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

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

31 impacts that cannot be redressed. Dominion provided a site redress plan as part of its ESP

32 application. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), Dominion did not address the benefits of the

33 proposed action (e.g., the need for power). In accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, the EIS is

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

35 have characteristics that fall within the design parameters that would be specified in the ESP if it

36 is granted.

37

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

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

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

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

July 2006 10-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 emergency planning are addressed in the staff’s safety evaluation report (NRC 2005). This

2 SDEIS addresses the environmental impacts related to the changes proposed in Revision 6 to

3 the ER.

4

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

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

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

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

9

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

11 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 12

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

14 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 15

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

17 important attributes of the resource.

18

19 Mitigation measures were considered for each resource area and are presented in the

20 appropriate sections.

21

22 NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(ii),(iv)-(v) requires that an EIS include information on:

23

24 & any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be

25 implemented 26

27 & any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the

28 proposed action is implemented 29

30 & the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance

31 and enhancement of long-term productivity.

32

33 The NEPA information is provided in Sections 10.1 through 10.3.

34

35 Activities permitted under an ESP with an approved site redress plan include preparation of the

36 site for construction of the facility, installation of temporary construction support facilities,

37 excavation for facility structures, construction of service facilities, and construction of certain

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

39 postulated accidents. These activities are identified in the site redress plan. The following

40 discussion addresses the impacts of construction and operation of two units at the North Anna

41 ESP site and fulfils NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(ii),(iv)-(v). The construction impacts bound any

42 impacts of the site preparation and preliminary construction activities allowed under

43 10 CFR 52.25(a).
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 10-4 July 2006

1 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

2

3 Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any adverse

4 environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

5 Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of construction and

6 operation of the proposed new units that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of

7 mitigation are available.

8

9 There would be no unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of

10 the ESP with the exception of impacts associated with the site preparation and preliminary

11 construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1). The impacts associated with the site

12 preparation and preliminary construction activities are bounded by the overall construction

13 activities. However, there are unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the

14 construction and operation of two units at the North Anna ESP site which are described below.

15

16 If the ESP is granted, the ESP holder could, pursuant to 10 CFR 5.25, perform the following site

17 preparation and preliminary construction activities consistent with the type enumerated in

18 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1): 19

20 & preparation of the site for construction of the facility (including such activities as clearing,

21 grading, and construction of temporary access roads and borrow areas) 22

23 & installation of temporary construction support facilities (including such items as

24 warehouse and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading

25 facilities, and construction support buildings) 26

27 & excavation for facility structures 28

29 & construction of service facilities (including such facilities as roadways, paving, railroad

30 spurs, fencing, exterior utility and lighting systems, and sanitary sewage treatment

31 facilities) 32

33 & construction of structures, systems, and components that do not prevent or mitigate the

34 consequences of postulated accidents, that could cause undue risk to the health and

35 safety of the public.

36

37 If the ESP is granted and any or all of the activities above are performed, but the ESP is not

38 referenced in an application for a CP under 10 CFR Part 50 or a COL under 10 CFR Part 52

39 while the ESP remains valid, the ESP holder would be required to redress the site according to

40 the site redress plan included in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the ESP application (Dominion 2006c). 

41 The staff reviewed the list of allowed site preparation and preliminary construction activities in

42 the event that the ESP is granted and reviewed the full site redress plan submitted by Dominion. 

43 In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(c), the application demonstrated that there is reasonable
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 assurance that redress carried out under the plan will achieve an environmentally stable and

2 aesthetically acceptable site suitable for whatever non-nuclear use may conform with local

3 zoning laws. Accordingly, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.25(a), the staff concludes that the

4 potential site preparation and preliminary construction activities described in Dominion’s site

5 redress plan would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts that could not be

6 redressed. As discussed in Section 1.5 of this SDEIS, the staff proposes to include a condition

7 prohibiting Dominion from conducting any pre-construction activity that would result in a

8 discharge into navigable waters without first submitting to the NRC a Virginia Water Protection

9 Permit or a determination by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) that no

10 certification is required.

11

12 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction

13

14 Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS discusses the impacts from construction in detail. Chapter 4 of this

15 SDEIS provides summaries of each section, and examines the change in impacts as a result of

16 the changes proposed in ER Revision 6. The unavoidable adverse impacts related to

17 construction, including those from the revised cooling system and higher power level, are listed

18 in Table 10-1 and summarized below. The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impacts

19 during construction would be related to land use. All construction activities for Units 3 and 4,

20 including ground-disturbing activities, would occur within the existing NAPS site boundary. 

21 According to Dominion, the area that would be affected on a long-term basis as a result of

22 permanent facilities is approximately 52 ha (128 ac); up to an additional 27.5 ha (67.9 ac) could

23 be disturbed on a short-term basis as a result of temporary activities and facilities and laydown

24 areas (Dominion 2006a).

25

26 The construction impacts on the terrestrial ecology of the site would be expected to be

27 short-term. Construction of two units would result in the removal of approximately 32 ha (80 ac)

28 of forested habitat within the site. The ESP site does not contain any old growth timber or

29 unique or sensitive plants or communities. Therefore, construction activities would not

30 noticeably reduce the local or regional diversity of plants or plant communities. There are no

31 important animal species or habitats on the ESP site. No areas designated by the U.S. Fish

32 and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for endangered or threatened species exist at or near the

33 site, nor are threatened or endangered plants or animals known to exist at the site. Therefore,

34 construction would be expected to have no impact on any threatened or endangered species or

35 other important species or habitats. Socioeconomic impacts of construction include an increase

36 in traffic. Atmospheric and meteorological impacts include fugitive dust from construction

37 activities that can be mitigated by the dust control plan. Radiological doses to construction

38 workers from the adjacent units are expected to be well below regulatory limits. Regarding

39 environmental justice, there are no unusual resource dependencies by low income or minority

40 groups and therefore no adverse unavoidable impacts.

41
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 10-6 July 2006

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

2

3 Impact Category

Adverse Impacts Based

on Dominion’s Proposal Actions to Mitigate Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse

Impacts

4 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. 

5 Hydrological and

6 water use

Yes Obtain a Clean Water Act 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.

7 Ecological

8 Terrestrial

9 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) Performing wetland surveys to

determine Clean Water Act

Section 404 applicability

(a) Removal of trees and

vegetation and habitat.

(b) Disturbance of intermittent

streams, destruction of

wetlands.

10 Socioeconomic Yes Implement traffic management plan Increased traffic congestion

11 Radiological Yes Use of as low as reasonably

achievable (ALARA) principles

Dose to construction workers

12 Atmospheric and

13 meteorological

Yes Implement dust control plan Equipment emissions and

fugitive dust from operation of

earth-moving equipment are

sources of air pollution.

14 Environmental justice No Not applicable Not applicable

15

16 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation

17

18 Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS provides a detailed discussion of the impacts from operation. 

19 Chapter 5 of this SDEIS provides a summary of the Draft EIS sections, and analyzes the

20 impacts of the changes presented in ER Revision 6. The unavoidable adverse impacts related

21 to operation are listed in Table 10-2 and summarized below. 

22

23 Dominion changed its proposed cooling system from a once-through system for Unit 3, as

24 described in ER Revisions 3, 4, and 5, to the closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling

25 system described in Revision 6. This change reduces the previously predicted thermal impacts

26 and impingement and entrainment of Lake Anna’s aquatic populations.

27

28 Socioeconomic impacts are primarily increased demand for services, with the increased tax

29 revenue to support the increase in services. The visual impact of lower water levels, and their
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 effect on shoreline exposure during intermittent severe drought, could temporarily impact the

2 area. Regarding environmental justice, there are no unusual resource dependencies by low

3 income or minority groups and therefore no adverse unavoidable impacts. Meteorological

4 impacts are expected to be negligible, although wet cooling towers would put more moisture

5 into the air in the form of a visible condensation plume. Pollutants emitted during operations are

6 considered insignificant. The unavoidable adverse impacts from operation for land use are

7 small and further mitigation is not warranted.

8

9 Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation

10

11 Impact Category

Adverse Impacts

Based on Dominion’s

Proposal Actions to Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

12 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.

13 Hydrological and

14 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.

15 Ecological

16 Terrestrial

17 Aquatic

No

Yes

None

None

None.

Proportion of resources subject to

impingement and entrainment

would be small.

18 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.

19 Radiological Yes Use of ALARA principles Dose to workers, the public, and

biota.

20 Atmospheric and

21 meteorological

No None None

22 Environmental justice No Not applicable Not applicable
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 10-8 July 2006

1 10.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

2

3 Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any irreversible and

4 irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed action is implemented. 

5 The only irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be expended if the

6 proposed action is implemented would be resources used by Dominion for site preparation

7 activities. If not used during the duration of the ESP, any such resource commitments for site

8 preparation activities would be used at the CP/COL stage or could potentially be used for other

9 activities even if the ESP is issued but not referenced in a CP or a COL application.

10

11 Irretrievable commitments of resources during construction of the proposed new units generally

12 would be similar to that of any major construction project. The actual commitment of

13 construction resources (e.g., concrete, steel, and other building materials) would depend on the

14 reactor design selected at the CP/COL stage. Hazardous materials such as asbestos would not

15 be used, if possible. If materials such as asbestos were used, the use would be in accordance

16 with safety regulations and practices. The actual estimate of construction materials would be

17 performed at the CP/COL stage when the reactor design is selected.

18

19 The staff expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with those

20 expected for the two new units, while irretrievable, would be a small impact with respect to the

21 availability of such resources.

22

23 The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of two new nuclear

24 unit would be uranium for the fuel and ultimately the offsite storage space for the spent fuel

25 assemblies. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium

26 in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient, so the irreversible

27 and irretrievable commitment would be of only small consequence.

28

29 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term

30 Productivity of the Human Environment

31

32 Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on the relationship

33 between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of

34 long-term productivity. The only short-term use of the environment that could occur if the

35 proposed action is granted would be site preparation and limited construction activities. Any

36 such activities are unlikely to adversely affect the long-term productivity of the environment. 

37 The evaluation of the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the

38 maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the construction and operation of

39 the two new units can only be performed by discussing the benefits of operating the units. The

40 societal benefit is the production of electricity. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.18, an EIS for an
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 ESP need not include an assessment of the benefits of the proposed action. Therefore, an

2 assessment of the evaluation of the relationship between local short-term uses of the

3 environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the

4 construction and operation of the two units would be performed at the CP/COL stage should the

5 NRC grant the ESP and an applicant references it in an application for a CP or COL. This issue

6 is, therefore, not resolved.

7

8 10.4 Cumulative Impacts

9

10 The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and operation

11 of Units 3 and 4 in the context of past, present, and future actions at the North Anna ESP site in

12 Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS and this SDEIS, and summaries are provided in this SDEIS with

13 additional impact analysis regarding changes presented in ER Revision 6. For each impact

14 area, the staff determined that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction and

15 operation are SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted. The geographical area over which past,

16 present, and future actions could contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of

17 action considered. Several impact categories have the potential for MODERATE impacts, most

18 of which would occur under temporary circumstances or as the result of a larger than expected

19 concentration of construction workers settling near the North Anna ESP site. Some impact

20 issues were not resolved. The cumulative impacts for these issues would have to be addressed

21 in a future EIS, should an applicant for a CP or COL reference an ESP for the North Anna ESP

22 site.

23

24 10.5 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

25

26 The staff’s preliminary recommendation, in view of the environmental impacts described in the

27 Draft EIS, and the impacts reviewed in this SDEIS in relation to the changes presented in ER

28 Revision 6, is that the ESP for North Anna Units 3 and 4 should be issued. This

29 recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by Dominion, as revised; (2) consultation

30 with Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies; (3) the staff’s independent review; (4) the

31 assessments summarized in the Draft EIS and this SDEIS, including the potential mitigation

32 measures identified in the ER and in both the Draft EIS and SDEIS. In addition, in making its

33 recommendation, the staff has concluded that the alternative sites considered are not obviously

34 superior to the proposed site. Finally, the staff concludes that the site preparation and

35 preliminary construction activities enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) would not result in any

36 significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be redressed.

37

38 A comparative summary showing the environmental impacts of constructing and operating two

39 new units at the North Anna ESP site or at any of the alternative sites is shown in Table 10-3. 

40 The estimated environmental significance of the no-action alternative, or denial of the ESP

41 application, is also shown. Table 10-3 shows that the significance of the environmental impacts
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 10-10 July 2006

1 of the proposed action is SMALL for all impact categories at all sites with the exception of

2 certain land use, ecology, water use and quality, socioeconomic and historic and cultural

3 resource impacts. The alternative sites may have adverse environmental effects in at least

4 some categories that reach MODERATE to LARGE significance. The staff concludes that none

5 of the alternative sites assessed is obviously superior to the North Anna ESP site.

6

7 The range of impacts estimated by the NRC staff for resolved issues is predicated on certain

8 assumptions; those are identified in each section. Should the Commission issue an ESP for the

9 North Anna ESP site, and it is referenced in an application for a CP or COL, the staff will verify

10 that the assumptions identified in this EIS remain applicable. In addition, certain issues are not

11 resolved because of a lack of information. An applicant for a CP or COL referencing an ESP for

12 the North Anna ESP site would need to provide the necessary information to resolve these

13 issues, if the proposed action ultimately would affect the resources associated with these

14 issues.

15

16 Table 10-3. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Constructing and Operating Two Units

17 at the North Anna ESP Site and the Alternatives

18

19

Proposed

Action

No-Action

Alternative Alternative Site Options

20 Impact Category

ESP Permit at

North Anna Denial of ESP Surry Portsmouth

Savannah

River

21 Land use SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

22 Ecology SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to

MODERATE

23 Water use and quality Unresolved,

likely to be 

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

Unresolved,

likely to be 

SMALL

Unresolved,

likely to be 

SMALL

 Unresolved,

likely to be 

SMALL

24 Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

25 Waste SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

26 Human health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

27 Socioeconomics MODERATE

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL LARGE

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

MODERATE

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

SMALL

ADVERSE to

LARGE

BENEFICIAL

28 Historic and cultural

29 resources

SMALL SMALL MODERATE to

LARGE

SMALL SMALL

30 Environmental justice SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

31
Conclusions and Recommendations

July 2006 10-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 10.6 References

2

3 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing

4 of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

5

6 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental

7 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”

8

9 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits;

10 Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

11

12 68 FR 65961. “Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, North Anna Early Site Permit; Notice of

13 Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal

14 Register, Vol. 68, No. 266, November 24, 2003.

15

16 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 2011, et seq.

17

18 Clean Water Act (CWA) (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC

19 1251, et seq.

20

21 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

22 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

23

24 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

25 NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

26 dated May 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

27

28 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006c. North Anna Early Site Permit

29 Application – Part 4 – Programs and Plans. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

30

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

32

33 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Standard Review Plans for the Review of

34 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-0800, Washington, D.C.

35

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

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

38

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

40 Review for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.

41
Conclusions and Recommendations

NUREG-1811, SDEIS 10-12 July 2006

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for

2 an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811, Washington, D.C.

3

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site

5 Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. September 2005.
Appendix A

Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement

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

Early Site Permit at North Anna Nuclear Plant Site

July 2006 A-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1

2 Appendix A

3

4 Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement 

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

6 Early Site Permit at North Anna Nuclear Plant Site

7

8 Additional staff contributors since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement have been added

9 to this list.

10

11 The overall responsibility for the preparation of this environmental impact statement was

12 assigned to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

13 (NRC). The statement was prepared by members of the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

14 with assistance from other NRC organizations and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

15

16 Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

17 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 Andrew Kugler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief/Project Manager

19 John Tappert Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section Chief

20 Jack Cushing Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

21 Stacey Imboden Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

22 Alicia Williamson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

23 Samuel Quiones-Hernandez Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

24 Barry Zalcman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Monitor

25 Tom Kenyon Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management

26 James Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist

27 Michael Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist

28 Harriet Nash Nuclear Reactor Regulation Biologist

29 Brad Harvey Nuclear Reactor Regulation Meteorology

30 Rich Emch Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

31 Charles Hinson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

32 Steve Klementowicz Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

33 Audrey Hayes Nuclear Reactor Regulation Radiological Impacts

34 Jay Lee Nuclear Reactor Regulation Design Basis and Severe Accidents

35 Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accidents

36 Amy Snyder Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

37 James Park Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

38 Cynthia Barr Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Fuel Cycle Impacts

39 Nina Barnett Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

40 Yvonne Edmonds Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

41 Jennifer Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cultural Resources
Appendix A

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUREG-1811, SDEIS A-2 July 2006

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(a) 1

2 Mary Ann Parkhurst Task Leader

3 Beverly Miller Deputy Task Leader

4 Kimberly Leigh Deputy Task Leader

5 William Sandusky Air Quality

6 John Jaksch Socioeconomics

7 Mike Scott Socioeconomics

8 Duane Neitzel Aquatic Ecology

9 Jeffrey Ward Aquatic Ecology

10 Mike Sackschewsky Terrestrial Ecology

11 Greg Stoetzel Radiation Protection

12 Paul Nickens Cultural Resources

13 Paul Hendrickson Land Use, Related Federal Programs, Alternatives

14 Lance Vail Water Use, Hydrology

15 Chris Cook Water Use, Hydrology

16 Stuart Saslow Water Use, Hydrology

17 Eva Hickey Decomissioning

18 Van Ramsdell Design Basis and Severe Accidents

19 Dennis Strenge Severe Accidents

20 Maha Mahasenan Transportation

21 Philip Daling Transportation

22 Michael Smith Technical Review

23 Cary Counts Technical Editing

24 Barbara Wilson Publications Assistant

25 Debbie Schulz Document Production

26 Jean Cheyney Document Production

27 Mike Parker Document Production

28 Susan Tackett Document Production

29 Trina Russell Document Production

30 Rose Urbina Document Production

31 Seleste Williams Document Production

32 (a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute.

33
Appendix B

Organizations Contacted

July 2006 B-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Appendix B

2

3 Organizations Contacted

4

5

6 This appendix is not affected by the changes presented in the ER Revision 6. No additional

7 organizations were contacted for the analysis of the changes to the Unit 3 cooling system or the

8 increase in maximum power level for the Plant Parameter Envelope. This information is

9 included here for reference purposes.

10

11 During the course of the staff’s independent review of potential environmental impacts from

12 siting two new nuclear units at the North Anna site, the following Federal, State, regional, Tribal

13 and local agencies were contacted:

14

15 Lake Anna State Park, Spotsylvania, Virginia

16

17 Louisa County Historical Society, Louisa, Virginia

18

19 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, Virginia

20

21 Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia

22

23 Chickahominy Indian Tribe, Providence Forge, Virginia

24

25 Chickahominy Indians – Eastern Division, Providence Forge, Virginia

26

27 Mattaponi Indian Tribe, West Point, Virginia

28

29 Monacan Indian Nation, Madison Heights, Virginia

30

31 Nansemond Indian Tribe, Suffolk, Virginia

32

33 Pamunkey Indian Tribe, King William, Virginia

34

35 Rappahannock Tribe, Indian Neck, Virginia

36

37 Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe, Mechanicsville, Virginia

38

39 Virginia Council on Indians, Richmond, Virginia

40

41 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

42

43 South Carolina Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina

44

45 Ohio Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Appendix B

NUREG-1811, SDEIS B-2 July 2006

1 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia

2

3 Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, Virginia

4

5 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia

6

7 Wildlife Diversity Division, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond,

8 Virginia

9

10 Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Richmond, Virginia

11

12 Marine Resources Commission, Newport News, Virginia

13

14 Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia

15

16 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Richmond, Virginia 

17

18 Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland

19

20 Budget Director, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

21

22 Finance Director, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

23

24 Treasurer, Orange County, Orange, Virginia

25

26 Reservoir Coordinator, Nuclear Site Services, Dominion Generation, North Anna Site

27

28 Commissioner of Revenue, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

29

30 Assessor, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

31

32 Director of the Department of Community Development, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

33

34 Director of the Planning Division, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

35

36 Director Department of Planning, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

37

38 Customer Services Supervisor, Department of Public Utilities Henrico County, Virginia

39

40 Director of Economic Development, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

41

42 President of Fredericksburg Regional Alliance, Fredericksburg, Virginia

43
Appendix B

July 2006 B-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Realtor, Century 21, Fredericksburg, Virginia

2

3 Owner/Broker Century 21, Fredericksburg, Virginia

4

5 Rappahannock Area Development Commission, Fredericksburg, Virginia

6

7 Louisa County Farm Service Agency, Louisa, Virginia

8

9 Administrative Assistant for School Admissions, Spotsylvania Public Schools, Spotsylvania,

10 Virginia

11

12 School Superintendent, Louisa County Public Schools, Louisa, Virginia

13

14 School Superintendent, Orange County Public Schools, Orange, Virginia 

15

16 County Administrator, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

17

18 Director Office of Economic Development, Orange County, Orange, Virginia 

19

20 Director Planning and Zoning, Orange County, Orange, Virginia

21

22 Director of Economic Development, Louisa County, Louisa, Virginia

23

24 Louisa Town Manager, Louisa, Virginia

25

26 Real Estate Agent, Century 21, Mineral, Virginia

27

28 Director of Social Services, Orange County, Virginia

29

30 Director of Social Services, Louisa County, Virginia

31

32 County Administrator, Orange County, Virginia

33

34 Town Manager, Orange, Virginia

35

36 Director of Public Works, Orange, Virginia

37

38 Managing Broker, Century 21, Orange, Virginia

39

40 Branch Manager, Virginia Community Bank, Louisa, Virginia

41

42 Town Manager, Mineral, Virginia

43

44 Interim County Manager, Spotsylvania County, Spotsylvania, Virginia

45

46 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 Early Site Permit at

North Anna Nuclear Plant Site

July 2006 C-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Appendix C

2

3 Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

4 Related to Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s

5 Application for Early Site Permit at

6 North Anna Nuclear Plant Site

7

8 This appendix contains the correspondence since the issuance of the Draft Environmental

9 Impact Statement.

10

11 This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

12 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) and other

13 correspondence related to the NRC staff’s environmental review, under 10 CFR Part 51, for

14 Dominion’s application for an early site permit at the North Anna Nuclear Plant site since just

15 prior to the issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in December 2004. 

16 Previous correspondence is contained in Appendix C of NUREG 1811, Draft Environmental

17 Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site”

18 (Accession No. ML043380308). All documents, with the exception of those containing

19 proprietary information, have been placed in the Commission’s Public Document Room, at

20 One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD, and are available

21 electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following

22 web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. From this site, the public can gain access to

23 the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides

24 text and image files of NRC’s public documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS)

25 component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for each document are included

26 below.

27

28 November 30, 2004 NUREG 1811, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site

29 Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site (Accession No. ML043380308)

30

31 December 2, 2004 Letter to EPA transmitting NUREG 1811, Draft Environmental Impact

32 Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site

33 (Accession No. ML043370446)

34

35 December 2, 2004 Letter to Dominion transmitting Federal Register Notice of Availability of

36 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP)

37 at the North Anna ESP Site (Accession No. ML043370460)

38

39 December 27, 2004 Meeting Notice for meeting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

40 (Accession No. ML043650007)

41
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, SDEIS C-2 July 2006

1 January 26, 2005 Meeting Notice of rescheduled meeting on the Draft Environmental

2 Impact Statement (Accession No. ML05027019)

3

4 January 31, 2005 Biological Assessment for the Early Site Permit (ESP) of the North Anna

5 ESP Site and a Request for Informal Consultation

6 (Accession No. ML050320461)

7

8 January 31, 2005 Trip report for the January 6, 2005, drop in visit with the County

9 Commissioners of Spotsylvania, Orange, and Louisa Counties

10 (Accession No. ML050340579)

11

12 February 23, 2005 EPA letter requesting an extension of the comment period

13 (Accession No. ML050610265)

14

15 March 17, 2005 NRC response to EPA request for extension of comment

16 (Accession No. ML050500497)

17

18 March 18, 2005 Supplemental Request for Additional Information (RAI)

19 (Accession No. ML050840226)

20

21 March 20, 2005 Meeting summary for public meeting held to on February 17, 2005, in

22 Mineral, Virginia, to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact

23 Statement (Accession No. ML050880304)

24

25 March 22, 2005 Trip report for the January 19, 2005, drop-in visit with the Commonwealth

26 of Virginia (Accession No. ML050810272)

27

28 March 31, 2005 Summary of a telephone call between NRC and Dominion concerning

29 the RAI pertaining to the North Anna ESP application

30 (Accession No. ML050920010)

31

32 April 12, 2005 Dominion’s response to the March 18, 2005, RAI number 4, requesting

33 documentation of Dominion’s commitment to the Commonwealth of

34 Virginia regarding the striped bass (Accession No. ML0501090376)

35

36 April 13, 2005 E-mail from Jack Cushing (NRC) to Ellie Irons, Commonwealth of

37 Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, requesting clarification of

38 commitment between the Commonwealth and Dominion regarding the

39 striped bass (Accession No. ML051040399)

40
Appendix C

July 2006 C-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 April 13, 2005 Dominion’s response to the March 18, 2005, RAI numbers 1, 2, and 3

2 (Accession No. ML051100321)

3

4 April 21, 2005 E-mail from the Commonwealth of Virginia (Ellie Irons) clarifying

5 mitigation for the striped bass (Accession No. ML051120483)

6

7 May 12, 2005 Revision 4 to North Anna ESP application (Accession No. ML051450310)

8

9 May 20, 2005 Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field

10 Office concurring with the NRC’s biological assessment

11 (Accession No. ML051600263)

12

13 June 14, 2005 Summary of Telephone Conference with the Virginia Department of

14 Historic Resources Regarding the North Anna ESP Review

15 (Accession No. ML05166060)

16

17 June 16, 2005 Memo to Andrew Kugler, NRC, regarding report containing comments

18 received pertaining to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the

19 North Anna ESP application (Accession No. ML051720560)

20

21 June 30, 2005 Letter to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers transmitting NUREG 1811, Draft

22 Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

23 North Anna ESP Site (Accession No. ML051880003)

24

25 July 7, 2005 Letter from Virginia Department of Environmental Quality requesting

26 comment and response document pertaining to the North Anna ESP Draft

27 Environmental Impact Statement (Accession No. ML052010112)

28

29 July 15, 2005 Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineering Regarding NUREG 1811,

30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North Anna Early Site

31 Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site (Accession No. ML052020342)

32

33 July 15, 2005 Trip Report of a tour of Doswell Limited Partnership Combined Cycle

34 Facility (Accession No. ML052170374)

35

36 July 19, 2005 E-mail from NRC to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

37 regarding request for comment and response document pertaining to

38 North Anna ESP Draft Environmental Impact Statement

39 (Accession No. ML052010108)

40
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, SDEIS C-4 July 2006

1 July 20, 2005 Letter from the NRC to Mr. David Christian, Dominion, requesting

2 additional information regarding compliance with Section 307 of the

3 Coastal Zone Management Act and Section 401 of the Federal Water

4 Pollution Control Act (Accession No. ML052010524)

5

6 July 25, 2005 Transmittal of Final Safety Evaluation Report review items and Revision 5

7 to the North Anna ESP application (Accession No. ML052150226)

8

9 August 16,2005 Letter transmitting revised schedule (Accession No. ML051520461)

10

11 September 8, 2005 Supplemental RAI regarding the environmental portion of the ESP

12 application for the North Anna Site (Accession No. ML052520272)

13

14 September 22, 2005 Dominion's response to the supplemental RAI

15 (Accession No. ML052660062)

16

17 September 27, 2005 Letter from the NRC to Dr. Ethel Eaton, Virginia Department of Historic

18 Resources, regarding the North Anna ESP Review (Accession

19 No. ML052730103)

20

21 October 6, 2005 Dominion’s response to the supplemental RAI dated July 20, 2005

22 (Accession No. ML052790657).

23

24 October 24, 2005 Letter from Dominion to NRC regarding North Anna ESP application

25 planned revision to the Unit 3 cooling water approach (Accession

26 No. ML052980117)

27

28 October 25, 2005 Letter from Mr. Brooks, Deputy Superintendent, National Park Service, to

29 NRC, providing comments on the National Park Service’s concern

30 regarding the alternative Surry ESP site potential impact on the viewshed

31 (Accession No. ML053080128)

32

33 November 2, 2005 Letter from NRC to Dominion responding to Dominion’s notification of the

34 modification of the cooling system for the proposed Unit 3 at the North

35 Anna ESP Site (Accession No. ML053000566)

36

37 November 3, 2005 Letter from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources regarding

38 consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

39 (Accession No. ML0531301730)

40
Appendix C

July 2006 C-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 December 5, 2005 Letter from NRC to Dominion regarding a revision to the North Anna ESP

2 schedule (Accession No. ML0532100541) 

3

4 January 13, 2006 Dominion North Anna Early Site Permit Application Supplement to

5 address a modified approach to Unit 3 cooling and to ensure the plant

6 parameter envelope remains bounding (Accession No. ML060250396)

7

8 February 10, 2006 Letter from NRC to Dominion regarding the North Anna ESP application

9 review schedule (Accession No. ML060390208).

10

11 March 2, 2006 Letter from NRC to Dominion regarding information needs in the revision

12 to the ESP application in regards to the change in cooling system and the

13 increase in power level (Accession No. ML060610065)

14

15 March 13, 2006 Letter from NRC to Dominion regarding possible bald eagle nest

16 (Accession No. ML060650396)

17

18 April 3, 2005 North Anna ESP application, response to NRC Question 10.q - water

19 budget analysis spreadsheets (Accession No. ML061040606)

20

21 April 11, 2006 Meeting summary of the March 10, 2006, meeting with Dominion to

22 discuss the supplement to the North Anna ESP application

23 (Accession No. ML060860305)

24

25 April 13, 2006 North Anna ESP application response to NRC questions and Revision 6

26 to the plant application (Accession No. ML061180180)

27

28 May 4, 2006 North Anna review schedule letter (Accession No. ML061230005)

29

30 May 5, 2006 Press release regarding review schedule and informing public of the

31 intent to prepare a supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact

32 Statement (Accession No. ML061250437)

33

34 May 10, 2006 Letter transmitting Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare a

35 supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Accession

36 Nos. ML061240025 and ML061240029)

37

38 May 10, 2006 Letter to Dominion transmitting RAIs (Accession No. ML061290142)

39

40 May 12, 2006 Summary of May 3-4, 2006 site audit to support the review of the North

41 Anna ESP application (Accession No. ML061320447)
Appendix C

NUREG-1811, SDEIS C-6 July 2006

1 May 24, 2006 North Anna ESP application, response to NRC May 10, 2006, RAI

2 May 12, 2006; site audit summary report comments; and NRC site audit

3 follow-up questions (Accession No. ML061510131)

4

5 June 16, 2006 Letter from Virginia Department of Environmental Quality regarding

6 401 certification (Accession No. ML061720278)

7

8 June 21, 2006 Letter Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC to the NRC transmitting the

9 North Anna Early Site Permit Application Response to NRC Questions

10 and Revision 7 to the North Anna ESP Application 

11

12 June 28, 2006 Letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding eagle nests near

13 Lake Anna (Accession No. ML061510149)

14

15
Appendix D

Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses

July 2006 D-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1

2 Appendix D

3

4 Scoping Meeting Comments and Responses Site

5

6

7 This appendix was intentionally left blank in this Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact

8 Statement. It is not affected by the changes presented in ER Revision 6. It was shown in its

9 entirety in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and it will appear in the Final

10 Environmental Impact Statement.

Appendix E

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Comments and Responses

July 2006 E-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1

2 Appendix E

3

4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

5 Comments and Responses

6

7 This appendix was intentionally left blank in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

8 and in this Supplement to the Draft EIS. In the Final EIS, Appendix E will include written

9 comments and responses received on the Draft EIS and those received at the public meeting

10 held in Mineral, Virginia on February 17, 2005. In addition, comments received on this

11 Supplement to the Draft EIS will be added with staff responses.

Appendix F

Key Correspondence

Appendix F

Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC’s

Key Early Site Permit Consultation Correspondence

Appendix F has been changed from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), and

contains correspondence received starting after the publication of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site from

December 2004 until the present time.

1 Correspondence received during the evaluation process of the early site permit (ESP)

2 application for Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC (Dominion) for the proposed North Anna site

3 is identified in Table F-1. Copies of the correspondence are included at the end of this table.

4

5 Table F-1. Key Consultation Correspondence for the Dominion ESP Supplemental EIS

6

7 Source Recipient Date of Letter/E-mail

8 United States Nuclear

9 Regulatory Commission 

10 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Mr. David Sutherland)

January 31, 2005

11 United States Nuclear

12 Regulatory Commission 

13 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Mr. Regena Bronson)

June 30, 2005

14 Department of the Army

15 Corps of Engineers

16 (Bruce F. Williams)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Jack Cushing)

July 15, 2005

17 United States Nuclear

18 Regulatory Commission 

19 (Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Virginia Department of Historic

Resources

(Dr. Ethel Eaton)

September 27, 2005

20 United States Department of the

21 Interior, National Park Service

22 (Skip Brooks)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Jack Cushing)

October 25, 2005

23 Virginia Department of Historic

24 Resources

25 (Roger W. Kirchen)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

November 3, 2005

26 Virginia Department of

27 Environmental Quality

28 (Jeffery A. Steers)

United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission 

(Jack Cushing)

June 16, 2006

29

 July 2006 F-1 NUREG 1811, SDEIS
January 31, 2005

Mr. David Sutherland

Chesapeake Bay Field Office 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive

Annapolis, MD 21401

SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE EARLY SITE PERMIT (ESP) OF THE

NORTH ANNA ESP SITE AND A REQUEST FOR INFORMAL CONSULTATION

Dear Mr. Sutherland:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared the enclosed biological

assessment (BA) to evaluate whether the proposed action of the North Anna ESP would have

adverse effects on listed species. The North Anna ESP site is located within the North Anna

Power Station (NAPS) site adjacent to Lake Anna near Mineral, Virginia. The proposed Federal

action is the issuance, under provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 52

(10 CFR Part 52), of an ESP for the North Anna ESP site for postulated additional nuclear

power facilities, and to conduct site preparation and limited construction activities. The site

preparation and limited construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 52.25 include clearing,

grading, and constructing non-safety-related facilities. The proposed action does not include

approval to construct and operate new units; therefore, the BA does not analyze environmental

impacts that could result from construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the North

Anna ESP site. Impacts associated with actual facility construction and operation will be

assessed during the NRC staff’s review of an application for a combined license or construction

permit, should the applicant choose to go forward with the project.

The existing transmission system at the NAPS is sufficient to transmit all power generated by

existing and proposed nuclear units at NAPS. The NRC’s recent analysis of the existing

transmission system at NAPS (NRC 2002) concluded that continued operation would not impact

threatened or endangered species. Because no changes to transmission lines or rights-of-way

are anticipated, this BA does not consider them for further analysis.

By letter dated December 21, 2003, (NRC 2003b), the NRC requested the Federally listed

threatened or endangered species that may be in the vicinity of NAPS and its associated

transmission lines. In a letter dated October 25, 2004, (FWS 2004a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) provided the Federally listed threatened or endangered species. The FWS

identified the following: one endangered species, dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterdon);

and four threatened species, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), small whorled pogonia

(Isotria medeoloides), sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), and swamp pink

(Helonias bullata). For documentation purposes, the NRC has addressed the potential impact

of the North Anna ESP site on these five species in the enclosed BA. 

The NRC has determined that the proposed action would not affect the dwarf wedgemussel

because there is no suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel on the North Anna ESP site.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-2 July 2006
D. Sutherland -2-

Because bald eagles have been observed in the vicinity of the project site, the NRC determined

that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the bald eagle. The 

NRC concluded that the proposed action would not affect the small whorled pogonia, sensitive

joint-vetch, and swamp pink because no known habitats exist for these protected plant species

on the North Anna ESP site. Finally, no designated critical habitat exists for any of the five

listed species.

We are placing this BA in our project files and are requesting your concurrence with our

determination. In reaching our conclusion, the NRC staff relied on information provided by the

applicant, on research performed by NRC staff, and information from FWS (i.e., current listings

of species provided by the FWS, Gloucester, Virginia Field Office).

If you have any questions regarding this BA or the staff’s request, please contact 

Mr. Jack Cushing, Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-1424, or by e-mail at

jxc9@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 52-008

Enclosure: As stated

cc w/encl.: See next page

July 2006 F-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
ENCLOSURE

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-4 July 2006
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

North Anna

Early Site Permit Application

Louisa County, Virginia

Docket Number 52-008

January 2005

July 2006 F-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
1

1.0 Introduction

On September 25, 20031

, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an

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

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

(NAPS) site near the town of Mineral, in Louisa County, Virginia (Figure 1). Under the NRC

regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (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

environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of its review of an ESP application. The NRC staff

published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (68 FR 65961) to conduct scoping, prepare

an EIS, and publish a draft EIS for public comment. The comment period for the draft EIS ends

on March 1, 2005. The draft EIS is available on the NRC website at www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1811/ index.html. The final EIS will be issued after considering

public comments on the draft. A separate safety evaluation report will also be prepared in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 52.

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

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

located on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna, approximately eight kilometers (km)

(five miles [mi]) upstream of the North Anna Dam. 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 Company (Virginia

Power), 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.

As part of the environmental review process, the NRC staff sent letters to staff at the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) Fisheries (NRC 2003a,b) requesting lists of threatened and endangered species that

potentially could be affected by the construction and operation of new power plants at NAPS. 

Specifically, the staff requested a list of species and information on protected, proposed, and

candidate species, and critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of North Anna. 

In a letter dated January 6, 2004 (NOAA 2004), NOAA Fisheries stated that ?no federally listed

or proposed threatened or endangered species under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries are

known to exist in the vicinity of the North Anna Power Station.” The FWS replied by letter dated

October 25, 2004 (FWS 2004a) with attached tables that identify two animal and three plant

species listed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that occur or may occur in the counties

adjacent to the NAPS. These species are the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon),

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), sensitive

joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), and swamp pink (Helonias bullata). 

1 The September 25, 2003, Environmental Report (ER) for this application was revised by letters dated October 2,

2003 (Revision 1), July 15, 2004 (Revision 2), and September 7, 2004 (Revision 3). Any reference in this Biological

Assessment (BA) to the ER refers to Revision 3 (Dominion 2004), unless otherwise stated.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-6 July 2006
2

Figure 1. Location of North Anna ESP Site, 80-km (50-mi) Region

July 2006 F-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
3

2.0 Project Description

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 additional nuclear power facilities, and to conduct site

preparation and limited construction activities identified in the application. The proposed action

does not include approval to construct and operate new units but rather allows limited

construction associated with site preparation activities. The complete construction and operation

of new units are not presently proposed; therefore, this BA does not analyze the environmental

impacts that could result from the actual construction and operation of two new nuclear units at

the North Anna ESP site. Site preparation impacts are analyzed to determine whether activities

proposed under the site redress plan might impact threatened and endangered species that

occur in the vicinity of the NAPS.

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

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

parameter envelope is based on the addition of power generation from two distinct units, to be

designated as North Anna Units 3 and 4. Cooling water for Unit 3, the first of the proposed new

units, would be provided by Lake Anna. Unit 4 would use dry cooling towers. 

In this BA, the proposed ESP site is evaluated only for those activities related to the site

preparation activities and the limited construction activities allowed by 10 CFR 52.25. The site

redress plan provides for redress of impacts associated with site preparation and limited

construction activities, if the applicant ultimately decides not to pursue construction of one or

more nuclear units after the permitted activities have occurred. The activities permitted under 10

CFR 52.25 would allow for these site preparation and limited construction activities such as

clearing and grading, and the construction of non-safety related facilities, which could include

intake and discharge structures, cooling towers, turbine buildings, and non-safety related

support facilities. 

Dominion evaluated the existing transmission system that connects the NAPS site with the

regional transmission grid, and determined that the existing transmission lines are sufficient to

transmit all of the power generated by the existing and the postualated new nuclear units at the

NAPS site. Therefore, no changes to the existing transmission system are proposed. The NRC

examined the potential impacts of continued operation of the NAPS transmission lines in

connection with the license renewal for NAPS Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2002) and determined that

there would be no effect to threatened or endangered species. Because no changes to the lines

or rights-of-way are anticipated, the transmission lines are not considered in this BA. 

3.0 Potential Environmental Impacts

Site preparation activities may result in the removal of approximately 32 hectares (ha) (80 acres

[ac]) of forested habitats, as well as grading of areas previously disturbed during construction of

the existing NAPS units. In addition to direct habitat loss, there would likely be a temporary

increase in ambient noise levels typical of land development and construction activities. 

Construction of intake and discharge structures would impact small portions of the Lake Anna

shoreline.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-8 July 2006
4

Figure 2. North Anna ESP Site Boundaries within the Existing NAPS Site

Much of the proposed North Anna ESP site construction area consists of dirt roads, cleared

areas, parking lots, buildings, and early succession habitats (Figure 2). The western portion of

the current and proposed laydown area, located northeast of the current switchyard, can be

classified as ?old-field” habitat. None of the current or proposed laydown area is forested. The

area proposed for temporary offices, located east of the switchyard, is an existing office

complex; thus, undisturbed habitats would not be impacted. The proposed cooling tower site

consists primarily of forested habitat.

4.0 Description of the Project Area

4.1 Terrestrial Biological Communities of the North Anna Site

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 north-central 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 2004).

July 2006 F-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
5

Approximately 30 percent of the North Anna site consists of power generation and maintenance

facilities, parking lots, roads, cleared areas, and mowed grass. Hardwood forests and planted

pines exist on 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 (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 2004).

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 cattail (Typha

spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.), are typically absent or extend only to approximately 0.3 meters

(m) to 1 m (one to three feet [ft]) beyond the shoreline (Dominion 2004). 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 are proposed to be located. A narrow band of

wetlands is associated with each of these streams. A small (<.5 ha [one ac]) isolated wetland is

located within the ESP site.

Wildlife species found in the forested portions of the North Anna site are those typically found in

upland Piedmont forests of north-central 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 2004).

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), redbellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and

northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) (Audubon Society 2004). 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 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 2004).

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-10 July 2006
6

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 2004), 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 belted kingfishers and green-backed heron

presumably nest on or near the Lake Anna shoreline. There are no known great blue herons

rookeries at Lake Anna (Dominion 2004). 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). 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 2004; VEPCo 1986).

4.2 Aquatic Biological Communities of the North Anna Site

The aquatic resources in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site, the Waste Heat Treatment

Facility (WHTF), and the North Anna River, are associated with Lake Anna (VEPCo 2001). Lake

Anna was created to serve as the cooling water source for NAPS. The lake was formed 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.

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 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 were collected in

the North Anna basin prior to impoundment: Elliptio complanatus, E. productus, and Sphaerium

striatum (AEC 1973).

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

July 2006 F-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
7

expand rapidly when they invade a new habitat, and densities stabilize as the species reach

carrying capacity of the habitat. Asiatic clams are present throughout Lake Anna with the

greatest population densities found at mid-lake (VEPCo 1989). After its 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. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has not

been observed in Lake Anna.

Small numbers of unionid mussels (Elliptio spp.) and fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae) have also

been collected. Acid drainage and sediment from the Contrary Creek mine site historically

depressed freshwater mussel populations downstream from the Contrary Creek-North Anna

River confluence; the first major mussel beds prior to the inpoundment of Lake Anna did not

occur until 100 m (328 ft) downstream of the confluence of the North and South Anna Rivers

(Reed and Simmons 1972). There are indications that mussel populations (Elliptio spp.) are

recovering in the lower North Anna River (VEPCo 1986).

Thirty-nine species of fish (representing 12 families) have been identified in Lake Anna (VEPCo

1986). Species include those historically found in the North Anna River, those that had been in

local farm ponds inundated by the new reservoir, and species introduced by the Virginia

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 

Recreational species include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M.

dolomieu), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white

perch (M. americana), pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), redbreast

sunfish (L. auritus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and white catfish (Ameiurus catus). 

Forage species include threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and gizzard shad 

(D. cepedianum). Striped bass and walleye are stocked annually by VDGIF. In 1994, sterile

triploid herbivorous grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) was stocked by Virginia Power to

control the growth of the nuisance submerged aquatic plant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) with the

approval of the VDGIF.

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 reclamation of the Contrary Creek mine site), there was a steady increase in

measures of abundance and diversity of fish. During 1984 to 1985, 38 species from ten families

were found in the North Anna River, compared to 25 species from eight families in the control

stream, the South Anna River (VEPCo 1986). When species from the North Anna Reservoir

were subtracted from the North Anna River totals, the two fish communities (North and South

Anna River communities) showed striking similarities, indicating that the operation of the existing

units had little or no effect on fish populations downstream from the dam.

The WHTF is the body of water into which waste heat from the existing units is discharged via

the discharge canal. It is physically separated from the rest of Lake Anna by a series of dikes. 

The same aquatic communities occur in the WHTF that occur in the main reservoir. Fish can

swim from the main reservoir into the WHTF and back. However, fish are not stocked in the

WHTF, and angler access to this fishery is restricted to the land owners along this part of the

shoreline.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-12 July 2006
8

There is no commercial fishing in Lake Anna or the North Anna River. There are no runs of

anadromous fish in the North Anna River. The North Anna River is a tributary of the Pamunkey

River, which has an annual run of American shad, but these shad do not move into the North

Anna River (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Bilkovic et al. 2002). 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

much of their lives in fresh water (Rohde et al. 1994). Upon reaching sexual maturity, at age five

to seven years, the eels migrate back to the ocean where they spawn and die. Eels in the North

Anna River are juveniles, also known as ?yellow eels.”

The lower North Anna River downstream from the North Anna Dam is small, approximately 23 to

46 m (75 to 150 ft) wide, but supports a diverse assemblage of stream fishes. It is a popular

fishing spot. Unless stream flow is unusually high, powerboats are impractical. Most anglers

fish from shore or from canoes and kayaks. Recreational fishermen generally seek largemouth

and smallmouth bass or redbreast sunfish. Bluegill and redear sunfish are present as well, but

receive less attention from anglers.

5.0 List of Federally Threatened and Endangered Species

This section describes the threatened and endangered animal and plant species that potentially

exist at or near the proposed ESP site. The FWS provided a list of species in the counties of

interest (FWS 2004a) and also maintains current lists of threatened or endangered species on

its website (FWS 2004b). The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)

(VDGIF 2004) and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR 2004) also

maintain lists of State-protected species on their websites. Species potentially occurring near

the proposed North Anna ESP site that are listed as threatened or endangered by the FWS are

listed in Table 1.

July 2006 F-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
9

Table 1. Federally Threatened or Endangered Species Known or Potentially Occurring Near the

Proposed North Anna ESP Site . 

Scientific Name Species Counties Status*

Invertebrates

Alasmidonta heterdon dwarf wedgemussel Louisa, Orange, Hanover FE

Birds

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Louisa, Orange, Caroline,

Spotsylvania, Hanover

FT

Vascular Plants

Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Spotsylvania, Hanover,

Caroline

FT

Aeschynomene virginica sensitive joint-vetch Hanover, Caroline FT

Helonias bullata swamp pink Spotsylvania, Hanover,

Caroline 

FT

Status*: FE = Federally endangered, FT = Federally threatened

Sources: FWS 2004a, 2004b, VDCR 2004, VDGIF 2004

6.0 Description of Species and Habitats

In this section, each of the species listed in Table 1 is described, including its habitat

requirements, status, and distribution in relation to the proposed project.

Dwarf Wedgemussel

The dwarf wedgemussel (Alismidonta heterodon) occurs sporadically in Atlantic coast rivers from

Canada to North Carolina (FWS 1993). It is a small freshwater mussel (< 55 millimeters [2.17

inches]) long and roughly trapezoidal in shape. The outside of the shell is brown or yellowishbrown, with greenish rays visible in young or pale-colored specimens. The interior of the shell is

bluish or silvery white and is iridescent in the posterior part of the shell. The hinge teeth are small

but distinct. This species is unique in that it has two lateral teeth in the right valve and one in the

left; other species have two lateral teeth in the left valve and one in the right (Environment

Canada 2004). 

The mussel is found in small streams to medium-sized rivers with slow to moderate current and

fine sediment, sand, or gravel substrates. It appears to have poor tolerance for suspended silt. 

Stream-side vegetation seems to be required. The mussel releases a parasitic larvae, but the

host fish species for the larvae is not known. The maximum life span of the mussel is believed to

be 12-18 years. The mussel is vulnerable to pesticide and metal contamination, and to low

oxygen levels. Impoundment of rivers has been a major negative factor on continued persistence

of this species throughout its range, possibly due to dams blocking movements of host fish

species (Environment Canada 2004).

The dwarf wedgemussel is known to occur in the South Anna River in Louisa County, VA (FWS

1993), but it has not been reported in the North Anna River or its tributaries. There are no rivers

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-14 July 2006
10

or streams on the proposed North Anna ESP site that are suitable habitat for the dwarf

wedgemussel.

Bald Eagle

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Virginia are most common along the Chesapeake Bay,

and along the lower reaches of several of the larger river systems such as the Potomac,

Rappahannock, York, and James Rivers (VDGIF 2004, Watts and Byrd 2003). Most nest sites

are found in the midst of large wooded areas adjacent to marshes or bodies of water, or in

isolated trees located in marshes, on farmland, or in logged over areas where scattered seed

trees remain (VDGIF 2004). Most eagle nests are less than 1.6 km (one mi) from feeding areas,

although some can be as much as 3.2 km (two mi) from primary food sources. Wintering roost

sites typically have the same characteristics as nest sites (VDGIF 2004). Bald eagle habitat

usually occurs in undeveloped areas with little human activity. Bald eagles are primarily fish

eaters but will prey upon mammals and birds when necessary, and they will eat carrion.

Bald eagles are occasionally observed along Lake Anna (six were observed during the 2003

Christmas Bird Count) (Audubon Society 2004). However, there are no known eagle nests near

the proposed ESP site (NRC 2002). The VDGIF database indicates that one nest was located

approximately eight km (five mi) downstream from Lake Anna Dam in 2000, but later surveys

indicate this nest was not in use in 2003 (Watts and Byrd 2003). Dominion biologists indicated

that there is a bald eagle nest near the north end of Lake Anna, approximately 16 km (10 mi)

upstream of the existing units (Dominion 2004). Although the VDGIF information service does

not include records of bald eagle nests on Lake Anna upstream from the NAPS, Watts and Byrd

(2003) found that there was an occupied territory, but not an active nest, within the Mineral United

States Geological Survey quadrangle in 2003. The Mineral quad is located west of the North

Anna Power Station and includes the upper reaches of Lake Anna. 

Small Whorled Pogonia

The small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) generally grows in open, dry, deciduous woods

with acidic, sandy, loamy soil with low nutrient content. Suitable habitat for this species is limited

on the NAPS site. It is not known to occur at the proposed North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2004;

NRC 2002) and has not been reported in Louisa County. It has been reported to occur in the

adjacent Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties, and potentially occurs in Hanover County (FWS

2004a, VDCR 2004). 

Sensitive Joint-Vetch

The sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) occurs in fresh to slightly-brackish tidal river

systems in the intertidal area where the plants are flooded twice daily. Lake Anna and the North

Anna River are not tidally influenced, and therefore, no habitat for the sensitive joint-vetch occurs

at the proposed ESP site. The species is thought to potentially occur in Caroline and Hanover

Counties (FWA 2004a) because suitable habitat is located within these counties, and the

sensitive joint-vetch is known to occur in adjacent counties. However, any potential habitat would

be located at least 48 km (30 mi) from the proposed North Anna ESP site. 

July 2006 F-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
11

Swamp Pink

The swamp pink (Helonias bullata), occurs in a variety of wetland habitats such as bogs, spring

seeps, stream edges, and wet meadows. Sites are typically saturated year-round, but are rarely

flooded. Soils are usually neutral to acidic. There is very little saturated ground or wetlands on

the proposed North Anna ESP site; therefore, it is unlikely that there is suitable habitat within the

affected area. The swamp pink is not known to occur at the North Anna site (Dominion 2004;

NRC 2002) and has not been reported in Louisa County. It has been reported in Caroline County

and is considered as potentially occurring in Hanover and Spotsylvania Counties (FWS 2004a). 

7.0 Evaluation of Potential Impacts

Site preparation and limited construction activities would result in the removal of up to

approximately 32 ha (80 ac) of forested habitat within the site. The ESP site does not contain

any old growth timber, unique or sensitive plants, or unique or sensitive plant communities. 

Therefore, construction activities would not noticeably reduce the local or regional diversity of

plants or plant communities. There are no areas designated by the FWS as critical habitat for

endangered or threatened species at or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant

species have been reported near the North Anna ESP site or in Louisa County, and no suitable

habitat for threatened or endangered plant species is known to exist on 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 from these activities would range from approximately 60 to 80 decibels. These noise levels

are below the 80-to-85-decibel threshold 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 would

occur adjacent to the existing operating Units 1 and 2, where wildlife has presumably become

accustomed to typical, existing operating facility noise levels of approximately 50 to 60 decibels at

the NAPS security fence (Dominion 2004). 

There are no small streams to medium-sized rivers with slow-to-moderate current and fine

sediment, sand, or gravel substrates on the ESP site. Two intermittent streams exist on the

North Anna ESP site (Dominion 2004); however, they are not expected to support a population of

dwarf wedgemussels. Besides being intermittent streams, they do not support fish populations

that are essential to the life cycle of the dwarf wedgemussel. Proposed activities authorized

under 10 CFR 52.25 would not adversely affect the North Anna River.

The 32 ha (80 ac) of forested habitat removed during construction presumably could be used by

bald eagles for perching, roosting, or nesting. Eagles are occasionally observed in the vicinity of

NAPS, but there is no indication that the proposed project site is regularly utilized by bald eagles. 

The nearest known bald eagle territory is believed to be approximately 16 km (ten mi) from site

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-16 July 2006
12

preparation and construction activities at the proposed ESP site. The Bald Eagle Protection

Guidelines for Virginia (USFWS and VGDIF 2000) recommends a buffer of 400 m (0.25 mi), in

which construction activities should be limited. Although bald eagles may occasionally be

observed near the plant, no nesting or roosting activity has ever been observed within an area

that could be affected by construction or operational noise. No avian collisions with existing

structures at the NAPS site have been noted (Dominion 2004); therefore, such collisions during

the site preparation and construction phase would be unlikely.

8.0 Management Actions Related to the Species

To minimize construction-related impacts to wildlife, Dominion has stated that it would adhere to

State permit conditions that may restrict the timing of certain construction activities (Dominion

2004). Dominion maintains a migratory bird protection program, including protection of nests and

reporting bird (especially raptor) strikes and other events (Dominion 2001). 

A few small wetland areas and two intermittent streams exist on the North Anna ESP site

(Dominion 2004). Watercourses and wetlands would be avoided to the extent possible during

any construction. Dominion has stated (Dominion 2004) that any work that has the potential to

impact a wetland would be performed in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, permits,

and authorizations. Wetland delineations and surveys would be conducted prior to

commencement of construction activities. The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over

wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act . If the areas are determined to be wetlands

under the Clean Water Act, disturbance of the areas would either be avoided or other appropriate

mitigation actions would be implemented as required by any applicable permits and regulations

(Dominion 2004).

9.0 Conclusions

The proposed action is the issuance of an ESP for two additional nuclear power units at the North

Anna ESP site. This BA has considered the potential impacts of site preparation and limited

construction activities at the proposed site on species listed as threatened or endangered under

the ESA, species proposed for such status, species considered candidates for listing under the

ESA, or designated critical habitats for such listed species.

There is no habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel on the North Anna ESP site, and the proposed

site preparation activities would not have an effect on, or occur near, the North Anna River or any

other potential habitat areas. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed action would have

no effect on the dwarf wedgemussel.

Because bald eagles have been observed in the vicinity of the North Anna ESP site, but have

never been observed to nest or roost in the vicinity, the staff has concluded that the proposed

action may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. 

It is very unlikely that three protected plant species, small-whorled pogonia, sensitive joint-vetch,

and swamp pink, may occur at the NAPS site. These species have never been reported in

Louisa county, and there is no known habitat for these species on the North Anna ESP site. 

Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on the smallwhorled pogonia, sensitive joint-vetch, and swamp pink.

July 2006 F-17 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
13

10.0 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of the 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.”

Audubon Society. 2004. ?103rd Christmas Bird Count. Lake Anna Virginia, United States.” 

http://audubon.birdsource.org/CBCOutput/review.html?speciesByState=false&year=103&circle=S

1022926. Accessed 3/1/2004.

Bilkovic, D. M., C. H. Hershner, and J. E. Olney. 2002. ?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.”

Brooks, J.L. and S.I. Dodson. 1965. ?Predation, Body Size, and Composition of Plankton.”

Science, 150:28-35.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) 2001. ?Migratory Birds.” Water/Waste

Environmental Protection Manual. Chapter 13. Glen Allen, Virginia.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004. North Anna Early Site Permit Applications

– Part 3 - Environmental Report. Revision 3, Glen Allen, Virginia.

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Environment Canada. 2004.

http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/search/speciesDetails_e.cfm?SpeciesID=591#description.

Accessed 11/4/2004.

Golden, J., R. P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P. N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Jenkins, R. E. and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

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. http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/ noise_and_wildlife.txt. Accessed 9/21/2004.

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. Letter from Mary Colligan

(NOAA) to Pao-Tsin Kuo, NRC.Date January6, 2004.

Omernik, J. 1987. ?Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (Scale 1:7500000).” 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-18 July 2006
14

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.

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.

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.

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. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (FWS and

VDGIF). 2000. Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia. 

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/wildlife/publications/EagleGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 3/23/2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Dwarf wedge mussel recovery plan. Hadley,

Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2004a. Letter From Karen Mayne, FWS to the NRC, dated

October 25, 2004. ? NRC’s North Anna and Surry Power Stations”, Project number 9064.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. ?Threatened and Endangered Species System

(TESS) Listings by State and Territory as of 03/01/2004. Virginia.” 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=VA . Accessed 3/1/2004.

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). 2003a. Letter from P.T. Kuo, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, to M. Colligan, NOAA Fisheries, Application for an Early Site Permit for

the North Anna Power Station Site.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003b. Letter from P.T. Kuo, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, to J. Wolflin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Application for an Early Site

Permit for the North Anna Power Station Site.

Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation (VDCR). 2004. ?Virginia's Natural

Communities, Rare, Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants.” 

www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/nhrinfo.htm. Accessed 3/25/2004. 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2004. ?Geographic Search. Fish

and Wildlife Information Service.” Available at vafwis.org/perl/vafwis.pl/vafwis.login. (Note: This

is a protected website that is accessible only through VDGIF authorization.)

July 2006 F-19 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
15

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 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). 2002. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and

the Lower North Anna River: Annual Report for 2001 including Summary for 1998-2000,

Richmond, Virginia.

Voshell, J.R., and G.M. Simmons, Jr. 1978. ?The Odonota of a New Reservoir in the

South-Eastern United States,” Odonatologica 7(1):67-76.

Watts, B.D. and M. A. Byrd. 2003. Virginia bald eagle nest and productivity survey: Year 2003

report. Center for Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-03-03. College of

William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 26 pp.

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. US EPA. Corvallis, Oregon.

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm. Accessed 3/1/2004.

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-20 July 2006
June 30, 2005

Ms. Regena Bronson

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Potomac Virginia Field Office

P.O. Box 1704

Leonardtown, MD 20650

SUBJECT: NORTH ANNA EARLY SITE PERMIT REVIEW (TAC NO. MC1128)

Dear Ms. Bronson:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application submitted 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. An ESP does not authorize construction or operation of a

nuclear power plant. Rather, the ESP application and review process makes it possible to

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

applicant makes large commitments of resources. If the ESP is approved, the applicant can

?bank” the site for up to 20 years for future reactor siting. To construct or operate a nuclear

power plant, an ESP holder must obtain a construction permit and an operating license, or a

combined license.

As part of its environmental review of Dominion’s ESP application, the NRC prepared a draft

environmental impact statement (DEIS) in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18. The DEIS includes

the NRC staff’s analysis of the environmental impacts of constructing and operating two nuclear

units at the North Anna ESP site, or at alternative sites. It also includes the staff’s preliminary

recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action. In addition, as described in

the DEIS, if the ESP includes a site redress plan, the ESP holder can conduct certain site

preparation and preliminary construction activities allowed by Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations Section 50.10(e)(1) (10 CFR 50.10 (e)(1)), provided the final EIS concludes that

such activities will not result in any significant environmental impact that cannot redressed. 

Dominion has included a site redress plan in its application. If the ESP is approved, Dominion

would be allowed to conduct site preparation and preliminary construction activities pursuant to

10 CFR 52.25 and 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1), subject to receipt of any other necessary Federal,

State, and/or local approvals. Dominion has stated that it does not plan to conduct such

activities at this time. However, these activities, if performed, could include dredging and other

activities potentially subject to Clean Water Act requirements. The environmental impacts of

these activities are discussed in the DEIS.

July 2006 F-21 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
R. Bronson -2-

Pursuant to the “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Corps of Engineers, United

States Army, and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Regulation of Nuclear

Power Plants” (40 FR 37110 (dated August 25, 1975)), we request that the Army Corps of

Engineers review and provide to the NRC any comments on the DEIS.

Enclosed is a copy of NUREG-1811 “The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early

Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site.” We request your comments no later than

August 12, 2005. Enclosed to aid in your review is a CD containing Dominion’s application for

an ESP. If you have any questions concerning the ESP application or other aspects of this

project, please contact Mr. Jack Cushing, Senior Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-

1424 or by e-mail at JXC9@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 52-008

Enclosure: As stated

cc wo/encl.: See next page

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-22 July 2006
July 2006 F-23 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-24 July 2006
September 27, 2005

Dr. Ethel Eaton, Manager

Office of Review and Compliance

Virginia Department of Historic Resources

2801 Kensington Avenue

Richmond, VA 23221

SUBJECT: NORTH ANNA EARLY SITE PERMIT REVIEW (TAC NO. MC1128)

Dear Dr. Eaton:

This letter responds to your request for a programmatic agreement with the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) raised

during our teleconference conducted on May 23, 2005, with members of your staff and

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). The Virginia Department of Historic Resources

(VDHR) request for a programmatic agreement (PA) relates to Dominion’s application for an

early site permit (ESP) at the North Anna site in Louisa County, Virginia. 

The NRC stated the actions that it expected Dominion to take based on representations made

in Dominion’s environmental report (ER), which is reflected in the NRC’s draft environmental

impact statement (DEIS). Specifically, Dominion stated in its ER:

“Prior to any activities that would disturb existing ground conditions, Dominion

would assess the need, in coordination with VDHR, to undertake subsurface

investigations for the identification of potentially significant historic or cultural

resources in the area(s) to be disturbed. The investigations would be conducted

in accordance with professional archeological practices and recommendations

as developed in coordination with VDHR. Additionally, Dominion would

implement the necessary administrative steps to make proper notifications in the

event of any unanticipated discovery (including human remains). These steps

would include stop-work, assessment, and notification protocol.” [ER Revision 5

Section 4.1.3, Page 3-4-6].

The above statement regarding coordination by Dominion with VDHR before ground disturbing

activities was relied on and is reflected in DEIS Section 4.6. 

As set forth in our November 21, 2003, letter to you, the NRC staff is using the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to comply with the obligations imposed under

§ 106 of the NHPA in accordance with the provisions in 36 CFR 800.8. Consistent with our

November 21 letter, the NRC has described in the EIS analyses of potential impacts to

historical and cultural resources and measures in place at the ESP site that would be expected

to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. The NRC staff also

forwarded the draft EIS to you for your review and comment. Accordingly, the NRC staff does

not believe a PA is warranted.

July 2006 F-25 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
E. Eaton -2-

If you have any questions concerning the ESP application or other aspects of this project,

please contact Mr. Jack Cushing, Senior Environmental Project Manager, at 301-415-1424 or 

by e-mail at JXC9@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA Jacob Zimmerman For/

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 52-008

NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-26 July 2006
July 2006 F-27 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-28 July 2006
July 2006 F-29 NUREG-1811, SDEIS
NUREG-1811, SDEIS F-30 July 2006
July 2006 F-31 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

Appendix G

Environmental Impacts of Transportation

July 2006 G-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Appendix G

2

3 Environmental Impacts of Transportation

4

5

6 Changes to this appendix reflect the impacts of the higher power level proposed by Dominion in

7 Revision 6 to its Environmental Report.

8

9 In April 2006, Dominion, Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) submitted Revision 6 to its

10 application for an early site permit (ESP) for proposed Units 3 and 4 at the North Anna Power

11 Station (Dominion 2006a). The Environmental Report (ER) of the revised application

12 addressed, among other things, an increased thermal power rating for the economic simple

13 boiling water reactor (ESBWR) from 4300 MW(t) to 4500 MW(t).

14

15 In the Draft EIS (NRC 2004), the NRC staff reported the environmental impacts of transporting

16 unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and solid radioactive waste to and from the North Anna ESP site

17 and any alternative sites. The higher power level for the surrogate ESBWR would not

18 significantly affect the quantity of unirradiated fuel needed for the initial core and annual

19 refueling requirements previously evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

20 (DEIS) (NRC 2004). In addition, the higher power level would not affect the amount of solid

21 waste generated or the number of spent fuel assemblies that would be shipped to a spent fuel

22 repository. A higher power level would normally use more fuel and, therefore, result in more

23 fuel shipments. However, the surrogate ESBWR has a higher unit capacity than was assumed

24 in the Draft EIS (96 percent versus 95 percent) and the fuel would have a higher average

25 burnup. In addition, in it’s response to RAIs dated May 24, 2006 (Dominion 2006b), Dominion 

26 states that the ESBWR fuel assemblies are about 28 percent lighter than ABWR fuel

27 assemblies. This lower weight is offset by the 30 percent higher number of ESBWR fuel

28 assemblies than ABWR fuel assemblies. On balance, the total number of fuel shipments for the

29 surrogate ESBWR would increase by 1 to 2 percent. The amount of radioactive waste

30 generated more closely aligns with operational practices rather than the power level. The staff

31 concludes that differences in the amount of solid radioactive waste generated by the surrogate

32 ESBWR would be small and within the uncertainty of the estimates. Therefore, the staff

33 concludes that the number of shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste

34 did not change the estimates presented in the Draft EIS.

35

36 The higher power level would not affect the radiation dose rates from the fuel and waste

37 shipments and other parameters used to define the shipping routes and receptors. 

38 Consequently, the higher power level does not affect the per-shipment or annual impacts

39 presented in the Draft EIS. The higher power level would affect the radionuclide characteristics

40 of spent fuel. In ER Revision 6 (Dominion 2006a) and its response to the RAIs dated May 24,

41 2006 (Dominion 2006b), Dominion presented the estimates for radionuclide concentrations in

42 the spent fuel for the surrogate ESBWR. The most significant radionuclides in spent fuel
Appendix G

NUREG-1811, SDEIS G-2 July 2006

1 contributing to dose were compared and, in general, actinide inventories decreased slightly and

2 fission product inventories increased with the power level increase. Overall, the transportation

3 accident risk for the surrogate ESBWR would be about 5 percent higher per year than the

4 ESBWR risk considered in the Draft EIS.

5

6 The higher power level could also change the shipment and impact estimates once normalized

7 to the reference LWR in WASH-1238 and used in Table S-4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal

8 Regulations (CFR) Section 51.52. As discussed in Section 6.2 the staff determined that the

9 changes are small and well within the range of uncertainty associated with the shipment and

10 impact estimates.

11

12 In summary, the changes in the impact estimates from the higher power level once normalized

13 to the reference 1100 MW(e) LWR are small, and are uniformly lower than the normalized

14 impact estimates calculated in the Draft EIS (see Table G-1). The impacts for the

15 ABWR/ESBWR in the Draft EIS are larger than the surrogate ESBWR except for transportation

16 accidents because the impacts are normalized to net electric output (i.e., impacts per MW(e)). 

17 Because the surrogate ESBWR has a higher net electric output than the ABWR/ESBWR

18 previously evaluated, and the un-normalized impacts are essentially the same, the impacts per

19 MW(e) are slightly smaller. Nevertheless, the differences in normalized impacts are small and

20 well within the uncertainty of the estimates.

21

22 The staff concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive

23 wastes to and from advanced LWR designs with the higher power level did not change. The

24 impact level category would still be SMALL and would be consistent with the risks associated

25 with transportation of fuel and wastes to and from current generation reactors presented in

26 Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The staff concludes that the impacts associated with gas-cooled

27 reactor designs at the higher power level did not change. The impact level category would 

28 likely be SMALL, but the issue is not resolved because of the lack of data to validate impacts

29 from gas-cooled designs.

30
July 2006 G-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table G-1. Summary of Changes to Transportation Impact Estimates that Result from the

2 Data Provided in Revision 6 of the ER

3

4

5 Impact Category

ABWR/ESBWR in

Draft EIS

ESBWR in ER

Revision 6

Percent

Change (a)

6 Unirradiated Fuel

7 Normalized number of shipments 165 162 -2%

8 Normalized annual normal condition population doses, person-Sv/yr

9 Workers 7.1 x 10-5 6.9 x 10-5 -2%

10 Public – Onlookers 2.7 x 10-4 2.7 x 10-4 -2%

11 Public – Along Route 6.6 x 10-6 6.5 x 10-6 -2%

12 Accident Risks Section is unaffected by changes in ER Rev. 6

13 Spent Fuel

14 Normalized annual shipments 41 40 -2%

Normal condition population doses – North Anna, person-Sv/yr(b) 15

16 Workers 4.2 x 10-2 4.1 x 10-2 -2%

17 Public – Onlookers 1.4 x 10-1 1.4 x 10-1 -2%

18 Public – Along Route 3.7 x 10-3 3.6 x 10-3 -2%

Accident Risks – North Anna, person-Sy/yr(b) 19 4.7 x 10-6 5.0 x 10-6 +5%

20 Solid Radioactive Waste

Normalized waste generation rate, m3 21 /1100 MW(e) 62 60 -2%

22 Normalized annual shipment per 1100 MW(e) 27 26 -4%

23 (a) Due to rounding, the percent changes may not exactly match percent changes calculated using the values

24 in the table.

25 (b) Example results are presented for the North Anna site. The effects on the transportation impacts for the

26 Portsmouth, Savannah River, and Surry sites are consistent with the effects on transportation impacts for

27 the North Anna site.

28

29 References

30

31 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006a. North Anna Early Site Permit

32 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

33

34 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006b. Letter from E. Grecheck (DNNA) to

35 NRC dated May 24, 2006, submitting additional information in response to an NRC request

36 dated May 10, 2006, (ML061510131).

37

38 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

39 (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site. NUREG-1811,

40 Washington, D.C.

41

Appendix H

Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment

July 2006 H-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Appendix H

2

3

4

5 Supporting Documentation on Radiological Dose Assessment

6

7

8 The detailed material in this appendix supported the analyses in Section 5.9.2 of the Draft EIS

9 (NRC 2004), but was not previously published. The staff elected to incorporate this information

10 into the EIS. It now reflects the radiological analysis at the higher output level of 4500 MW(t).

11

12 The staff performed an independent dose assessment on the radiological impacts of normal

13 operation for new nuclear units at the Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) early site

14 permit (ESP) site. The results of this assessment are presented in this appendix and are

15 compared to the results from Dominion found in Section 5.9 (Radiological Health Impacts). 

16 The appendix is divided into three sections: (1) H.1 – Dose Estimates to the Public from Liquid

17 Effluents, (2) H.2 – Dose Estimates to the Public from Gaseous Effluents, and (3) H.3 – Dose

18 Estimates to the Biota from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents.

19

20 To facilitate comparison with Dominion’s estimates, all doses and radioactivity levels are

21 reported in millirem (mrem) and curies (Ci), respectively.

22

23 H.1 Dose Estimates to the Public from Liquid Effluents

24

25 To estimate doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) and the population from the liquid

26 effluent pathway, the staff used the LADTAP II code (Strenge et al. 1986) and input parameters

27 supplied by Dominion as part of their ESP Environmental Report (ER) (Dominion 2006).

28

29 H.1.1 Scope

30

31 Doses to the MEI were calculated for the following:

32

33 & Total Body – Dose was the total from all pathways (i.e., drinking water, fish consumption,

34 shoreline usage, swimming exposure, and boating) with the highest value for either the

35 adult, teen, child, or infant compared to the 0.03 mSv/yr (3 mrem/yr) per reactor design

36 objective in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50, Appendix I.

37

38 & Organ – Dose was the total for each organ from all pathways (i.e., drinking water, fish

39 consumption, shoreline usage, swimming exposure, and boating) with the highest value

40 for either the adult, teen, child, or infant compared to the 0.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem/yr) per

41 reactor design objective in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

42
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, SDEIS H-2 July 2006

1 The values of input parameters used by Dominion were reviewed by the staff and determined to

2 be appropriate to use as inputs into the LADTAP II code for its independent calculation. Default

3 values from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977) were used when input parameters were not

4 available.

5

6 H.1.2 Resources Used

7

8 The staff used a version of the LADTAP II code entitled NRCDOSE version 2.3.4 (Bland 2000),

9 obtained through the Oak Ridge Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) to

10 calculate doses to the public from liquid effluents.

11

12 H.1.3 Input Parameters

13

14 Table H-1 provides a listing of the major parameters used by the staff in calculating dose to the

15 public from liquid effluent releases during normal operation. Table H-2 lists the liquid effluent

16 releases used by the staff in calculating dose to the public. This table is the same as

17 Table 5.4-6 of Dominion (2006).

18

19 Table H-1. Parameters Used in Calculating Dose to Public from Liquid Effluent Releases

20

21 Parameter Staff Value Comments

Source term (Ci/yr)(a) 22 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 (ft3 23 0.62 (22) Site-specific value from Table 5.4-1 of /s)

the ER (Dominion 2006).

24 1 Site-specific value from the ER Source term multiplier

(Dominion 2006).

25 Fresh water Site-specific value from the ER Site type

(Dominion 2006).

26 None Table 5.4-1 of the ER (Dominion 2006). Reconcentration model

27 Effluent discharge rate from

28 impoundment system to

29 receiving water body

N/A Not applicable because reconcentration

was not assumed

30 N/A Not applicable because reconcentration Impoundment total volume

was not assumed
Appendix H

July 2006 H-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table H-1. (contd)

2

3 Parameter Staff Value Comments

4 0.3 Value from Regulatory Guide 1.109 Shore width factor

(NRC 1977).

5 Dilution factors for aquatic food

6 and boating, shoreline and

7 swimming, and drinking water

10 Site-specific value from the ER

(Dominion 2006). Table 5.4-1 of the ER

provides an effluent discharge rate of

0.006 m3

/s (100 gpm) with a dilution flow

of 0.6 m3

/s (10,000 gpm). This yields a

dilution factor of 100. Dominion used a

factor of 10, which is more conservative.

8 0 Site-specific value from Table 5.4-1 of Transit time (h)

the ER (Dominion 2006). The value is

conservative.

9 Consumption and usage factors

10 for adult, teen, children, and

11 infant

Values from Table 5.4-2 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Values were the default values from

Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977).

12 Population supplied by drinking

13 water (population)

22,100 Site-specific value provided by Dominion

(Dominion 2004a). 

14 Dilution factor for water intake

15 locations, shoreline exposure

16 location, swimming usage

17 location, and boating usage

18 location (population)

10 Site-specific value from the ER

(Dominion 2006). Table 5.4-1 of the ER

provides an effluent discharge rate of

0.006 m3

/s (100 gpm) with a dilution flow

of 0.6 m3

/s (10,000 gpm). This yields a

dilution factor of 100. Dominion used a

factor of 10, which is more conservative.

19 Total shoreline usage time

20 (person-hours/year) (population)

1.31 x 106 Site-specific value provided by Dominion

(Dominion 2004a).

21 Total exposure time for

22 swimming usage location

23 (person-hours/year) (population)

8.76 x 105 Site-specific value provided by Dominion

(Dominion 2004a).

24 Total exposure time for boating

25 activities (person-hours/year)

26 (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 27 .

28

29
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, SDEIS H-4 July 2006

Table H-2. Liquid Effluent Release Source Terms from the ER (Dominion 2006)(a,b) 1

2

3 Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr)

4 4.4 x 10 C-14 -4 Rb-88 2.7 x 10-4 Rh-103m 4.9 x 10-3 Cs-138 2.1 x 10-4

5 3.5 x 10 Na-24 -3 Rb-89 4.8 x 10-5 Rh-106 7.4 x 10-2 Ba-137m 1.2 x 10-2

6 6.6 x 10 P-32 -4 Sr-89 3.6 x 10-4 Ag-110m 1.1 x 10-3 Ba-139 2.5 x 10-5

7 2.1 x 10 Cr-51 -2 Sr-90 3.8 x 10-5 Ag-110 1.4 x 10-4 Ba-140 5.5 x 10-3

8 2.8 x 10 Mn-54 -3 Sr-91 9.8 x 10-4 Sb-124 6.8 x 10-4 La-140 7.4 x 10-3

9 4.2 x 10 Mn-56 -3 Sr-92 8.8 x 10-4 Te-129m 1.4 x 10-4 La-142 2.5 x 10-5

10 6.4 x 10 Fe-55 -3 Y-90 3.4 x 10-6 Te-129 1.5 x 10-4 Ce-141 1.3 x 10-4

11 2.0 x 10 Fe-59 -4 Y-91M 1.0 x 10-5 Te-131m 1.0 x 10-4 Ce-143 1.9 x 10-4

12 5.7 x 10 Co-56 -3 Y-91 2.4 x 10-4 Te-131 3.0 x 10-5 Ce-144 3.2 x 10-3

13 7.9 x 10 Co-57 -5 Y-92 6.6 x 10-4 Te-132 2.4 x 10-4 Pr-143 1.4 x 10-4

14 3.4 x 10 Co-58 -3 Y-93 9.8 x 10-4 I-131 1.4 x 10-2 Pr-144 3.2 x 10-3

15 1.0 x 10 Co-60 -2 Zr-95 1.0 x 10-3 I-132 2.8 x 10-3 W-187 2.1 x 10-4

16 1.5 x 10 Ni-63 -4 Nb-95 1.9 x 10-3 I-133 2.4 x 10-2 Np-239 1.4 x 10-2

17 8.2 x 10 Cu-64 -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

18 7.5 x 10 Zn-65 -4 Tc-99m 5.1 x 10-3 I-135 8.2 x 10-3 H-3 3.1 x 103

19 6.0 x 10 Zn-69m -4 Ru-103 4.9 x 10-3 Cs-134 9.9 x 10-3

20 7.5 x 10 Br-83 -5 Ru-105 1.0 x 10-4 Cs-136 1.2 x 10-3

21 2.0 x 10 Br-84 -5 Ru-106 7.4 x 10-2 Cs-137 1.3 x 10-2

22 (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 23 .

24

25 H.1.4 Comparison of Results

26

27 Table H-3 compares Dominion’s results with those calculated by the staff. Doses calculated

28 were similar.

29

30 Table H-3. Comparison of Doses to the Public from Liquid Effluent Releases for One ESP Unit

31

32 Type of Dose

Applicant’s ER

(Dominion 2006)(a)

Staff’s

Calculation(a) % Difference

33 1.3 (adult) 1.3 (adult) 0 Total body (mrem/yr)

34 2.5 (child bone) 2.5 (child bone) 0 Organ dose (mrem/yr)

35 1.3 (infant) 1.4 (infant) 7.7 Thyroid (mrem/yr)

36 Population dose from liquid

37 pathway (person-rem)

14 14.7 5

38 (a) To convert mrem/yr to mSv/yr divide by 100.

39
Appendix H

July 2006 H-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 H.2 Dose Estimates to the Public from Gaseous Effluents

2

3 To estimate doses to the maximally exposed individual and to the population within an 80-km

4 (50-mi) radius of the ESP site from the gaseous effluent pathway, the staff used the GASPAR II

5 code (Strenge et al. 1987) and input parameters supplied by Dominion in the ER

6 (Dominion 2006).

7

8 H.2.1 Scope

9

10 The staff calculated gamma air dose, beta air dose, total body dose, and skin dose from noble

11 gases at the nearest site boundary located 1.4 km (0.88 mi) east-southeast of the North Anna

12 ESP site. Dose to the MEI was also calculated for the following locations:

13

14 • nearest site boundary (plume and inhalation)

15 • nearest residence (plume and inhalation)

16 • nearest garden (vegetable)

17 • nearest meat cow (meat).

18

19 MEI doses were not calculated for the nearest dairy cow and goat, within 8 km (5 mi) as

20 specified in NUREG-1555 because as stated in the ER (Dominion 2006), there were no milk

21 cows or goats within 8 km (5 mi) of the proposed ESP units.

22

23 The values of input parameters used by Dominion are given in the ER (Dominion 2006) or in a

24 response to a Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated May 17, 2004 (Dominion 2004b). 

25 These values were reviewed by the staff and determined to be appropriate to use as input into

26 GASPAR II for its independent calculation. Default values from Regulatory Guide 1.109

27 (NRC 1977) were used when input parameters were not available.

28

29 Population doses were calculated for all types of releases (noble gases, iodine and particulates,

30 and H-3 and C-14) using the GASPAR II code.

31

32 H.2.2 Resources Used

33

34 The staff used a version of GASPAR II code entitled NRCDOSE, Version 2.3.5 (Bland 2000),

35 obtained through the Oak Ridge RSICC to calculate doses to the public from gaseous effluents.

36

37 H.2.3 Input Parameters

38

39 Table H-4 provides a listing of the major parameters used in calculating dose to the public from

40 gaseous effluent releases during normal operation. Table H-5 lists the gaseous effluent releases

41 used by the staff in calculating dose to the public. This table is the same as Table 5.4-7 of

42 Dominion (2006).
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, SDEIS H-6 July 2006

1 Table H-4. Parameters Used in Calculating Dose to Public from Gaseous Effluent Releases 2

3 Parameter Staff Value Comments

4 Source term for calculating noble

5 gas dose at site boundary and

6 dose to the maximally exposed

individual (Ci/yr)(a) 7

Table 5.4-7 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

These are the bounding plant

parameter envelope (PPE)

values.

8 2.784 x 10 Population distribution 6

 – from Table 2.5-8 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

9 Atmospheric dispersion factors

(sec/m3 10 )

Table 2.7-17 to Table 2.7-19 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

Ground deposition factors (—2 11 Table 2.7-20 of the ER (Dominion )

2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

12 Milk production rate within 80 km

13 (50 mi) (L/yr)

7.2 x 108 – Table 5.4-3 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

14 Meat production rate within

15 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.

16 Vegetable/fruit production rate

17 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.

18 Pathway receptor locations

19 (direction, distance, and

20 atmospheric dispersion factors): 

21 nearest site boundary, vegetable

22 garden, residence, meat animal

Table 5.4-4 and Table 2.7-14 of

the ER (Dominion 2006)

Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

23 Consumption factors for leafy

24 vegetable, meat, milk, and

25 vegetable/fruit

Table 5.4-5 of the ER

(Dominion 2006)

Factors taken from Regulatory

Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977).

26 Fraction of year leafy vegetables

27 that are grown

0.5 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

28 Fraction of year that milk cows

29 that are on pasture 

0.67 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

30 Fraction of milk-cow intake that is

31 from pasture while on pasture

1 Default value of GASPAR II

code.

32 Average absolute humidity over

the growing season (g/m3 33 )

8.0 Default value of GASPAR II

code.

34 Average temperature over the

35 growing season ((F)

0 Default value of GASPAR II

code.

36 Fraction of year goats are on

37 pasture

0.75 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

38 Fraction of year beef-cattle are

39 on pasture

0.67 Site-specific data provided by

Dominion.

40 Fraction of beef-cattle intake that

41 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 42 .

43

44

45

46
Appendix H

July 2006 H-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

Table H-5. Gaseous Effluent Release Source Term from Dominion (2006)(a,b) 1

2

3 Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr) Isotope

Release

(Ci/yr)

4 3.5 x 10 H-3 3 Kr-85 4.1 x 103 Ru-103 3.8 x 10-3 Xe-135m 7.7 x 102

5 1.2 x 10 C-14 1 Kr-87 4.9 x 101 Rh-103m 1.2 x 10-4 Xe-135 8.2 x 102

6 4.4 x 10 Na-24 -3 Kr-88 7.4 x 101 Ru-106 7.8 x 10-5 Xe-137 9.8 x 102

7 1.0 x 10 P-32 -3 Kr-89 4.7 x 102 Rh-106 2.1 x 10-5 Xe-138 7.8 x 102

8 3.0 x 10 Ar-41 2 Kr-90 4.2 x 10-4 Ag-110m 2.2 x 10-6 Xe-139 5.3 x 10-4

9 3.8 x 10 Cr-51 -2 Rb-89 4.7 x 10-5 Sb-124 2.0 x 10-4 Cs-134 6.8 x 10-3

10 5.9 x 10 Mn-54 -3 Sr-89 6.2 x 10-3 Sb-125 6.1 x 10-5 Cs-136 6.5 x 10-4

11 3.8 x 10 Mn-56 -3 Sr-90 1.2 x 10-3 Te-129m 2.4 x 10-4 Cs-137 1.0 x 10-2

12 7.1 x 10 Fe-55 -3 Y-90 5.0 x 10-5 Te-131m 8.3 x 10-5 Cs-138 1.9 x 10-4

13 8.2 x 10 Co-57 -6 Sr-91 1.1 x 10-3 Te-132 2.1 x 10-5 Ba-140 3.0 x 10-2

14 2.3 x 10 Co-58 -2 Sr-92 8.6 x 10-4 I-131 5.1 x 10-1 La-140 2.0 x 10-3

15 1.4 x 10 Co-60 -2 Y-91 2.6 x 10-4 I-132 2.4 Ce-141 1.0 x 10-2

16 8.9 x 10 Fe-59 -4 Y-92 6.8 x 10-4 I-133 1.9 Ce-144 2.1 x 10-5

17 7.1 x 10 Ni-63 -6 Y-93 1.2 x 10-3 I-134 4.1 Pr-144 2.1 x 10-5

18 1.1 x 10 Cu-64 -2 Zr-95 1.7 x 10-3 I-135 2.6 W-187 2.1 x 10-4

19 1.2 x 10 Zn-65 -2 Nb-95 9.2 x 10-3 Xe-131m 1.8 x 103 Np-239 1.3 x 10-2

20 1.3 x 10 Kr-83m -3 Mo-99 6.5 x 10-2 Xe-133m 8.7 x 101 Total 1.8 x 104

21 3.6 x 10 Kr-85m 1 Tc-99m 3.3 x 10-4 Xe-133 4.6 x 103

22 (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 23 .

24

25 H.2.4 Comparison of Doses to the Public from Gaseous Effluent Releases

26

27 Table H-6 compares Dominion’s results for doses from noble gases at the site boundary with the

28 results calculated by the staff. The calculated doses were similar.

29

30 Table H-6. Comparison of Doses to the Public from Noble Gas Releases from One ESP Unit

31

32 Type of Dose

Dominion’s ER

(Dominion 2005)

Staff’s

Calculation % Difference

33 Gamma air dose at site boundary – noble

gases only (mrad/yr)(a) 34

3.2 3.2 0

35 Beta air dose at site boundary – noble

gases only (mrad/yr)(a) 36

4.8 4.7 -2

37 Skin dose at site boundary – noble gases

only (mrem/yr)(a) 38

6.2 6.2 0

39 (a) To convert from mrad/yr or mrem/yr to mGy/yr or mSv/yr, divide by 100.
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, SDEIS H-8 July 2006

1 Table H-7 compares doses to MEI calculated by Dominion and the staff. Doses to the MEI were

2 calculated at the nearest site boundary, nearest residence, nearest garden, and nearest meat

3 cow. The calculated doses were similar.

4

5 H.2.5 Comparison of Results – Population Doses

6

7 Table H-8 compares Dominion’s population dose estimates taken from Table 5.4-12 of the ER

8 (Dominion 2006) with the staff's estimate. The calculated doses were similar.

9

10 H.3 Dose Estimates to the Biota from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents

11

12 To estimate doses to the biota from the liquid and gaseous effluent pathways, the staff used the

13 LADTAP II code (Strenge et al. 1986) and GASPAR II code (Strenge et al. 1987) and input

14 parameters supplied by Dominion as part of its ER (Dominion 2006).

15

16 H.3.1 Scope

17

18 Doses to both terrestrial and aquatic biota were calculated using the LADTAP II code. Aquatic

19 biota include fish, invertebrate, and algae. Terrestrial biota include muskrat, raccoon, heron, and

20 duck. The code calculates an internal dose component and external dose component and sums

21 them for a total body dose. The values of input parameters used by Dominion were reviewed by

22 the staff and determined to be appropriate to use in its independent calculation. Default values

23 from Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977) were used when input parameters were not available.

24

25 The LADTAP II code calculates biota dose from the liquid effluent pathway only. Terrestrial biota

26 will also be exposed via the gaseous effluent pathway. These values would be the same as

27 those for the MEI calculated using the GASPAR II code. Dominion used the MEI doses at a

28 location 0.40 km (0.25 mi) east-southeast from the proposed ESP site to estimate these doses. 

29 To account for the closer proximity of the main body mass of animals to the ground compared to

30 humans, the MEI calculation for the biota assumed a ground deposition factor twice that used in

31 the MEI calculation for a member of the public.

32

33

34 H.3.2 Resources Used

35

36 To calculate doses to the public from liquid releases, the staff used a computer code entitled

37 NRCDOSE, Version 2.3.5 (Bland 2000), which is a version of the LADTAP II code and the

38 GASPAR II code, obtained through the Oak Ridge RSICC.

39

40 H.3.3 Input Parameters

41

42 Most of the LADTAP II input parameters are specified in Section H.1.3 to include the source

43 term, discharge flow rate, reconcentration model, effluent discharge rate from the impoundment 
Appendix H

July 2006 H-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table H-7. Comparison of Doses to the MEI from Gaseous Effluent Releases for One

2 ESP Unit

3

4 Location Pathway

Total Body Dose

(mrem/yr)(a,b)

Skin Dose

(mrem/yr)(a,b)

Thyroid Dose

(mrem/yr)(a,b)

5 Nearest site

6 boundary (1.4 km

7 [0.88 mi] east8 southeast)

Plume 2.1 (2.1) 6.2 (6.2) (d)

9 Nearest site

10 boundary (1.4 km

11 [0.88 mi] east12 southeast)

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)

13 Nearest garden

14 (1.5 km [0.94 mi]

15 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)

16 Nearest residence

17 (1.5 km [0.96 mi]

18 north-northeast)

Plume 1.4 (1.4) 4.0 (4.0) (d)

19 Nearest residence

20 (1.5 km [0.96 mi]

21 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)

22 Nearest meat cow

23 (2.2 km [1.37 mi]

24 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)

25 (a) Values in parentheses represent the values that the staff calculated. The Dominion values (those not in

26 parentheses) were taken from Table 5.4-9 of the ER (Dominion 2006).

27 (b) To convert from mrem/yr to mSv/yr, divide by 100.

28 (c) Skin dose is not applicable for the inhalation, vegetable, and meat pathways.

29 (d) Thyroid dose is not applicable for the plume pathway.

30

31 Table H-8. Comparison of Population Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases for One ESP Unit

32

33 Pathway

Applicant's Estimate

(person-rem/yr)(a)

Staff's Estimate

(person-rem/yr) % Difference

34 14 14.7 (see Section H.1.4) 5 Liquid

35 3.5 2.8 (plume) -20 Noble gases

36 1.4 1.2 Iodine and particulates (b) -14

37 14 13.7 -2.1 H-3 and C-14

38 34 32.4 -5 Total

39 (a) Estimated population dose for one ESP unit (see Table 5.4-12 of the ER [Dominion 2006]).

40 (b) Dose represents the summation of doses from iodine and particulates.

41
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, SDEIS H-10 July 2006

1 system to the receiving water body, impoundment total volume, and shore width factor. 

2 Parameters unique to the biota dose calculation were taken from Table 5.4-14 (terrestrial biota

3 parameters) and Table 5.4-15 (shoreline and swimming exposures) of the ER (Dominion 2006). 

4 These parameter values were default values used in the LADTAP II code (Strenge et al. 1986),

5 and are appropriate values to use in calculating biota dose.

6

7 H.3.4 Comparison of Results

8

9 Table H-9 compares Dominion’s biota dose estimates from liquid effluents taken from

10 Table 5.4-16 of the ER (Dominion 2006) with the staff's estimate. The estimated doses were

11 similar.

12

13 Table H-10 compares Dominion’s biota dose estimates for gaseous effluents taken from

14 Table 5.4-16 of the ER (Dominion 2006) with the staff’s estimate. The staff calculated the biota

15 dose from gaseous effluents by summing the annual beta air dose, the annual gamma air dose,

16 and two times the ground deposition dose at a location 0.40 km (0.25 mi) east-southeast from

17 the proposed North Anna ESP site. Atmospheric dispersion factors used in the calculation were

18 taken from Table 2.7-15, Table 2.7-18, Table 2.7-19, and Table 2.7-20 of the ER

19 (Dominion 2006). The estimated doses were similar.

20

21 Table H-9. Comparison of Dose Estimates to the Biota from Liquid Effluents from One

22 ESP Unit

23

24 Biota

Dominion’s ER

(mrad/yr)(a)

Staff’s Calculation

(mrad/yr)(a) % Difference

25 9.9 9.9 0 Fish

26 46 47 2.2 Invertebrate

27 54 55 1.9 Algae

28 44 45 2.3 Muskrat

29 5.1 5.1 0 Raccoon

30 56 56 0 Heron

31 44 45 2.3 Duck

32 (a) To convert from mrad/yr to mGy/yr, divide by 100.

33
Appendix H

July 2006 H-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table H-10. Comparison of Dose Estimates to the Biota from Gaseous Effluents from

2 One ESP Unit

3

4 Biota

Dominion’s ER

(mrad/yr)(a)

Staff’s

Calculation

(mrad/yr)(a,b) % Difference

5 Fish (c) (c) (c)

6 Invertebrate (c) (c) (c)

7 Algae (c) (c) (c)

8 34 38 12 Muskrat

9 34 38 12 Raccoon

10 34 38 12 Heron

11 34 38 12 Duck

12 (a) To convert from mrad/yr to mGy/yr, divide by 100.

13 (b) Dose equals the sum of the annual beta air dose, the annual gamma dose, and two times

14 the ground deposition dose at 0.4 km (0.25 mi) east-southeast of the North Anna ESP

15 site.

16 (c) Fish, invertebrate, and algae would not be exposed to gaseous effluents.

17

18 H.4 References

19

20 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of

21 Production and Utilization Facilities.”

22

23 Bland, J.S. 2000. NRC DOSE for Windows. Radiation Safety Information Computational

24 Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

25

26 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004a. Letter dated July 12, 2004 from

27 E.S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC

28 request RAI E5.4.2-2. dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

29

30 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2004b. Letter dated May 17, 2004, from

31 E.S. Grecheck (DNNA) to the NRC submitting additional information in response to an NRC

32 request dated March 12, 2004. Glen Allen, Virginia.

33

34 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2006. North Anna Early Site Permit

35 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 6, Glen Allen, Virginia.

36

37 Strenge D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User

38 Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

39
Appendix H

NUREG-1811, SDEIS H-12 July 2006

1 Strenge D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II - Technical Reference and User

2 Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

3

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.109 – Calculation of

5 Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating

6 Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Washington, D.C.

7

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

9 Review for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, D.C.
Appendix I

ESP Site Characteristics and Plant Parameter Envelope

July 2006 I-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Appendix I

2

3 ESP Site Characteristics and Plant Parameter Envelope

4

5

6 This appendix has changed to reflect the changes to the plant parameter envelope caused by

7 the changes presented in ER Revision 6.

8

9 The site specific plant parameter envelope (PPE) values and the Early Site Permit (ESP) site

10 characteristics are from Environmental Report (ER) Table 3.1-9 unless otherwise specified. The

11 staff used time dependent atmospheric dispersion factors from this Environmental Impact

12 Statement (EIS) instead of the non-time dependent dispersion factors.

13

14 In its ER, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) listed its proposed ESP site

15 characteristics and plant parameter. These characteristics and parameters were used by the

16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in its independent evaluation of the environmental

17 impacts of the ESP Units 3 and 4. The ESP site characteristics specifically used in the staff’s

18 evaluation are presented in Table I-1. PPE parameters that are relevant to the environmental

19 review are presented in Table I-2. The staff used the values in both Tables I-1 and I-2 in its

20 evaluation.

21

22 Table I-1. ESP Site Characteristics

23

24 Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

25 Atmospheric Dispersion

26 (Ȥ/Q) (Accident)

• Time-dependent values as listed in Table 5-13 of this

EIS

27 • Exclusion Area

28 Boundary (EAB)

3.34 x 10-5 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

0 to 2 hr interval

29 • Low Population Zone

30 (LPZ)

2.17 x 10-6 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

0 to 8 hr interval

31 1.5 x 10-6 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

8 to 24 hr interval

32 1.2 x 10-6 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

1 to 4 day interval

33 9.0 x 10-7 sec/m3

[Same for 2nd unit]

4 to 30 day interval

34
Appendix I

NUREG-1811, SDEIS I-2 July 2006

1 Table I-1. (contd)

2

3 Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

4 Gaseous Effluents

5 Dispersion, Deposition

6 (Annual Average)

7 • Atmospheric

8 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.

9 Residence

10

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

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 • Ground Deposition

15 (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

16 Residence 7.2 x 10-9/m2

17 EAB 1.2 x 10-8/m2

18 Meat animal 3.1 x 10-9/m2

19 Vegetable garden 6.0 x 10-8/m2
Appendix I

Table I-1. (contd)

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

July 2006 I-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Dose Consequences

2 • Normal 10 CFR 20, 10 CFR 50

Appendix I, and

40 CFR 190 dose limits

• Radiological dose consequences due to gaseous

releases from normal operation of the plant

3 Liquid effluent 2.6 mrem/yr

2.7 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)

4 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)

5 Total 7.5 mrem/yr

28 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)

6 • 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 and 5-16 of this EIS

• Severe accidents as listed in Tables 5-17 and 5-18

of this EIS

7 • Minimum Distance

8 to Site Boundary

2854.9 ft

[Same for 2nd unit]

• Minimum lateral distance from the ESP PPE

boundaries to the EAB

9 Liquid Radwaste

10 System

11 • Normal Dose

12 Consequences

10 CFR 50, Appendix I, 

10 CFR 20, and 40 CFR

190 dose limits

2.6 mrem/yr

2.7 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, SDEIS I-4 July 2006

1 Population Density

2 • Population density

3 at the time of initial

4 site approval and

5 within about 5 years

6 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.

7 • Population density

8 at the time of initial

9 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.

10 • Population density

11 over the lifetime of

12 the new units until

13 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.

14 Population Center

15 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.

16 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 Unit 3 containment.

17 LPZ 10 CFR 100.21(a)

Meets requirement

[Both units]

• The LPZ is a 6-mile-radius circle centered at the

Unit 1 containment building.

18
Appendix I

July 2006 I-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table I-2. Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) 

2

3 Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

4 Normal Plant Heat Sink

5 • Maximum Inlet

6 Temperature Condenser/

7 Heat Exchanger

100°F

[Same for the 2nd unit]

• Maximum intake temperature at condenser and

heat exchanger inlet

8 • Evaporation Rate 8707 gpm, average (96%

plant capacity factor with wet

cooling tower)

11,532 gpm maximum

(MWC mode)

16,695 gpm maximum

(EC mode)

• Expected rates at which water is lost by

evaporation resulting from operation of the

plant cooling towers.

9 Structure Height

10

234 ft

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The height from finished grade to the top of the

tallest power block structure, excluding cooling

towers

11 Structure Foundation

12 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

13 Normal Plant Heat Sink

14 • Condenser/Heat

15 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

16 • Unit 3 Closed-Cycle, Dry and Wet Tower

17 Height 180 ft • The height above finished grade of the cooling

towers

18 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
Appendix I

NUREG-1811, SDEIS I-6 July 2006

1 Table I-2. (contd) 

2

3 Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

4 Evaporation Rate 8707 gpm, average (96%

plant capacity factor with wet

tower cooling?

11,532 gpm, maximum

(MWC mode)

16,695 gpm, maximum

(EC mode)

• Expected rates at which water is lost by

evaporation resulting from operation of the

plant cooling towers.

5 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

6 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

7 Blowdown Temperature 100°F, maximum • The maximum expected temperature of the

cooling tower blowdown stream to the WHTF

8 Blowdown Constituents 

9 and Concentrations

10 • Free Available

11 Chlorine

12 • Copper

13 • Iron

14 • Sulfate

15 • Total Dissolved

16 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

17 Noise <65 dbA EAB • Maximum expected sound level produced by

operation of the cooling towers

18 • Unit 4 Dry Cooling Towers

19 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

20 Height 150 ft • The vertical height above finished grade of the

cooling towers
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

July 2006 I-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 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

2 Noise <60 dbA at EAB • Maximum expected sound level produced by

operation of the cooling towers

3 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

4 Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)

5 Mechanical Draft Cooling

6 Towers

7 • Blowdown Constituents

8 and Concentrations

9

10

11

12 • Free Available

13 Chlorine

14 • Copper

15 • Iron

16 • Sulfate

17 • Total Dissolved

18 Solids

19

Envelope values

[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

20 • 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

21 • 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

22 • Height 60 ft

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The vertical height above finished grade of

mechanical draft cooling towers associated with

the UHS system
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

NUREG-1811, SDEIS I-8 July 2006

1 • Maximum Consumption of

2 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)

3 • Monthly Average

4 Consumption of Raw

5 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)

6 Release Point

7 • Elevation Ground Level • The elevation above finished grade of the

release point for routine operational and

accident sequence releases

8 Source Term

9 • 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

10 • Atmospheric (Design

11 Basis Accidents)

Ci as indicated in

ER Table 7.1-6c

RAI Table 1-1

ER Table 7.1-20

RAI Table 1-2

ER Table 7.1-24a

RAI Table 7.1-29

ER Table 7.1-31

RAI Table 15.4-5a

ESBWR Feedwater System Pipe Break

ESBWR Failure of Small Lines Carrying

Primary Coolant Outside Containment

ESBWR Main Steam Line Break

ESBWR Loss-of-Coolant (0 to 8 hr)

ESBWR Loss-of-Coolant (8 to 720 hr)

ESBWR Fuel Handling Accident

ESBWR Cleanup Water Line Break

ABWR Cleanup Water Line Break

12 • Tritium 3530 Ci/y

[Same for 2nd unit]

(maximum values)

• The annual activity of tritium contained in

routine plant airborne effluent streams
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

July 2006 I-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Liquid Radwaste System

2 • Release Point Dilution

3 Factor

10 (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

4 • 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

5 • Tritium 3100 Ci/yr

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The annual activity of tritium contained in routine

plant liquid effluent streams

6 Solid Radwaste System

7 • Activity 2700 Ci/yr

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The annual activity contained in solid radioactive

wastes generated during routine plant operations

8 • Volume 9041 cu ft/yr

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The expected volume of solid radioactive wastes

generated during routine plant operations

9 Plant Characteristics

10 • 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

11 • Megawatts Thermal 4500 MWt

[Same for 2nd unit]

• The thermal power generated by one unit (may

be the total of several modules)

12 • Plant Population –

13 Operation

Approximately 720 

permanent employees

[Both units]

• Anticipated number of new employees that

would be required for operation of the new units

14 • Plant Population –

15 Refueling / Major

16 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
Appendix I

Table I-2. (contd) 

Item

Single Unit Value

[Second Unit Value] Description and References

NUREG-1811, SDEIS I-10 July 2006

1 • Plant Population –

2 Construction

5000 people maximum

[simultaneous construction]

• Peak workforce of 5000 for construction of both

new units

3 • Maximum Fuel Enrichment

4 for Light-Water-Cooled

5 Reactors

5%

[Same for 2nd unit]

• Concentration of U-235 in fuel

6 • Maximum Fuel Burn-up for

7 Light-Water-Cooled

8 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)

9 • Maximum Fuel Enrichment

10 for Gas-Cooled Reactors

19.8%

[Same for 2nd unit]

• Concentration of U-235 in fuel

11 • Maximum Fuel Burn-up for

12 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)

13
Appendix J

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC Commitments and

Assumptions Relevant to the Analysis of Impacts

A tabulation to be provided in the Final EIS

July 2006 J-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

Appendix K

Staff’s Independent Review of 

Water Budget Impacts

July 2006 K-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Appendix K

2

3 Staff’s Independent Review of 

4 Water Budget Impacts

5

6 K.1 Summary

7

8 This appendix discusses the methods used for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

9 staff’s independent review of Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC’s (Dominion) assessment of

10 the impacts of the proposed North Anna early site permit (ESP) Unit 3’s closed-cycle,

11 combination dry and wet cooling system and the staff’s findings. The NRC staff computed

12 impacts of plant operations on the Lake Anna reservoir lake level elevation and discharge to the

13 North Anna River downstream of North Anna Dam. Dominion has proposed dry cooling for Unit

14 4, and the staff concluded that any resulting impacts to the water resources from Unit 4 would

15 be undetectable and were not analyzed further. Therefore, no further mention of Unit 4 is

16 included in this appendix.

17

18 The Lake Anna reservoir (or “the reservoir”) was formed by impounding the North Anna River

19 above the North Anna Dam. Construction of the dam was permitted by the Virginia State

20 Corporation Commission in 1969 (Virginia State Corporation Commission 1969). The Lake

21 Anna reservoir is divided into two distinct bodies of water, Lake Anna and the Waste Heat

22 Treatment Facility (WHTF). The WHTF is composed of three lagoons and is designated by the

23 Commonwealth of Virginia as a waste heat treatment facility in Dominion’s Virginia Pollutant

24 Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit (VDEQ 2001) for the North Anna Power Station

25 (NAPS) (Figure K-1). The lagoons have a total surface area of approximately.400 ac and are

26 separated from the rest of Lake Anna by a series of dikes. The main body of the lake is

27 approximately 17 mi long with 272 mi of irregular shoreline and approximately 9600 ac of

28 water surface.

29

30 The scope of the staff’s evaluation was limited to an assessment based on the relevant values

31 stated in Dominion’s plant parameter envelope (PPE). The staff evaluated whether or not PPE

32 values were reasonable. If the ESP is granted and an applicant for a construction permit (CP)

33 or combined license (COL) references the ESP, the applicant would be required to demonstrate

34 that the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP. The staff’s

35 evaluation also relied on a variety of environmental data that were obtained independently of

36 Dominion. For instance, streamflow data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey,

37 meteorological data were obtained from the National Weather Service, and lake geometry data

38 were independently digitized from maps of the lake.

39

40 Heat rejected from proposed Unit 3 would be rejected to the atmosphere via the wet and dry

41 cooling system, but blowdown associated with cooling system operation would be discharged

42 into the WHTF. The cooling system blowdown would be discharged into the existing discharge 
NUREG-1811, SDEIS K-2 July 2006

Appendix K

1

Figure K-1. Main Features of Lake Anna Reservoir

23
Appendix K

July 2006 K-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 canal at a maximum PPE discharge rate of 12.4 cfs and a maximum PPE temperature of 100(F.

2 Existing Units 1 and 2 employ once-through cooling water systems. With Units 1 and 2, and the

3 proposed Unit 3 operating simultaneously, the blowdown discharge from Unit 3 would mix in the

4 discharge canal with the circulating once-through water discharged from Units 1 and 2. 

5 The combined discharge of Units 1 and 2 is approximately 4300 cfs, which is almost 350 times

6 greater than the proposed Unit 3 system maximum blowdown rate of 12.4 cfs. Therefore, the

7 waste heat associated with Unit 3 blowdown is not expected to alter water temperature in either

8 the WHTF or Lake Anna.

9

10 The quantity of water consumed by the Unit 3 wet cooling tower system would reduce the net

11 discharge from North Anna Dam. In addition, during periods of drought when the lake is below

12 elevation 250 ft above mean sea level (MSL), the consumptive use of water from the operation

13 of the Unit 3 wet cooling tower system would reduce the water volume in the lake. This

14 reduction of volume would result in a warming of the reservoir, assuming that the waste heat

15 load from Units 1 and 2 to the reservoir remains constant. Warming is expected to be minimal,

16 as shown by staff’s independent assessment, because the difference in overall reservoir volume

17 is slight. For example, the difference in lake level elevation with and without operation of the

18 Unit 3 cooling system was computed to be to be less than 3 in. for 69 percent of the simulated

19 period (a 23 year period) and less than 1.0 ft for 94 percent of the simulation period.

20

21 The water budget assessment examined hydrological impacts from both the existing NAPS

22 Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Unit 3 to bound the minimum lake level elevations. A period of

23 record of more than 23 years was examined to determine a critical historical period for

24 comparison between the existing conditions with Units 1 and 2 and the proposed conditions with

25 Units 1, 2, and 3. The critical period selected was the 34-month period between June 2000 and

26 April 2003, specifically targeting the minimum lake level elevations occurring during October of

27 2002. The staff estimated the following minimum lake level elevations for the critical period:

28

29 & Units 1 and 2 (existing/observed conditions): 245.2 ft

30 & Units 1 and 2 plus Unit 3 (proposed conditions): 243.5 ft

31

32 K.2 Plant Parameter Envelope

33

34 An ESP is a Commission approval of a location for siting one or more nuclear power facilities. 

35 An ESP application may refer to the characteristics of a specific reactor design, or a PPE, which

36 is a set of postulated design parameters representing the characteristics of a reactor or reactors

37 that might be built on a selected site.

38

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

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

41 selection of a reactor design until the construction permit (CP) or COL stage.

42
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, SDEIS K-4 July 2006

1 In this evaluation, the staff relied on the following PPE values from Dominion as listed in its

2 Environmental Report (ER) as ESP site characteristics and design parameters (Table 3.1-9)

3 (Dominion 2005) and summarized in Appendix I of this Supplement to the Draft Environmental

4 Impact Statement (SDEIS):

5

6 & Unit 3 Evaporation Rate – Dominion defined this parameter as “...expected rates at

7 which water is lost by evaporation resulting from operation of the plant cooling towers.” 

8 Dominion stated that the maximum flow rate varies from 16,695 gpm in Energy

9 Conservation (EC) model to 11,532 gpm in Maximum Water Conservation (MWC) mode.

10 Dominion stated that the average evaporation rate is 8303 gpm with an associated

11 96 percent plant capacity factor with wet tower cooling.

12

13 & Unit 3 Blowdown Flow Rate – Dominion defined this parameter as, “...flow rate of the

14 blowdown stream from the closed-cycle cooling water system to the WHTF.” Dominion

15 stated that the maximum flow rate in EC mode is 5565 gpm and the maximum flow rate

16 in MWC mode is 3844 gpm.

17

18 & Unit 3 Blowdown Discharge Temperature – Dominion defined this parameter as, “...the

19 maximum expected temperature of the cooling tower blowdown stream to the WHTF.” 

20 Dominion provided a value of 100(F.

21

22 K.3 Plant and North Anna Dam Operation Assumptions

23

24 The existing two NAPS units are able to operate at a lake level elevation as low as 242 ft MSL. 

25 Dominion is proposing that Unit 3 also be allowed to operate to a lake level elevation as low as

26 242 ft MSL.

27

28 Normal plant cooling for Unit 3 would be accomplished by a closed-cycle, combination dry and

29 wet cooling tower system. The cooling system would operate in EC and MWC modes. In EC

30 mode, all of the rejected heat would be dissipated through use of the wet tower system. When

31 the reservoir water surface elevation is at or above elevation 250 ft MSL, EC mode would be

32 used. In MWC mode, a minimum of one-third of the rejected heat from Unit 3 would be

33 removed by the dry tower system. During periods of favorable atmospheric conditions, more

34 than one-third (and possibly as much as 100 percent) of the rejected heat may be dissipated

35 through the dry towers. MWC mode would be used when the lake level elevation falls below

36 250 ft MSL for seven consecutive days, and would continue to be used until the lake level

37 elevation is restored to 250 ft MSL.

38

39 Operating rules for the North Anna Dam were assumed to be unchanged if the proposed Unit 3

40 is constructed. North Anna Dam is operated in accordance with the Lake Level Contingency

41 Plan (a condition of the NAPS Virginia pollution discharge elimination system [VPDES] permit
Appendix K

July 2006 K-5 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company [VEPCo] by the Virginia Department of

2 Environmental Quality [VDEQ]). Releases from the dam are designed to maintain the lake level

3 elevation as close to elevation 250 ft MSL as possible. When the lake level elevation drops

4 below elevation 250 ft MSL because of inadequate inflows to offset natural and induced

5 evaporative losses, the releases from North Anna Dam are reduced to 40 cfs. If the lake level

6 elevation continues to declined below elevation 248 ft MSL, releases are decreased to 20 cfs. 

7 Discharges are increased to 40 cfs when the lake level elevation rises again to elevation 248 ft

8 MSL, and are increased further when the lake level rises above elevation 250 ft MSL. 

9

10 K.4 WHTF and Lake Anna Bathymetry

11

12 The staff obtained digital 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphic quadrangles of Lake Anna from

13 the Department of Geography at Radford University (http://www.runet.edu/~geoserve/

14 Virginia.html). These images served as the source data set for bathymetry. A mosaic of the

15 raw images was used to generate a geo-referenced base map that was then digitized using the

16 ESRITM software package ArcMapTM 9.0. The resulting 10 ft interval contours from elevation

17 180 to 250 ft MSL are shown in Figure K-1.

18

19 A continuous surface was created from these contours. This surface was broken into three

20 zones based on observed water temperatures in the reservoir (see Figure K-1): (1) the WHTF,

21 (2) Lake Anna from North Anna Dam upstream to the Highway 208 Bridge, and (3) Lake Anna

22 arms upstream of the Highway 208 Bridge. Impounded surface areas and volumes were then

23 calculated for each section as a function of water surface elevation, the results of which are

24 presented in Table K-1.

25

26 The Lake Anna reservoir, which was formed when North Anna Dam began to impound water, is

27 comprised of numerous fingers and arms. The reservoir is approximately 17 mi long, and

28 several dikes have been constructed to increase travel time of water exiting from the NAPS

29 discharge canal exit and flowing through the WHTF and the lake to the intake for existing

30 Units 1 and 2. Connecting canals, which are trapezoidal in cross section, have been

31 constructed to convey flow from each of the three ponds formed by these dikes. The collection

32 of ponds and connecting canals are collectively labeled as the WHTF.

33

34 Water leaving the discharge canal may only exit the WHTF through Dike 3. This dike contains a

35 submerged discharge structure with adjustable stop logs to constrict the exiting discharge. This

36 structure creates a positively buoyant high velocity (typically >6 ft/s) jet, which was designed to

37 quickly entrain cooler Lake Anna water.
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, SDEIS K-6 July 2006

1 Table K-1. Computed Areas and Volumes as a Function of Lake Level Elevation for the

2 Various Zones of Lake Anna Reservoir (See Figure K-1)

3

4 Lake Anna Reservoir WHTF

5 Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft) Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft)

6 13,068 31,2171 250 3,194 64,082 250

7 9,219 20,0737 240 2,120 37,515 240

8 6,553 12,1877 230 1,374 20,045 230

9 4,418 67,021 220 830 9,026 220

10 2,715 31,354 210 418 2,787 210

11 1,281 11,377 200 139 200

12 523 3,257 190

13 129 180

14 Lake Anna Lake Anna Arms

15 Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft) Elevation (ft) Area (ac) Volume (ac-ft)

16 5,540 17,4374 250 4,334 73,715 250

17 4,528 12,4032 240 2,571 39,190 240

18 3,614 83,323 230 1,565 18,509 230

19 2,803 51,240 220 786 6,755 220

20 2,034 27,055 210 263 1,512 210

21 1,101 11,377 200 40 200

22 523 3,257 190

23 129 180

24

25 K.5 Dominion’s Assessment

26

27 Dominion developed a water balance model that simulated releases from the North Anna Dam

28 and lake level elevations in the reservoir on a weekly basis for the period between October

29 1979 and April 2003. During this period, Units 1 and 2 were both operating (Existing Units

30 Scenario). The model was separately used to predict releases from the dam and water surface

31 elevations in the reservoir had Unit 3 been operating during the same period (Existing Units plus

32 Unit 3 Scenario). Variations in dam outflow frequencies, periods below various lake level

33 elevations, and the relative difference in lake level elevations between the two scenarios were

34 then examined and presented by Dominion.

35

36 The minimum lake level elevation of the reservoir was 245.1 ft MSL for the Existing Units

37 Scenario and 244.2 ft for the Existing Units plus Unit 3 Scenario, a difference of 0.9 ft. The

38 percent of time North Anna Dam discharge was 20 cfs was 5.2 percent of the period for the

39 Existing Units Scenario and 7.3 percent for the Existing Units plus Unit 3 Scenario, a difference

40 of 2.1 percent.
Appendix K

July 2006 K-7 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 K.6 Boundary Condition for Staff’s Assessment

2

3 The staff performed an independent water balance calculation to predict impacts of the

4 proposed Unit 3 on the reservoir and releases from North Anna Dam (Cook et al. 2005). This

5 was accomplished by first simulating the more than 23 year period between October 1979 and

6 April 2003, when only Units 1 and 2 were operating. The assessment was then used to predict

7 how the reservoir and downstream releases would be altered had Unit 3 been operating.

8

9 The model required input of time-series boundary condition data. Inflows to the lake were input

10 for each time step. Outflows were computed based on the previous time-step lake level

11 elevation and the relationship between lake level and discharge for North Anna Dam. 

12 Meteorological data were used to estimate the volume of precipitation falling directly on the lake

13 and to compute volume lost from the reservoir through evaporation. Lake inflows and

14 meteorological data were held constant for all scenarios; however, outflows varied between

15 scenarios according to the lake level elevation.

16

17 K.6.1 Inflows

18

19 The principal tributaries of Lake Anna are the North Anna River, Pamunkey Creek, and Contrary

20 Creek. Unfortunately, no stream flow gauges were installed on these tributaries. Estimates of

21 inflows to lake Anna were derived from measurements of streamflow in an adjacent basin. Daily

22 average stream flows for the Little River near Doswell, Virginia, were obtained from

23 U.S. Geological Survey (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) gauge 01671100. The Little River is a

24 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 25 , which is approximately one-third the size of the

26 North Anna watershed where it enters Lake Anna. Inflows to Lake Anna were therefore

27 computed during the simulation period by multiplying the watershed scale ratio to the daily

28 average Little River discharges.

29

30 K.6.2 Meteorology

31

32 Meteorological information about the atmosphere above the lake is necessary to compute

33 evaporation for this assessment. Dew point temperature and wind speed were obtained from

34 the Richmond airport (EarthInfo 2003), which was the nearest location that collected data during

35 the critical drought period. Hourly observed data were used as model inputs for the simulated

36 drought period. Precipitation falling onto Lake Anna was considered an inflow boundary

37 condition for the water budget assessment. Total accumulated precipitation on each day was

38 obtained from National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and was originally collected at the

39 Richmond airport (NCDC 2004).

40
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, SDEIS K-8 July 2006

1 Based on precipitation data measured at the Richmond airport from January 1, 1921, to

2 May 31, 2004, Figure K-2 shows the long-term mean monthly precipitation and monthly

3 precipitation for the three driest water years in the Richmond record (water years 1924, 2002,

4 and 1954). The total precipitation during the 2002 water year was 26.4 in., which is

5 60.6 percent of mean annual precipitation. The precipitation for the 2001 water year totaled

6 33.1 in., which is 75.9 percent of mean annual precipitation. Combined precipitation during

7 water years 2001 and 2002 was the driest 2-year period in the precipitation record. Table K-2

8 shows the monthly precipitation during water years 2001 and 2002 as a percentage of the long

9 term corresponding monthly mean.

10

11 K.7 Staff’s Assessment Approach

12

13 The staff’s assessment was completed in two steps. In the first step, the natural evaporation

14 rate from the lake, the induced evaporation from Units 1 and 2, and a small monthly-averaged

15 inflow adjustment that force computed water surface elevations to match observed values were

16 computed. Once these variables were computed, they were then held constant during the

17 second step, which evaluated the impact of the proposed Unit 3 on the reservoir and releases

18 from North Anna Dam.

19

20 Evaporation rate at the water’s surface represents the volume per surface area per unit time

21 of liquid water that is vaporized into the atmosphere. Numerous formulations to compute

22 evaporation rate exist in the technical literature. The formulation used in this analysis is that

23 recommended by TVA (1972), which is also reported in Bras (1990) and is credited to

24 Marciano-Harbeck (1954). Additional details regarding the formulation as applied in the North

25 Anna analysis can be found in Cook et al. (2005).

26

27 Water temperatures during the historical period were based on results from the Lake Anna

28 Cooling Pond Model developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ho and Adams

29 1984). This calibrated and validated model predicts water temperatures at various locations

30 around the WHTF and lake with the two existing reactor operating. These water temperatures

31 were used only to compute natural evaporation from the reservoir (i.e., the background

32 evaporation rate in the case with no reactors operating) and the induced evaporation resulting

33 from operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2. 

34

35 The volumetric water balance for the first step was computed using the appropriate watershed

36 inflows, precipitation falling onto the lake, natural evaporation, induced evaporation from Units 1

37 and 2, and observed and estimated outflows from North Anna Dam. The resulting volume was

38 then converted to a water surface elevation in the reservoir and compared to observed data. 

39 Differences in computed elevations were removed using a monthly-averaged inflow adjustment. 

40 The inflow adjustment was small and averaged 4.6 cfs over the 1978 to 2003 simulation period.
Appendix K

July 2006 K-9 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Figure K-2. Monthly Precipitation (in.) at the Richmond Airport

2

3 Table K-2. Monthly Precipitation as a Percentage of Long-Term Monthly Means During Water

4 Years 2001 and 2002

5

6 Percentage of Long-Term Monthly Mean

7 Month Water Year 2001 Water Year 2002

8 0.3 20.4 October

9 59.9 5.9 November

10 76.8 53.9 December

11 61.4 106.8 January

12 73.9 23.8 February

13 100.9 119.9 March

14 68.9 75.1 April

15 55.5 95.4 May

16 176.2 42.1 June

17 53.5 32.0 July

18 106.4 66.6 August

19 59.2 79.6 September

20 75.9 60.6 Total Annual

21
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, SDEIS K-10 July 2006

1 The second step of the assessment evaluated the relative impacts of Unit 3 operations on the

2 reservoir and releases from the North Anna Dam. The time-series of natural evaporation rate,

3 induced evaporation from NAPS Units 1 and 2, and inflow adjustment were applied from step

4 one. Constant evaporation rates for the proposed Unit 3, based on PPE values, were applied

5 and the volumetric water balance was computed. In these calculations, changes in surface

6 area and volume as a result of reservoir drawdown were explicitly considered and influenced

7 both the volume of natural evaporation leaving the lake and precipitation volume falling on

8 the lake.

9

10 K.8 Assessment Results

11

12 While the entire period of October 15, 1978, through April 9, 2003, was simulated, the critical

13 water surface elevation period was between April 2001 and February 2003. During this critical

14 period, the region experienced a severe drought, and concerns over water use conflicts arose

15 as the lake level elevation in Lake Anna reservoir dropped to record lows in October 2002.

16

17 Figure K-3 displays the computed time-series of lake level elevation throughout the entire

18 simulation period. The Existing Units scenario represents the historical variation in lake level

19 elevation during the more than 23 years of simulation with both Units 1 and 2 operating. The

20 Existing Units plus Unit 3 scenario includes a constant loss rate of 8707 gpm from the lake,

21 which represents the long-term average PPE evaporative loss rate from the proposed use of a

22 wet cooling tower system for Unit 3. Figure K-4 displays the computed time-series of results

23 during the critical drought period when minimum lake level elevation values were reached. As

24 shown in the figure, the decline in lake level elevation is gradual, declining from elevation 250 ft

25 above MSL in July 2001 to the minimum level in October 2002, a 15-month period. The return

26 of lake level to elevation 250 ft MSL was rapid in comparison, and occurred over a 4-month

27 period between October 2002 and February 2003. 

28

29 Table K-3 presents the percentage of time the lake level elevation of the reservoir was near

30 several threshold levels, which correspond to prescribed outflow discharge rates from North

31 Anna Dam. Simulation results indicate that the percent of time the reservoir was at or below

32 elevation 248 ft MSL and North Anna Dam was discharging 20 cfs would have increased from

33 6 percent with only the existing Units 1 and 2 operating to 11 percent if the proposed Unit 3 was

34 also operating. The percent of time the reservoir elevation was at or below 246 ft was predicted

35 to increase by 0.9 percent, from 1 to 2 percent, during the simulation period. The minimum lake

36 level elevation reached in October 2002 during the critical drought period fell by 1.7 ft, from

37 245.2 ft MSL to 243.5 ft MSL. At no time during the simulation did the lake level elevation reach

38 the minimum operational plant intake elevation of 242.0 ft MSL, when the plant would shut

39 down.
Appendix K

July 2006 K-11 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Figure K-3. Time Series of Lake Anna Lake Level Elevations for the Entire Simulation Period

2 Figure K-4. Time Series of Lake Anna Lake Level Elevations During the Critical Drought Period
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, SDEIS K-12 July 2006

1 Table K-3. Lake Level Elevation Exceedance Table and the Minimum Water Surface Elevation

2 for the 1978 to 2003 Simulation Period (values expressed as percent of the total

3 simulation period)

4

5 Lake Level

6 Elevation (ft)

North Anna Dam

Discharge (cfs) Existing Units 1 & 2 

Existing Units 1 & 2 

plus Unit 3

7 Follows rating curve At or above 250 ft

(>40 cfs)

37.3% 33.6%

8 40 cfs 57.0% 55.4% Between 250 and 248 ft

9 20 cfs 5.7% 11.0% At or below 248 ft

10 20 cfs 1.1% 2.0% At or below 246 ft

11 245.2 ft 243.5 ft Minimum elevation

12

13 Table K-4 presents differences in water surface elevation computed by subtracting the

14 time-series of elevations computed for the Existing Units Scenario from the Existing Units plus

15 Unit 3 scenarios (see Figure K-3). As a percent of the total simulation period, differences were

16 less than 3 in. for over 69 percent of the simulation and less than 1 ft for over 94 percent of the

17 simulation. The time-averaged difference in lake level elevation between the two scenarios

18 was 2.8 in.

19

20 Figure K-5 presents the cumulative distribution frequency of Lake Anna lake level elevation for

21 the simulation period for scenarios:

22

23 1. Existing Units

24 2. Existing Units plus Unit 3 at 8707 gpm average evaporation rate

25 3. Existing Units plus Unit 3 at 16,695 gpm (EC mode) when above 250 ft MSL dropping to the

26 8707 gpm average evaporation rate when below 250 ft MSL

27 4. Existing Units plus Unit 3 at 16,695 gpm (EC mode) when above 250 ft MSL decreasing to

28 11,532 gpm when below 250 ft MSL.

29

30 Figure K-5 shows that, because the lake does not store this water for later use during times of

31 water scarcity, any additional Unit 3 evaporative losses that occur when the lake is above

32 elevation 250 ft MSL do not impact the frequency of lake elevations below 250 ft MSL. 

33 However, if the Unit 3 evaporative loss is increased during periods when the lake is below

34 250 ft MSL, the duration of lake levels less than elevation 250 ft MSL would increase. For

35 example, the frequency of lake elevation at or below 246 ft MSL increased from 1.1 percent for

36 the existing units only scenario to 2.0 percent for the scenario where Unit 3 evaporative losses

37 are 8707 gpm and 2.6 percent for the scenario when Unit 3 evaporation losses are 11,532 gpm.

38

39
Appendix K

July 2006 K-13 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table K-4. Differences in Lake Level Elevation between the Existing Units 1 and 2 Scenario

2 and the Existing Units 1 and 2 Plus Unit 3 Scenario for the 1978 to 2003 Simulation

3 Period

4

5 Elevation Difference

Percent of Time of the

Total Simulation

6 Less than 3 in. 69.0%

7 Less than 6 in. 85.0%

8 Less than 12 in. 94.2%

9 Average difference 2.8 in.

10 Maximum difference 1.7 ft

11

12 Figure K-5. Cumulative Distribution Function of Lake Anna Lake Level Elevation

13

14 Additional cumulative distribution frequencies, like those shown in Figure K-5, were developed

15 for NAPS Units 1 and 2 plus proposed Unit 3 with modified lake level. The staff determined the

16 increase in normal pool elevation necessary to maintain the current frequency of occurrence of

17 20 cfs discharge from North Anna Dam (i.e., the occurrence of 20 cfs releases). Inherent in this

18 analysis is the assumption that the 23-yr period of record simulated would be representative of

19 future conditions (e.g., inflows, precipitation, etc.) at the site.

20

21 As shown in Table K-3, the frequency of occurrence of 20 cfs discharges occurred with the

22 NAPS Units 1 and 2 for 5.7 percent of the simulated period. With a normal pool elevation of
Appendix K

NUREG-1811, SDEIS K-14 July 2006

1 250 ft, the predicted occurrence of 20 cfs discharges with NAPS Units 1 and 2 and proposed

2 Unit 3 operating increased to 11.0 percent of the simulation period. However, if the normal pool

3 elevation is raised by 10 in. to 250.8 ft, the frequency of occurrence fell to 5.9 percent. 

4 Therefore, assuming the return period of drought and wet periods were approximately the same

5 as the simulated period, the frequency of occurrence of 20 cfs would remain the same if Unit 3

6 were constructed and the normal pool elevation was raised to elevation 250.8 ft MSL. 

7

8 Alternatively, the frequency of occurrence of 20 cfs releases from North Anna Dam could be

9 reduced, if the threshold for decreasing releases from 40 cfs was lowered below an elevation of

10 248 ft. The staff evaluated lowering the threshold elevation for reducing releases from the dam

11 to 20 cfs for the NAPS Units 1 and 2 plus proposed Unit 3 8707 gpm scenario. Results from

12 this analysis indicate that if Unit 3 were operated and the threshold elevation reduced by

13 approximately 8 in. to elevation 247.3 ft MSL, the occurrence frequency of 20 cfs releases

14 would not change from the Units 1 and 2 only scenario.

15

16 K.9 Conclusions

17

18 The only operational activity with respect to proposed Unit 3 that would result in a detectable

19 hydrological alteration of the environment is the additional consumptive use of water to cool the

20 unit. Although some blowdown from the closed-cycle, combination dry and wet cooling system

21 would occur, the quantity of discharge is much less than the discharge from the existing Units 1

22 and 2. The additional withdrawal of cooling water for the new Unit 3 would increase the

23 duration of time the lake level elevation is below 250 ft MSL, and hence periods of reduced

24 releases from North Anna Dam would occur. Unit 3 evaporative cooling withdrawals would also

25 reduce the minimum lake level elevation of Lake Anna during periods of drought.

26

27 Calculated lake level elevations during the critical period between June 2000 through April 2003

28 predicted minimum elevations during the second week of October 2002. The minimum

29 elevation predicted for continuous operation of Units 1 and 2 is 245.2 ft, whereas, the addition of

30 Unit 3 would result in further declines to 243.5 ft.

31

32 The periods of minimum releases from the dam would also increase with the operation of the

33 proposed Unit 3. For example, the percentage of time of minimum release (20 cfs) would

34 increase from 5.7 percent to 11 percent, and the percentage of time release greater than 40 cfs

35 would decrease from 37 percent to 34 percent.

36
Appendix K

July 2006 K-15 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 K.10 References

2

3 Bras R.L. 1990. Hydrology: An Introduction to Hydrologic Science. Addison Wesley

4 Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts.

5

6 Cook C.B., L.W. Vail, and D.L. Ward. 2005. Report on the North Anna Early Site Permit Water

7 Budget Model (LakeWBT) for Lake Anna. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,

8 Washington.

9

10 Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2005. North Anna Early Site Permit

11 Application – Part 3 – Environmental Report. Revision 5, Glen Allen, Virginia.

12

13 EarthInfo Inc. 2003. National Climatic Data Center Surface Airways TD-3280, East:2, CD-ROM

14 Database. Boulder, Colorado.

15

16 Ho E. and E.E. Adams. 1984. Final Calibration of the Cooling Lake Model, North Anna Power

17 Station. Report No. 295, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

18 Cambridge, Massachusetts.

19

20 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. TD-3200, Summary of the Day, Richmond

21 International Airport and Richmond Byrd Field, WBAN ID 13740. Purchased online via

22 http://nndc.noaa.gov/onlinestore.html. Accessed August 3, 2005.

23

24 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 1972. Heat and Mass Transfer between a Water Surface

25 and the Atmosphere, Water Resources Research, Laboratory Report No 14 prepared for the

26 Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Control Planning, Engineering Laboratory, Report

27 No. 0-6803, Norris, Tennessee.

28

29 Marciano T.T. and G.E. Harbeck, Jr. 1954. “Mass Transfer Studies.” In Water Loss

30 Investigations, Lake Hefner Studies, Technical Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional

31 Paper 269, Washington, D.C.

32

33 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). 2001. Authorization to Discharge Under

34 the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Virginia State Water Control Law,

35 Virginia Electric and Power company, North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Permit No.

36 VA0052451, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond,

37 Virginia.

38

39 Virginia State Corporation Commission. 1969. Order of June 12, 1969, O.B. 58, p. 353.

40

Appendix L

Authorizations and Consultations

July 2006 L-1 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

Appendix L

Authorizations and Consultations

This appendix was previously presented as Appendix H in the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Although the location is changed, the appendix tabulation was not affected by the

changes presented in ER Revision 6.

1 Table L-1 contains a list of the environmental-related authorization, permits, certifications, and

2 consultations, potentially required by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native

3 American tribal agencies for activities related to site preparation, construction, and operation of

4 potential new nuclear units at the North Anna ESP site.

5
Appendix L

NUREG-1811, SDEIS L-2 July 2006

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

2

3 Agency Authority Requirement Activity Covered

4 Federal Aviation

5 Administration

49 USC 1501

14 CFR 77.13

Construction Notice Notice of erection of structures

(>200 feet) potentially impacting air

navigation

6 10 CFR 52, NRC

Subpart C 

Combined License NRC requirements and procedures

applicable to issuance of combined

licenses for nuclear power facilities

7 10 CFR 52, NRC

Subpart A 

Early Site Permit NRC requirements and procedures

applicable to issuance of Early Site

Permits for approval of a site for one

or more nuclear power facilities

8 10 CFR 30 Byproduct License NRC license to possess special NRC

nuclear materials 

9 10 CFR 70 License NRC license to possess nuclear fuel NRC

10 CWA ACE

33 USC 1251

Section 404 Permit Disturbing or crossing wetland

areas or navigable waters 

11 Rivers and ACE

Harbors Act

33 USC 403

Section 10 Permit Impacts to navigable waters of the

United States

12 FWS and

13 NOAA Fisheries

14 Service

Endangered

Species Act

16 USC 1531

Consultation regarding

potential to adversely

impact protected species

Consultation concerning potential

impacts to threatened and

endangered species

15 Migratory Bird FWS

Treaty Act

16 USC 703

Consultation Consultation concerning potential

impacts to migratory birds

16 Virginia State

17 Corporation

18 Commission

Code of Virginia

56-580D

Permit Approval for construction of new

generating facility 

19 9 VAC 5-20-160 Registration Annual re-certification of air VDEQ

emission sources

20 Clean Air Act VDEQ

Title V

9 VAC 5-80-50

Operating Permit Operation of air emission sources

21 9 VAC 5-80-120 Minor Source - General VDEQ

Permit

Construction and operation of minor

air emission sources

22 CWA VDEQ

9 VAC 25-10

Virginia Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System Permit (VPDES)

Regulate limits of pollutants in liquid

discharge to surface water
Appendix L

July 2006 L-3 NUREG-1811, SDEIS

1 Table L-1. (contd)

2

3 Agency Authority Requirement Activity Covered

4 9 VAC 25-150 General Permit VDEQ

Registration Statement

for storm water

discharges from industrial

activity (VAR5)

General permit to discharge storm

water during operations

5 9 VAC 25-210 Virginia Water Protection VDEQ

Permit (Individual or

General)

Permit to dredge, fill, discharge

pollutants into or adjacent to surface

water. Joint application with ACE

Section 404 permit.

6 CWA VDEQ

33 USC 1341

Section 401 Certification Compliance with water quality

standards

7 9 VAC 25-220 Surface Water VDEQ

Withdrawal Permit

Permit to withdraw water from Lake

Anna (unless otherwise regulated

by State Water Control Board)

8 Coastal Zone VDEQ

Management

Act

16 USC 1456

Consistency

determination

Compliance with Virginia Coastal

Program

9 9 VAC 25-180 General Permit VDEQ

Registration Statement

for storm water

discharges from

construction activities

(VAR10)

General permit to discharge storm

water from site during construction

10 9 VAC 25-180 General Permit Notice of VDEQ

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

11 9 VAC 25-180 General Permit NOT for VDEQ

storm water discharges

from industrial activity

(VAR5)

Termination of coverage under the

general permit for storm water

discharge associated with

operational site activities

12 Virginia

13 Department of

14 Historical

15 Resources

National Historic

Preservation Act

36 CFR 800

Cultural Resources

Survey/Review

Confirm ESP site does not contain

protected historic/cultural resources

16 Virginia Marine

17 Resources

18 Commission

9 VAC 25-210 Permit Permit to fill submerged land. Joint

application with ACE Section 404

permit.

19

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 Supplement 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

July

YEAR

2006

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP)

 at the the North Anna ESP Site

Draft Report for Comment

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix B of Report

6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

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 New Reactor Licensing

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, 

Same as above.

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 52-008

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

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

system and (2) proposing an increase in the maximum power output from 4300 MW(t) to 4500 MW(t) for proposed Units 3 and 4.

The NRC determined the changes to the proposed action were substantial and therefore a Supplement to its Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) was necessary pursuant to 10 CFR 51.72. The scope of this SDEIS is limited to the

environmental impacts associated with the change in to the cooling system for Unit 3 and in the maximum power level for both

units. 

The staff's preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to its environmental review of the proposed action is that the

ESP should be issued. In making its recommendation, the staff has concluded that there are no sites that are obviously superior

to the proposed site. The staff has concluded that the site preparation and preliminary construction activities allowed by 10 CFR

50.10(e)(1) will 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 

Early Site Permit 

ESP

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

Dominion

Supplement

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 Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program