Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for Combined Licenses for 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Units 2 and 3 

Draft Report for Comment 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of New Reactors 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Regulatory Division 

Special Projects Branch 

Charleston District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Charleston, SC 29403-5107

NUREG-1939, Vol. 1
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 20402B0001 

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 

 Telephone: 202-512-1800 

 Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

 Springfield, VA 22161B0002 

 www.ntis.gov 

 1B800B553B6847 or, locally, 703B605B6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows: 

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Administration 

 Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team 

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301B415B2289 

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 atC

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852B2738 

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, fromC

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036B8002 

www.ansi.org 

212B642B4900

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 

(NUREGBXXXX) or agency contractors 

(NUREG/CRBXXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CPBXXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IABXXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BRBXXXX), 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 

(NUREGB0750).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for Combined Licenses for 

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Units 2 and 3 

Draft Report for Comment 

Manuscript Completed: April 2010 

Date Published: April 2010 

Division of Site and Environmental Review 

Office of New Reactors 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Regulatory Division 

Special Projects Branch 

Charleston District 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Charleston, SC 29403-5107 

NUREG-1939, Vol. 1 
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 

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

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

report number NUREG-1939 in your comments and send them by the end of the 75-day 

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

To submit comments: 

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch 

Office of Administration 

Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Fax: (301) 492-3446 

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e-mail at Summer.COLEIS@nrc.gov

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

Ms. Patricia Vokoun 

Mail Stop T7-E30 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: (301) 415-3470 

Email: Patricia.Vokoun@nrc.gov

or 

Ms. Tamsen Dozier 

Mail Stop T7-E18 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: (301) 415-2772 

Email: Tamsen.Dozier@nrc.gov
April 2010 iii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Abstract 

2 This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the 

3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The EIS has been prepared in 

4 response to an application submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by 

5 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State6 owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) for 

7 combined construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses or COLs). The 

8 proposed actions related to the SCE&G application are (1) NRC issuance of COLs for two new 

9 nuclear power reactor units (Units 2 and 3) at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site in 

10 Fairfield County, South Carolina, and (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit action 

11 on a Department of the Army (DA) Individual Permit application to perform certain activities on 

12 the site. The USACE is participating with the NRC in preparing this EIS as a cooperating 

13 agency and participates collaboratively on the review team. 

14 This EIS includes the analysis by the NRC and USACE staff that considers and weighs the 

15 environmental impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the VCSNS site and at 

16 alternative sites, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. 

17 The EIS also addresses Federally listed species, cultural resources, and essential fish habitat 

18 issues. 

19 The EIS includes the evaluation of the proposed project’s impacts to waters of the United States 

20 pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

21 1899. The USACE will base its evaluation of the DA Individual Permit application on the 

22 requirements of USACE regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the 

23 USACE public interest review process. 

24 After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed NRC action, the staff’s preliminary 

recommendation to the Commission(a) 25 is that the COLs be issued as requested. This 

26 recommendation is based on (1) the application, including the Environmental Report (ER), 

27 submitted by SCE&G; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the 

28 staff’s independent review; (4) the staff’s consideration of comments related to the 

29 environmental review that were received during the public scoping process; and (5) the 

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

31 the ER and this EIS. The USACE permit decision will be made following issuance of the final 

32 EIS.

 

(a) The Commission is the NRC body of up to five commissioners that formulates policies, develops regulations 

governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal matters. 

April 2010 v Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Contents 

2 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii

3 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. xxxi

4 Abbreviations/Acronyms .......................................................................................................... xxxv

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

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

7 1.1.1 Applications and Reviews ............................................................................. 1-2

8 1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review ....................................................... 1-2

9 1.1.1.2 USACE Permit Application Review ................................................ 1-4

10 1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities ............................................................................. 1-5

11 1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................................. 1-6

12 1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews ............................................................................ 1-7

13 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action ................................................................................... 1-8

14 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...................................................... 1-8

15 1.3.1 The NRC’s Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1-8

16 1.3.2 The USACE Permit Action ............................................................................ 1-9

17 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 1-10

18 1.5 Compliance and Consultations ............................................................................... 1-11

19 1.6 Report Contents ..................................................................................................... 1-11

20 1.7 References ............................................................................................................. 1-12

21 2.0 Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 2-1

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

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

24 2.2.1 VCSNS Site and Vicinity ............................................................................... 2-5

25 2.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors ........................................................................ 2-8

26 2.2.3 The Region ................................................................................................. 2-11

27 2.3 Water ...................................................................................................................... 2-14

28 2.3.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................... 2-14

29 2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology ............................................................ 2-14

30 2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology ............................................................... 2-20

31 2.3.2 Water Use ................................................................................................... 2-26

32 2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use ...................................................................... 2-27
Draft NUREG-1939 vi April 2010 

1 2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use ......................................................................... 2-28

2 2.3.3 Water Quality .............................................................................................. 2-29

3 2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality ................................................................. 2-29

4 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality .................................................................... 2-35

5 2.3.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 2-36

6 2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring ............................................................ 2-36

7 2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .............................................................. 2-37

8 2.4 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 2-37

9 2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecology ............................................................... 2-38

10 2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 2-38

11 2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines ................................ 2-43

12 2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats .................................. 2-46

13 2.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring ..................................................... 2-53

14 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology .......................................................................................... 2-54

15 2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 2-54

16 2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................... 2-65

17 2.4.2.3 Important Aquatic Species ........................................................... 2-68

18 2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring ....................................................................... 2-82

19 2.5 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 2-82

20 2.5.1 Demographics ............................................................................................ 2-83

21 2.5.1.1 Resident Population..................................................................... 2-83

22 2.5.1.2 Transient Population .................................................................... 2-86

23 2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor ............................................................................... 2-87

24 2.5.2 Community Characteristics ......................................................................... 2-87

25 2.5.2.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 2-88

26 2.5.2.2 Taxes ........................................................................................... 2-93

27 2.5.2.3 Transportation .............................................................................. 2-94

28 2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation ........................................................... 2-96

29 2.5.2.5 Housing ........................................................................................ 2-96

30 2.5.2.6 Public Services ............................................................................ 2-97

31 2.5.2.7 Education ................................................................................... 2-106

32 2.6 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... 2-108

33 2.6.1 Methodology ............................................................................................. 2-109

34 2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach .............................................................................. 2-111

35 2.6.3 Subsistence and Communities with Unique Characteristics .................... 2-111

36 2.6.4 Migrant Populations .................................................................................. 2-114

37 2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary .............................................................. 2-114
April 2010 vii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 2-114

2 2.7.1 Cultural Background ................................................................................. 2-115

3 2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site .............................................. 2-116

4 2.7.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Within Transmission-Line Corridors ...... 2-130

5 2.7.4 Consultation .............................................................................................. 2-130

6 2.8 Geology ................................................................................................................ 2-131

7 2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality ................................................................................. 2-132

8 2.9.1 Climate ..................................................................................................... 2-132

9 2.9.1.1 Wind ........................................................................................... 2-134

10 2.9.1.2 Atmospheric Stability ................................................................. 2-134

11 2.9.1.3 Temperature .............................................................................. 2-135

12 2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture ................................................................ 2-135

13 2.9.1.5 Severe Weather ......................................................................... 2-136

14 2.9.2 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 2-136

15 2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion ............................................................................ 2-137

16 2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring ........................................................................ 2-138

17 2.10 Nonradiological Environment ............................................................................... 2-139

18 2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health ............................................................... 2-139

19 2.10.1.1 Air Quality .................................................................................. 2-139

20 2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries ................................................................. 2-140

21 2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents ...................................................................... 2-141 

22 2.10.2 Noise ........................................................................................................ 2-142

23 2.10.3 Transportation .......................................................................................... 2-142

24 2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields ............................................................................. 2-143

25 2.11 Radiological Environment ..................................................................................... 2-144

26 2.12 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations ........................................... 2-144

27 2.13 References ........................................................................................................... 2-146

28 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description .................................................................................... 3-1

29 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout .................................................................... 3-1

30 3.2 Proposed Plant Structures ....................................................................................... 3-4

31 3.2.1 Reactor Power Conversion System .............................................................. 3-4

32 3.2.2 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface .......................................... 3-4

33 3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage ........................................... 3-6

34 3.2.2.2 Cooling System .............................................................................. 3-6

35 3.2.2.3 Other Structures with a Permanent Environmental Interface ....... 3-14
Draft NUREG-1939 viii April 2010 

1 3.2.2.4 Other Structures with a Temporary Environmental Interface ....... 3-17

2 3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface ........................................ 3-18

3 3.2.3.1 Nuclear Island and Annex Building .............................................. 3-18

4 3.2.3.2 Cranes and Footings ................................................................... 3-18

5 3.2.3.3 Pipelines ...................................................................................... 3-18

6 3.2.3.4 Support, Laydown, and Spoils Areas ........................................... 3-18

7 3.2.3.5 Parking ......................................................................................... 3-19

8 3.2.3.6 Miscellaneous Buildings .............................................................. 3-19

9 3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ........................................................... 3-19

10 3.3.1 Major Affected Areas .................................................................................. 3-21

11 3.3.2 Summary of Resource Commitments During Construction and 

12 Preconstruction ........................................................................................... 3-24

13 3.4 Operational Activities .............................................................................................. 3-26

14 3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes .............................................................. 3-26

15 3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation ......................................... 3-26

16 3.4.2.1 Intake Structures .......................................................................... 3-26

17 3.4.2.2 Cooling Towers ............................................................................ 3-27

18 3.4.2.3 Discharge Structure ..................................................................... 3-28

19 3.4.2.4 Power Transmission System ....................................................... 3-31

20 3.4.2.5 Emergency Diesel Generators ..................................................... 3-32

21 3.4.3 Radioactive Waste-Management System .................................................. 3-32

22 3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System ......................... 3-33

23 3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System .................... 3-33

24 3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System ........................... 3-34

25 3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste-Management Systems ........................................... 3-34

26 3.4.4.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides ................................ 3-35

27 3.4.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents ............................................................ 3-35

28 3.4.4.3 Other Effluents ............................................................................. 3-36

29 3.4.5 Summary of Resource Commitments During Operation ............................ 3-36

30 3.5 References ............................................................................................................. 3-38

31 4.0 Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site .................................................................. 4-1

32 4.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 4-4

33 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 4-4

34 4.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Other Offsite Areas .................................. 4-7

35 4.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts During Construction and 

36 Preconstruction ........................................................................................... 4-10
April 2010 ix Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.2 Water-Related Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-10

2 4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations ................................................................................. 4-11

3 4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-13

4 4.2.2.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Use .................................................... 4-13

5 4.2.2.2 Impacts on Groundwater Use ...................................................... 4-14

6 4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 4-15

7 4.2.3.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Quality ............................................... 4-15

8 4.2.3.2 Impacts on Groundwater Quality ................................................. 4-16

9 4.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 4-16

10 4.3 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................. 4-17

11 4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts ................................................................. 4-17

12 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 4-17

13 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines ................................ 4-22

14 4.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats .................................. 4-27

15 4.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................... 4-29

16 4.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts .................. 4-29

17 4.3.1.6 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ............................ 4-29

18 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-30

19 4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 4-30

20 4.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................... 4-33

21 4.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................... 4-34

22 4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Site Preparation ................................. 4-39

23 4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts on Aquatic Resources ................................ 4-39

24 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-40

25 4.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-41

26 4.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public .................................... 4-41

27 4.4.1.2 Noise Impacts .............................................................................. 4-42

28 4.4.1.3 Impacts on Air Quality .................................................................. 4-43

29 4.4.1.4 Impacts on Buildings .................................................................... 4-45

30 4.4.1.5 Transportation Impacts ................................................................ 4-45

31 4.4.1.6 Impacts on Aesthetics .................................................................. 4-46

32 4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts ...................................................... 4-46

33 4.4.2 Demographic Impacts on the Community .................................................. 4-47

34 4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ........................................................ 4-49

35 4.4.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 4-49

36 4.4.3.2 Taxes ........................................................................................... 4-51

37 4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community ..................... 4-52

38 4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts .......................................... 4-52
Draft NUREG-1939 x April 2010 

1 4.4.4.1 Transportation Impacts ................................................................ 4-52

2 4.4.4.2 Impacts on Recreation ................................................................. 4-54

3 4.4.4.3 Housing Impacts .......................................................................... 4-55

4 4.4.4.4 Impacts on Public Services .......................................................... 4-56

5 4.4.4.5 Impacts on Education .................................................................. 4-58

6 4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts ....... 4-58

7 4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts During Construction and 

8 Preconstruction ........................................................................................... 4-58

9 4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................................... 4-59

10 4.5.1 Health Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-60

11 4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts .......................................................... 4-61

12 4.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts .................................................................... 4-61

13 4.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts ................................................................ 4-61

14 4.5.2.3 Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................... 4-62

15 4.5.2.4 Noise Impacts .............................................................................. 4-62

16 4.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions .......................................................... 4-63

17 4.5.4 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 4-63

18 4.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts During Construction and 

19 Preconstruction ........................................................................................... 4-64

20 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 4-65

21 4.6.1 Onsite Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts ........................................ 4-66

22 4.6.2 Offsite Cultural and Historic Resource Impacts .......................................... 4-68

23 4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts .................................................................. 4-69

24 4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities ............................................... 4-69

25 4.7.2 Transportation ............................................................................................ 4-70

26 4.7.3 Summary .................................................................................................... 4-71

27 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts .............................................................................. 4-72

28 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health ................................................................. 4-72

29 4.8.1.1 Public Health ................................................................................ 4-72

30 4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health ......................................................... 4-73

31 4.8.2 Noise Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-73

32 4.8.3 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction 

33 Personnel to the Proposed Site .................................................................. 4-75

34 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................. 4-77

35 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts ................................................................................... 4-78
April 2010 xi Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures ........................................................................ 4-78

2 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents ............................................ 4-79

3 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents ................................................. 4-80

4 4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers ........................................................... 4-80

5 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts ................................................... 4-80

6 4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................... 4-81

7 4.10.1 Impacts on Land ......................................................................................... 4-81

8 4.10.2 Impacts on Water ....................................................................................... 4-82

9 4.10.3 Impacts on Air ............................................................................................. 4-82

10 4.10.4 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................... 4-83

11 4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction ................. 4-83

12 4.12 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts ........................................ 4-88

13 4.13 References ............................................................................................................. 4-90

14 5.0 Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site .................................................................... 5-1

15 5.1 Land-Use Impacts .................................................................................................... 5-1

16 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity ..................................................................................... 5-2

17 5.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Offsite Areas ............................................ 5-2

18 5.2 Water-Related Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-2

19 5.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations ................................................................................... 5-3

20 5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts ....................................................................................... 5-4

21 5.2.2.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Use ...................................................... 5-4

22 5.2.2.2 Impacts on Groundwater Use ........................................................ 5-8

23 5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts .................................................................................. 5-8

24 5.2.3.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Quality ................................................. 5-9

25 5.2.3.2 Impacts on Groundwater Quality ................................................. 5-12

26 5.2.4 Water Monitoring ........................................................................................ 5-12

27 5.3 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................. 5-13

28 5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operation .............................. 5-13

29 5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity ..................................... 5-13

30 5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines ................................ 5-16

31 5.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats .................................. 5-18

32 5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring During Operation....................................... 5-20

33 5.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Operations-Related 

34 Terrestrial Impacts ....................................................................... 5-20

35 5.3.1.6 Summary of Operational Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ........ 5-21
Draft NUREG-1939 xii April 2010 

1 5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operation ........................................................ 5-21

2 5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity ......................................... 5-21

3 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines .................................... 5-31

4 5.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats ...................................... 5-31

5 5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation ........................................... 5-32

6 5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources ............ 5-32

7 5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-33

8 5.4.1 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-33

9 5.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public .................................... 5-34

10 5.4.1.2 Impacts on Buildings .................................................................... 5-35

11 5.4.1.3 Impacts on Transportation ........................................................... 5-35

12 5.4.1.4 Impacts on Aesthetics .................................................................. 5-35

13 5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts ...................................................... 5-36

14 5.4.2 Demography ............................................................................................... 5-36

15 5.4.2.1 Demographic Impacts .................................................................. 5-36

16 5.4.2.2 Summary of Demographic Impacts .............................................. 5-37

17 5.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community ........................................................ 5-37

18 5.4.3.1 Economy ...................................................................................... 5-37

19 5.4.3.2 Taxes ........................................................................................... 5-39

20 5.4.3.3 Summary of Economic and Tax Impacts ..................................... 5-41

21 5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services ..................................................... 5-41

22 5.4.4.1 Transportation .............................................................................. 5-41

23 5.4.4.2 Recreation ................................................................................... 5-42

24 5.4.4.3 Housing ........................................................................................ 5-42

25 5.4.4.4 Public Services ............................................................................ 5-42

26 5.4.4.5 Education ..................................................................................... 5-44

27 5.4.4.6 Summary of Impacts on Infrastructure and Community 

28 Services ....................................................................................... 5-44

29 5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................... 5-45

30 5.5 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 5-45

31 5.5.1 Health Impacts ............................................................................................ 5-46

32 5.5.2 Physical Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-46

33 5.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts .................................................................... 5-46

34 5.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts ................................................................ 5-46

35 5.5.2.3 Air Quality-Related Impacts ......................................................... 5-47

36 5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts .............................................................................. 5-47

37 5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions .......................................................... 5-48

38 5.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................. 5-49
April 2010 xiii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts from Operation ........................................ 5-49

2 5.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts .................................................................. 5-52

3 5.7.1 Cooling-Tower Impacts ............................................................................... 5-52

4 5.7.2 Air Quality Impacts ..................................................................................... 5-53

5 5.7.3 Transmission-Line Impacts ......................................................................... 5-55

6 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts .............................................................................. 5-55

7 5.8.1 Etiological (Disease-Causing) Agents ........................................................ 5-55

8 5.8.2 Noise Impacts ............................................................................................. 5-56

9 5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ..................................................... 5-57

10 5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields .................................................. 5-57

11 5.8.5 Occupational Health ................................................................................... 5-58

12 5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the 

13 VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites .............................................................. 5-59

14 5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts ............................................. 5-60

15 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ........................................................... 5-61

16 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways .................................................................................... 5-61

17 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public ................................................ 5-63

18 5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-63

19 5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 5-66

20 5.9.3 Impacts on a Member of the Public ............................................................ 5-66

21 5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual ...................................................... 5-67

22 5.9.3.2 Population Dose .......................................................................... 5-69

23 5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts on Members of the Public ...... 5-70

24 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers ................................................................. 5-70

25 5.9.5 Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans ....................................................... 5-71

26 5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway ............................................................... 5-71

27 5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway .......................................................... 5-71

28 5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses ................................................. 5-72

29 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring .............................................................................. 5-73

30 5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts ............................................................................... 5-74

31 5.10.1 Impacts on Land ......................................................................................... 5-74

32 5.10.2 Impacts on Water ....................................................................................... 5-75

33 5.10.3 Impacts on Air ............................................................................................. 5-75

34 5.10.4 Mixed-Waste Impacts ................................................................................. 5-75
Draft NUREG-1939 xiv April 2010 

1 5.10.5 Summary of Nonradiological Impacts ......................................................... 5-76

2 5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents .................................................... 5-76

3 5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents .............................................................................. 5-78

4 5.11.2 Severe Accidents ........................................................................................ 5-81

5 5.11.2.1 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Air Pathway ......................... 5-83

6 5.11.2.2 Estimated Risks of Releases to Surface-Water Pathways .......... 5-87

7 5.11.2.3 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Groundwater Pathway ......... 5-88

8 5.11.2.4 Estimated Risks of Releases Related to External Events ............ 5-89

9 5.11.3 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts ....................................................... 5-90

10 5.11.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ..................................................... 5-90

11 5.11.5 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts .................................................. 5-94

12 5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation ..................... 5-94

13 5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts ........................................................................... 5-97

14 5.14 References ........................................................................................................... 5-100

15 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning .......................................................... 6-1

16 6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Solid-Waste Management ................................................. 6-1

17 6.1.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................... 6-9

18 6.1.2 Water Use ..................................................................................................... 6-9

19 6.1.3 Fossil Fuel .................................................................................................... 6-9

20 6.1.4 Chemical Effluents ...................................................................................... 6-10

21 6.1.5 Radiological Effluents ................................................................................. 6-11

22 6.1.6 Radiological Wastes ................................................................................... 6-13

23 6.1.7 Occupational Dose ..................................................................................... 6-15

24 6.1.8 Transportation ............................................................................................ 6-16

25 6.1.9 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 6-16

26 6.2 Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................... 6-16

27 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel ............................................................ 6-18

28 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions ....................................................................... 6-18

29 6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents ....................... 6-24

30 6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents .................. 6-25

31 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel ...................................................................... 6-26

32 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions ....................................................................... 6-27

33 6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents ............................................... 6-33

34 6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent-Fuel Shipments ........................ 6-37

35 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste Other Than Spent Fuel .................... 6-37
April 2010 xv Draft NUREG-1939 

1 6.2.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 6-40

2 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts ..................................................................................... 6-40

3 6.4 References ............................................................................................................. 6-42

4 7.0 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... 7-1

5 7.1 Land Use .................................................................................................................. 7-6

6 7.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................................................. 7-8

7 7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts ....................................................................................... 7-8

8 7.2.1.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts........................................................... 7-8

9 7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts ........................................................... 7-10

10 7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 7-12

11 7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts .................................................... 7-12

12 7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts ...................................................... 7-13

13 7.3 Ecology ................................................................................................................... 7-14

14 7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands ............................................................... 7-14

15 7.3.1.1 Site-Preparation and Site-Development Impacts ......................... 7-15

16 7.3.1.2 Operational Impacts ..................................................................... 7-16

17 7.3.1.3 Statement .................................................................................... 7-16

18 7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts ....................................................................... 7-16

19 7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .......................................................... 7-21

20 7.4.1 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 7-21

21 7.4.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................................ 7-22

22 7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 7-24

23 7.6 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 7-25

24 7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants ....................................................................................... 7-26

25 7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 7-27

26 7.6.3 Summary .................................................................................................... 7-28

27 7.7 Nonradiological Health ........................................................................................... 7-29

28 7.8 Radiological Impacts .............................................................................................. 7-31

29 7.9 Postulated Accidents .............................................................................................. 7-32

30 7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning ................................................ 7-33

31 7.10.1 Transportation ............................................................................................ 7-34

32 7.10.2 Decommissioning ....................................................................................... 7-36

33 7.11 Staff Conclusions ................................................................................................... 7-36

34 7.12 References ............................................................................................................. 7-38
Draft NUREG-1939 xvi April 2010 

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

2 8.1 Description of the Power System ............................................................................. 8-2

3 8.1.1 SCE&G Relevant Service Area .................................................................... 8-2

4 8.1.2 Santee Cooper Relevant Service Area ......................................................... 8-4

5 8.1.3 Regional Reliability ....................................................................................... 8-4

6 8.1.4 South Carolina Regulatory Framework ........................................................ 8-5

7 8.1.4.1 SCE&G’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity .......... 8-6

8 8.1.4.2 South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) ............. 8-7

9 8.1.5 Description of the South Carolina Analytical Process .................................. 8-9

10 8.2 Power Demand ....................................................................................................... 8-10

11 8.2.1 SCE&G ....................................................................................................... 8-11

12 8.2.1.1 Factors Affecting Demand ........................................................... 8-11

13 8.2.2 Santee Cooper ........................................................................................... 8-13

14 8.2.2.1 Factors Affecting Demand ........................................................... 8-14

15 8.2.3 Demand Forecast ....................................................................................... 8-15

16 8.3 Power Supply ......................................................................................................... 8-16

17 8.3.1 SCE&G ....................................................................................................... 8-16

18 8.3.1.1 Present and Planned Generating Capacity.................................. 8-17

19 8.3.1.2 Need for Baseload Capacity ........................................................ 8-17

20 8.3.1.3 Fuel Diversity ............................................................................... 8-18

21 8.3.2 Santee Cooper ........................................................................................... 8-19

22 8.3.2.1 Present and Planned Generating Capacity.................................. 8-20

23 8.3.2.2 Purchased Power ........................................................................ 8-20

24 8.3.2.3 Renewable Resources ................................................................. 8-21

25 8.3.2.4 Need for Baseload Capacity ........................................................ 8-21

26 8.3.3 Supply Forecast .......................................................................................... 8-22

27 8.4 Assessment of Need for Power and NRC Findings ............................................... 8-23

28 8.5 References ............................................................................................................. 8-25

29 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ............................................................................. 9-1

30 9.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 9-2

31 9.2 Energy Alternatives .................................................................................................. 9-2

32 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity .................................. 9-3

33 9.2.1.1 Purchased Power .......................................................................... 9-3

34 9.2.1.2 Extending the Service Life of Existing Plants or Reactivating 

35 Retired Plants ................................................................................ 9-4

36 9.2.1.3 Energy Conservation ..................................................................... 9-4
April 2010 xvii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.2.1.4 Conclusions ................................................................................... 9-5

2 9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity ........................................ 9-6

3 9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation ........................................................ 9-7

4 9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .......................................... 9-15

5 9.2.3 Other Alternatives ....................................................................................... 9-19

6 9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation ......................................................... 9-19

7 9.2.3.2 Wind Power ................................................................................. 9-21

8 9.2.3.3 Solar Power ................................................................................. 9-22

9 9.2.3.4 Hydropower ................................................................................. 9-22

10 9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy ...................................................................... 9-22

11 9.2.3.6 Wood Waste ................................................................................ 9-23

12 9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste ................................................................. 9-23

13 9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels ...................................................... 9-24

14 9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells ..................................................................................... 9-25

15 9.2.4 Combinations of Alternatives ...................................................................... 9-25

16 9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................ 9-26

17 9.3 Alternative Sites ..................................................................................................... 9-30

18 9.3.1 SCE&G Alternative Site-Selection Process ................................................ 9-31

19 9.3.1.1 SCE&G Alternative Site-Selection Process ................................. 9-33

20 9.3.1.2 Santee Cooper Alternative Site-Selection Process ...................... 9-38

21 9.3.1.3 Conclusions About the Alternative Site-Selection Process .......... 9-41

22 9.3.2 NRC/USACE Alternative Site Evaluation ................................................... 9-42

23 9.3.3 The FA-1 Site ............................................................................................. 9-44

24 9.3.3.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors ................................ 9-50

25 9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality ................................................................. 9-51

26 9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ............................................. 9-54

27 9.3.3.4 Summary Statement .................................................................... 9-61

28 9.3.3.5 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................... 9-61

29 9.3.3.6 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 9-69

30 9.3.3.7 Environmental Justice .................................................................. 9-75

31 9.3.3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................. 9-79

32 9.3.3.9 Air Quality .................................................................................... 9-81

33 9.3.3.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................... 9-82

34 9.3.3.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ................................. 9-84

35 9.3.3.12 Postulated Accident Impacts........................................................ 9-85

36 9.3.4 The Cope Generating Station Site .............................................................. 9-86

37 9.3.4.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors ................................ 9-90

38 9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality ................................................................. 9-91
Draft NUREG-1939 xviii April 2010 

1 9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ............................................. 9-94

2 9.3.4.4 Summary Statement .................................................................... 9-98

3 9.3.4.5 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................... 9-99

4 9.3.4.6 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-104

5 9.3.4.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-110

6 9.3.4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-114

7 9.3.4.9 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-116

8 9.3.4.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................. 9-117

9 9.3.4.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-118

10 9.3.4.12 Postulated Accident Impacts...................................................... 9-119

11 9.3.5 The Saluda Site ........................................................................................ 9-121

12 9.3.5.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors .............................. 9-125

13 9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-128

14 9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-130

15 9.3.5.4 Summary Statement .................................................................. 9-136

16 9.3.5.5 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................... 9-136

17 9.3.5.6 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-142

18 9.3.5.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-148

19 9.3.5.8 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-152

20 9.3.5.9 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-154

21 9.3.5.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................. 9-155

22 9.3.5.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-156

23 9.3.5.12 Postulated Accident Impacts...................................................... 9-157

24 9.3.6 The Savannah River Alternative Site ........................................................ 9-158

25 9.3.6.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors .............................. 9-161

26 9.3.6.2 Water Use and Quality ............................................................... 9-164

27 9.3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources ........................................... 9-167

28 9.3.6.4 Summary Statement .................................................................. 9-171

29 9.3.6.5 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................... 9-172

30 9.3.6.6 Socioeconomics ......................................................................... 9-178

31 9.3.6.7 Environmental Justice ................................................................ 9-184

32 9.3.6.8 Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................ 9-188

33 9.3.6.9 Air Quality .................................................................................. 9-190

34 9.3.6.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts ................................................. 9-191

35 9.3.6.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ............................... 9-193

36 9.3.6.12 Postulated Accident Impacts...................................................... 9-194

37 9.3.7 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative 

38 Sites .......................................................................................................... 9-195

39 9.3.7.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and 

40 Alternative Sites ......................................................................... 9-196
April 2010 xix Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.3.7.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites ............................................... 9-198

2 9.3.7.3 Obviously Superior Sites............................................................ 9-201

3 9.4 System Design Alternatives ................................................................................. 9-201

4 9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems ........................................................................ 9-201

5 9.4.1.1 Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers ............................................. 9-202

6 9.4.1.2 Once-Through Cooling .............................................................. 9-202

7 9.4.1.3 Cooling Pond ............................................................................. 9-203

8 9.4.1.4 Spray Ponds .............................................................................. 9-203

9 9.4.1.5 Dry Cooling Towers ................................................................... 9-203

10 9.4.1.6 Combination Wet/Dry Cooling-Tower System ........................... 9-204

11 9.4.1.7 Mechanical Draft with Plume Abatement ................................... 9-204

12 9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems ....................................................................... 9-205

13 9.4.2.1 Intake Alternatives ..................................................................... 9-205

14 9.4.2.2 Discharge Alternatives ............................................................... 9-206

15 9.4.2.3 Water Supplies .......................................................................... 9-207

16 9.4.2.4 Water Treatment ........................................................................ 9-208

17 9.4.3 Summary .................................................................................................. 9-208

18 9.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alternatives Evaluation ........................................ 9-208

19 9.5.1 Onsite Alternatives ................................................................................... 9-209

20 9.5.2 SCE&G Alternative Sites .......................................................................... 9-209

21 9.6 References ........................................................................................................... 9-210

22 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 10-1

23 10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................. 10-3

24 10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ........................................................ 10-4

25 10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and 

26 Preconstruction Activities ........................................................................... 10-4 

27 10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation ....................................... 10-9

28 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the 

29 Human Environment ............................................................................................. 10-12

30 10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................... 10-12

31 10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources .................................................. 10-13

32 10.4.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................... 10-13

33 10.4.1.2 Water Use .................................................................................. 10-13

34 10.4.1.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota...................................................... 10-13

35 10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources ........................................................ 10-13

36 10.4.1.5 Historical and Cultural Resources.............................................. 10-13

37 10.4.1.6 Air and Water ............................................................................. 10-14 
Draft NUREG-1939 xx April 2010 

1 10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ................................................. 10-14

2 10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ..................................................................... 10-14

3 10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance ............................................................................................ 10-15

4 10.6.1 Benefits ..................................................................................................... 10-18

5 10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits ........................................................................ 10-18

6 10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits ....................................................................... 10-19

7 10.6.2 Costs ........................................................................................................ 10-20

8 10.6.2.1 Internal Costs ............................................................................. 10-20

9 10.6.2.2 External Costs ........................................................................... 10-25

10 10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs ............................................................... 10-26

11 10.7 Staff Recommendation ......................................................................................... 10-27

12 10.8 References ........................................................................................................... 10-27

13 Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement ......................................... A-1

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

15 Appendix C – Chronology of NRC and USACE Environmental Review Correspondence........ C-1

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

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

18 Appendix F – Key Combined License Consultation Correspondence Regarding the Virgil C. 

19 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application; and Biological 

20 Assessments .................................................................................................................... F-1

21 Appendix G – Supporting Documentation for Radiological Dose Assessment ......................... G-1

22 Appendix H – Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications ......................................................... H-1

23 Appendix I – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Interest Review Factors ............................. I-1

24 Appendix J – Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a 1000 MW(e) Reference Reactor ........ J-1

25 
April 2010 xxi Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Figures 

2 2-1 SCE&G’s Proposed Location for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 .................................................. 2-2

3 2-2 The Location of the VCSNS Site in Relationship to the Counties, Cities, and 

4 Towns Within a 50-Mi Radius of the Site ......................................................................... 2-3

5 2-3 Map of the VCSNS Site and Vicinity Within the 6-mi Radius ........................................... 2-4

6 2-4 Existing Unit 1 Transmission Lines .................................................................................. 2-9

7 2-5 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Representative Routes for Potential New Transmission-Line 

8 Corridors ........................................................................................................................ 2-10

9 2-6 Major Hydrologic Features Within the 6-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ................ 2-15

10 2-7 Major Hydrologic Features Within the 50-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 .............. 2-16

11 2-8 Broad River Basin Upstream of the VCSNS Site, Showing the Nearest Stream12 Flow Gauging Stations .................................................................................................. 2-17

13 2-9 Physiographic Provinces of South Carolina and Hydrogeologic Provinces of the 

14 Southeastern United States Showing the VCSNS Site Location ................................... 2-21

15 2-10 Diagram of Regolith and Fractured Bedrock Groundwater Zones in the Piedmont 

16 Physiographic Province of the Southeastern United States .......................................... 2-22

17 2-11 Conceptual Model of Groundwater Flow in the Piedmont Physiographic Province 

18 of the Southeastern United States ................................................................................. 2-23

19 2-12 The SCDHEC Water-Quality Sampling Locations near the VCSNS Site ...................... 2-30

20 2-13 Historical Photos Showing How the VCSNS Site Has Changed Since 1938 ................ 2-39

21 2-14 Map of the Cover Types on the VCSNS Site ................................................................. 2-41

22 2-15 Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Locations at the VCSNS Site ................ 2-47

23 2-16 Broad River Basin and Impoundments. ......................................................................... 2-57

24 2-17 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental 

25 Justice Selection Criteria ............................................................................................. 2-112

26 2-18 Aggregate Low-Income Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental 

27 Justice Selection Criteria ............................................................................................. 2-113

28 2-19 Area of Potential Effect for the VCSNS Site Units 2 and 3 .......................................... 2-117

29 3-1 VCSNS Site Layout ......................................................................................................... 3-2

30 3-2 Conceptualization of Proposed Units 2 and 3 Superimposed on the VCSNS Site .......... 3-3

31 3-3 AP1000 Power Conversion Diagram ............................................................................... 3-5

32 3-4 VCSNS Site Layout Showing Major Structure and Activity Areas for Proposed 

33 Units 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................... 3-7

34 3-5 Site Layout Closeup......................................................................................................... 3-8

35 3-6 Plan View of the Circulating-Water System Intake Structure ......................................... 3-10
Draft NUREG-1939 xxii April 2010 

1 3-7 Cross-Section View of the Circulating-Water System Intake Structure ......................... 3-11

2 3-8 Plan and Cross-Section Views of the Outfall Discharge System ................................... 3-12

3 3-9 Plan and Cross-Section Views of the Outfall Discharge Ports ...................................... 3-13

4 3-10 Water-Use Summary Diagram ....................................................................................... 3-30

5 4-1 Habitats and Areas that Would Be Disturbed by the Development of the VCSNS 

6 Site .................................................................................................................................. 4-6

7 4-2 Streams and Wetlands, Including a 50-ft Buffer, on the VCSNS Site ............................ 4-19

8 4-3 Proposed SCE&G and Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Corridors in Relation to 

9 Crossings of Major Waterbodies ................................................................................... 4-35

10 5-1 Diagram of the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir System ............. 5-5

11 5-2 Artist Rendering of Proposed VCSNS Unit 2 and Unit 3 Cooling-Tower Plumes as 

12 Viewed from Monticello Reservoir ................................................................................. 5-36

13 5-3 Exposure Pathways to Man ........................................................................................... 5-62

14 5-4 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man ............................................................... 5-64

15 6-1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option .................................................................. 6-6

16 6-2 Illustration of Truck Stop Model ..................................................................................... 6-30

17 8-1 The Combined Service Territory of SCE&G and Santee Cooper ................................... 8-3

18 8-2 The SERC Service Territory ............................................................................................ 8-4

19 9-1 Potential Site Locations ................................................................................................. 9-35

20 9-2 Santee Cooper Region of Interest ................................................................................. 9-39

21 9-3 FA-1 Alternative Site Region ......................................................................................... 9-49

22 9-4 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

23 Justice Selection Criteria at the FA-1 Site ..................................................................... 9-77

24 9-5 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

25 Selection Criteria at the FA-1 Site ................................................................................. 9-78

26 9-6 The CGS Alternative Site Region .................................................................................. 9-89

27 9-7 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

28 Justice Selection Criteria at the CGS Site ................................................................... 9-112

29 9-8 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

30 Selection Criteria at the CGS Site ............................................................................... 9-113

31 9-9 Saluda Alternative Site Region .................................................................................... 9-126

32 9-10 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

33 Justice Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site ................................................................ 9-150

34 9-11 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

35 Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site ............................................................................ 9-151

36 9-12 Savannah River Alternative Site Region ...................................................................... 9-162
April 2010 xxiii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9-13 Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

2 Justice Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site ............................... 9-186

3 9-14 Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

4 Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site............................................ 9-187

5 

6 
Draft NUREG-1939 xxiv April 2010 

1 Tables 

2 2-1 Land Use and Land Cover in the Vicinity and Region of the VCSNS Site ....................... 2-7

3 2-2 Land Use and Land Cover in Potentially Affected SCE&G Transmission-Line 

4 Corridors ........................................................................................................................ 2-12

5 2-3 Land Use in Potentially Affected Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Corridors ............ 2-13

6 2-4 Summary of Reservoir Characteristics ......................................................................... 2-18

7 2-5 Broad River Flow Characteristics at Three Gauges Near the VCSNS Site ................... 2-19

8 2-6 Broad River Flow Characteristics Calculated by the Review Team ............................... 2-19

9 2-7 Annual Water Use Within South Carolina ...................................................................... 2-27

10 2-8 Local and Downstream Surface-Water Users Reported by SCE&G for 2004 ............... 2-27

11 2-9 Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2004 ............................................................................ 2-31

12 2-10 Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2005 ............................................................................ 2-32

13 2-11 Monticello Reservoir Water-Quality Data for 2006 ........................................................ 2-33

14 2-12 Mayo Creek Water-Quality Data for 2008 and 2009 ...................................................... 2-35

15 2-13 USGS Flow and Temperature Monitoring on the Broad River ....................................... 2-36

16 2-14 Land-Use Categories and Acreage on the VCSNS Site ................................................ 2-40

17 2-15 Avian Species Observed on the VCSNS Site ................................................................ 2-44

18 2-16 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Occurring Within and in the Vicinity 

19 of the VCSNS Site ......................................................................................................... 2-48

20 2-17 Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species in Counties Crossed by the 

21 Proposed Transmission-Line Corridors ......................................................................... 2-52

22 2-18 Fish Species Sampled from 2006-2009 Survey Efforts in Mayo Creek and Parr 

23 and Monticello Reservoirs ............................................................................................. 2-58

24 2-19 VCSNS Onsite Stream Characteristics .......................................................................... 2-64

25 2-20 Aquatic Species Designated as Threatened, Endangered, or Species of Concern 

26 in the Transmission-Line Siting Studies ........................................................................ 2-66

27 2-21 Summary of Recreational Fish Species Known to Occur in Parr or Monticello 

28 Reservoirs ..................................................................................................................... 2-69

29 2-22 Aquatic Invasive Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Site ...... 2-73

30 2-23 Historical and Projected Populations for Counties in the VCSNS Region ..................... 2-84

31 2-24 Selected 2007 Population Centers in the VCSNS Region ............................................. 2-85

32 2-25 2000 Age and Gender Distribution Near the VCSNS Site ............................................. 2-85

33 2-26 High-Capacity Recreation Areas in the Region ............................................................. 2-86

34 2-27 Minority and Low-Income Populations ........................................................................... 2-88

35 2-28 VCSNS Unit 1 Operations Employment by County and State ....................................... 2-89
April 2010 xxv Draft NUREG-1939 

1 2-29 Employment Trends in the Region ................................................................................ 2-90

2 2-30 2007 Local Employment by Industry in Four Local Counties ......................................... 2-91

3 2-31 2006-2008 Construction Industry Occupational Employment in the Columbia 

4 Metropolitan Area .......................................................................................................... 2-92

5 2-32 Annual Median Family Income by County for the Four-County Economic Impact 

6 Area ............................................................................................................................... 2-93

7 2-33 2003-2008 Property Tax Revenue Trends Related to VCSNS Unit 1 ........................... 2-94

8 2-34 2008 Annual Average Daily Traffic for Selected Routes in the Vicinity of the 

9 VCSNS Site ................................................................................................................... 2-95

10 2-35 2000 Census Housing Characteristics in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Site ...................... 2-97

11 2-36 Public Groundwater Supply Resources Near the VCSNS Site ...................................... 2-99

12 2-37 Public Surface-Water Supply Resources by County in the Economic Impact Area 

13 of the VCSNS Site ....................................................................................................... 2-100

14 2-38 Public Wastewater-Treatment Systems by County in the Economic Impact Area of 

15 the VCSNS Site ........................................................................................................... 2-101

16 2-39 Law Enforcement Personnel 2005 by County in the Economic Impact Area of the 

17 VCSNS Site ................................................................................................................. 2-102

18 2-40 Fire Protection Personnel by County in the Economic Impact Area of the VCSNS 

19 Site .............................................................................................................................. 2-103

20 2-41 2007 Arrests per 1000 for Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties ..... 2-105

21 2-42 Hospital Data for Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties ................... 2-105

22 2-43 School Characteristics in the VCSNS Economic Impact Area ..................................... 2-106

23 2-44 Fairfield County Public School Free and Reduced Meal Eligibility .............................. 2-107

24 2-45 Colleges and Universities in the VCSNS Region ......................................................... 2-107

25 2-46 Regional Minority and Low-Income Populations by Census Block Analysis Results .. 2-109

26 2-47 VCSNS Archaeological Sites Identified – Phase I/II Investigations ............................. 2-120

27 2-48 Maximum Annual Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for the Dose 

28 Evaluation Periphery, Nearest Residence, Nearest Meat Animal, Nearest Milk 

29 Animal, and Nearest Vegetable Garden ...................................................................... 2-138

30 3-1 Summary of New 230-kV Transmission Lines for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ...... 3-16

31 3-2 Descriptions and Examples of Activities Associated with Building Proposed Units 

32 2 and 3 ........................................................................................................................... 3-20

33 3-3 Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Proposed Units 2 and 3 

34 Construction and Preconstruction ................................................................................. 3-25

35 3-4 Water Quality of Proposed Units 2 and 3 Blowdown Effluent ....................................... 3-29

36 3-5 Waste Stream Concentration of Water-Treatment Chemicals from Two Units ............. 3-35

37 3-6 Resource Commitments Associated with Units 2 and 3 Operation ............................... 3-37
Draft NUREG-1939 xxvi April 2010 

1 4-1 Land-Use Impacts of the Proposed New Transmission-Line Corridors ........................... 4-9

2 4-2 Affected Wetlands and Stream Buffers in SCE&G’s Proposed New Transmission3 Line Corridors ................................................................................................................ 4-24

4 4-3 Impacts on Land Cover in the Proposed VCSNS-Killian and VCSNS-St. George 

5 Transmission-Line Corridors ......................................................................................... 4-25

6 4-4 Expected Distribution of In-Migrating Construction Workers in the Region at Peak 

7 of Construction .............................................................................................................. 4-48

8 4-5 Annual Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers and Construction 

9 Materials to and/or from the VCSNS Site for a Single AP1000 Reactor ........................ 4-77

10 4-6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts when Building Proposed VCSNS 

11 Units 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................. 4-84

12 4-7 Summary of Impacts from Construction and Preconstruction of Proposed VCSNS 

13 Units 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................. 4-88

14 5-1 Impacts of Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Water Use on Broad River Flow ................. 5-6

15 5-2 Estimated Spring and Summer Blowdown Plume Temperatures with Assumed 

16 Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth ................................................. 5-11

17 5-3 Estimated Blowdown Plume Temperature Rise Above Ambient Water for Spring 

18 and Summer with Assumed Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth ..... 5-11

19 5-4 Abundance and Biomass of Biota Sampled During the 2005-2006 Geosyntec 

20 VCSNS Unit 1 Impingement Study ................................................................................ 5-25

21 5-5 Expected Property Tax Payments to Fairfield County from Operation of VCSNS 

22 Units 2 and 3 ................................................................................................................. 5-39

23 5-6 Expected Corporate Income Tax Payments to Affected Jurisdictions from 

24 Operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ............................................................................... 5-40

25 5-7 Regulated Source Emissions ......................................................................................... 5-53

26 5-8 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Operations Workers to and from the 

27 VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor................................... 5-60

28 5-9 Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases 

29 from a New Unit ............................................................................................................. 5-65

30 5-10 Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous Effluent 

31 Releases for a New Unit ................................................................................................ 5-67

32 5-11 Comparisons of MEI Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents for a 

33 Single New Nuclear Unit to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Dose Design Objectives ....... 5-68

34 5-12 Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Rates with 40 CFR Part 

35 190(a) Criteria ................................................................................................................ 5-69

36 5-13 Biota Doses for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 .......................................................... 5-72

37 5-14 Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to IAEA 

38 Guidelines for Biota Protection ...................................................................................... 5-73
April 2010 xxvii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5-15 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for the VCSNS Site DBA Calculations ....................... 5-79

2 5-16 DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ..................... 5-80

3 5-17 Mean Environmental Risks from an AP1000 Reactor Severe Accident at the 

4 VCSNS Site ................................................................................................................... 5-84

5 5-18 Comparison of Environmental Risks for an AP1000 Reactor at the VCSNS Site 

6 with Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG7 1150 and the AP1000 at Four Early Site Permit Sites ................................................... 5-85

8 5-19 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal 

9 Events for an AP1000 Reactor at the VCSNS Site with Risks Initiated by Internal 

10 Events for Current Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal Review and 

11 Environmental Risks of the AP1000 Reactor at Other Sites .......................................... 5-86

12 5-20 Comparison of VCSNS SAMDA Site Characteristics with Site Parameters 

13 Specified in AP1000 DCD, Appendix 1B ....................................................................... 5-92

14 5-21 Design Alternatives Considered for SAMDA in the AP1000 DCD ................................. 5-93

15 5-22 Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by SCE&G to Limit Adverse 

16 Impacts During Operation of Proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS Site ..................... 5-95

17 5-23 Characterization of Operational Impacts at the VCSNS Site ......................................... 5-98

18 6-1 Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data ........................................................... 6-2

19 6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by a U.S. Resident from All 

20 Sources ......................................................................................................................... 6-14

21 6-3 Number of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and the 

22 Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor .................................................................................... 6-19

23 6-4 RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments ............................... 6-21

24 6-5 Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel 

25 to the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites ....................................................................... 6-21

26 6-6 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the VCSNS Site and 

27 Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference LWR .................................................... 6-26

28 6-7 Transportation-Route Information for Shipments from the VCSNS Site and 

29 Alternative Sites to the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

30 Nevada .......................................................................................................................... 6-28

31 6-8 RADTRAN 5.6 Normal (Incident-Free) Exposure Parameters ...................................... 6-29

32 6-9 Normal (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from 

33 Shipping Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed 

34 High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain ......................................................... 6-31

35 6-10 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation-Accident Risk Calculations for 

36 the Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor .............................................................................. 6-34
Draft NUREG-1939 xxviii April 2010 

1 6-11 Annual Spent-Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for a Westinghouse AP1000 

2 Reactor at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference 

3 1100-MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation ................................................................. 6-36

4 6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and 

5 Alternative Sites to the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

6 Nevada, Normalized to the Reference LWR.................................................................. 6-37

7 6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site and Alternative 

8 Sites ............................................................................................................................... 6-39

9 6-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site ......... 6-39

10 7-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

11 Considered in the Cumulative Analysis ........................................................................... 7-3

12 7-2 Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates ............................................... 7-28

13 7-3 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

14 Proposed Units 2 and 3 ................................................................................................. 7-37

15 8-1 2022 Forecasted Demand ............................................................................................. 8-16

16 8-2 Potential Impact the Proposed Project Would Have on Baseload Capacity 

17 Resources and Fuel Diversity ........................................................................................ 8-18

18 8-3 Forecasted Cumulative Supply ...................................................................................... 8-23

19 8-4 Final Analysis of the Combined Power Supply and Demand Forecasts for SCE&G 

20 and Santee Cooper ....................................................................................................... 8-24

21 9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation – 2214 

22 MW(e) ............................................................................................................................ 9-14

23 9-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation .............. 9-20

24 9-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources .................... 9-27

25 9-4 Summary of the Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear, Coal-Fired, Natural-Gas26 Fired, and a Combination of Alternatives ...................................................................... 9-28

27 9-5 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives ............................... 9-29

28 9-6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

29 Considered in the FA-1 Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis ....................................... 9-45

30 9-7 Broad River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels ....................................... 9-52

31 9-8 Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the FA-1 Alternative Site, 

32 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors .............................. 9-56

33 9-9 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site ............................ 9-58

34 9-10 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site ................ 9-58

35 9-11 Aquatic Invasive Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the FA-1 

36 Alternative Site .............................................................................................................. 9-64

37 9-12 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the FA-1 

38 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors .... 9-65
April 2010 xxix Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9-13 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Cope Generating Station Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis ....... 9-87

3 9-14 South Fork Edisto River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels .................... 9-92

4 9-15 Federally and State-Listed Species that May Occur on the CGS Alternative Site, 

5 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors .............................. 9-95

6 9-16 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site ............................ 9-96

7 9-17 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site ................ 9-97

8 9-18 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the CGS 

9 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors .. 9-100

10 9-19 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

11 Considered in the Saluda Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis .................................. 9-121

12 9-20 Federally and State-Listed Species that May Occur on the Saluda Alternative Site, 

13 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors ............................ 9-132

14 9-21 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site ...................... 9-134

15 9-22 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site ........... 9-134

16 9-23 Federal and State-listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the Saluda 

17 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors .. 9-138

18 9-24 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

19 Considered in the Savannah River Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis ................... 9-159

20 9-25 Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels ............................... 9-164

21 9-26 Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Combined Water-Use Impact ....................... 9-166

22 9-27 Federally and State-Listed Species that May Occur on the SR Alternative Site, 

23 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors ............................ 9-169

24 9-28 SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site ............................ 9-169

25 9-29 Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site ................. 9-170

26 9-30 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the SR Alternative 

27 Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors .................... 9-173

28 9-31 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites ............ 9-197

29 9-32 Comparison of Impacts on Waters of the United States for the Proposed and Four 

30 Alternative Sites ........................................................................................................... 9-210

31 10-1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

32 Preconstruction Activities .............................................................................................. 10-5

33 10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation ...................................... 10-9

34 10-3 Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits of the Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ............ 10-17

35 10-4 Internal and External Costs of Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ................................. 10-21

36 

April 2010 xxxi Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Executive Summary 

2 By letter dated March 27, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 

3 Commission) received an application from South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for 

4 itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South 

5 Carolina Public Service Authority) for combined construction permits and operating licenses 

6 (combined licenses or COLs) for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 to be 

7 located adjacent to the existing Unit 1 in Fairfield County, South Carolina. The NRC staff’s 

8 review is based on Revision 1 of the Environmental Report (ER), received February 13, 2009, 

9 responses to requests for additional information, and supplemental letters. 

10 On March 2, 2010, SCE&G submitted a joint Federal/State Application for the Department of the 

11 Army Individual Permit to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE application 

12 number is SAC 2007-1852-SIR. 

13 The proposed actions related to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 application are (1) NRC issuance of 

14 COLs for construction and operation of two new nuclear units at the VCSNS site, and (2) 

15 USACE permit action on a Department of the Army (DA) Individual Permit application pursuant 

16 to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

17 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to review and veto USACE 

18 decisions of Section 404 permits. The USACE is participating collaboratively on the review 

19 team. The reactors specified in the application are Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

20 (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactors. The application 

21 references Revision 17 of the AP1000 certified design. 

22 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that 

23 an EIS be prepared for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human 

24 environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of 

25 Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has determined that the 

26 issuance of a COL under 10 CFR Part 52 is an action that requires an environmental impact 

27 statement (EIS). 

28 The purpose of SCE&G’s requested NRC action is to obtain COLs to construct and operate two 

29 baseload nuclear power plants. These licenses are necessary but not sufficient for construction 

30 and operation of the units. A COL applicant must obtain and maintain the necessary permits 

31 from other Federal, State, and local agencies and permitting authorities. Therefore, the purpose 

32 of the NRC’s environmental review of the SCE&G application is to determine if two new nuclear 

33 power plants of the proposed design can be constructed and operated at the VCSNS site 

34 without unacceptable adverse impacts on the human environment. The SCE&G permit 
Draft NUREG-1939 xxxii April 2010 

1 application to the USACE is for work to prepare the site and facilities for a nuclear power2 generation station at the existing VCSNS site. 

3 The NRC began the environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in 

4 the Federal Register on January 5, 2009, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct 

5 scoping. Two scoping meetings were held to obtain public input on the scope of the 

6 environmental review. The first meeting was held in Winnsboro, South Carolina, on January 27, 

7 2009. The second meeting was held in Blair, South Carolina, on January 28, 2009. In addition, 

8 NRC held a public informational meeting for the local community on March 28, 2009. The NRC 

9 staff reviewed the comments received during the scoping process and contacted Federal, State, 

10 Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. 

11 To gather information and to become familiar with the sites and their environs, the NRC and its 

12 contractor, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, visited the VCSNS site and four alternative 

13 sites in March 2009. During the site visits, the NRC staff and its contractor met with SCE&G 

14 staff, public officials, and the public. Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the review team’s 

15 analyses, which consider and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed actions; (2) 

16 potential mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects; (3) the environmental 

17 impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and (4) the NRC staff’s recommendation 

18 regarding the proposed action. 

19 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative 

20 actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

21 Environmental Quality guidance. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, 

22 provides the following definitions of the three significance levels – SMALL, MODERATE, and 

23 LARGE: 

24 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

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

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

27 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

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

29 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

30 Potential mitigation measures were considered for each resource category and are discussed in 

31 the appropriate sections of the EIS. 

32 In preparing this EIS, the NRC staff, its contractor staff, and USACE staff, referred to collectively 

33 as the review team, evaluated the applications, including the ER submitted by SCE&G; 

34 consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and followed the guidance set forth in 
April 2010 xxxiii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP; NRC 2000). In addition, the 

2 review team considered the public comments related to the environmental review received 

3 during the scoping process. Comments within the scope of the environmental review are 

4 included in Appendix D of this EIS. 

5 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental 

6 aspects of the proposed action is that the COLs be issued as requested. This recommendation 

7 is based on (1) the application, including the ER submitted by SCE&G; (2) consultation with 

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

9 consideration of comments related to the environmental review that were received during the 

10 scoping process; and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential 

11 mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. The USACE will base its evaluation of 

12 the DA Individual Permit application on the requirements of USACE regulations, the Clean 

13 Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the USACE public interest review process. The 

14 USACE’s permit decision will be made after issuance of the final EIS. 

15 A 75-day comment period will begin on the date of publication of the EPA Notice of Availability 

16 of the filing of the draft EIS to allow members of the public and agencies to comment on the 

17 results of the environmental review. During this period, the NRC and USACE staff will conduct 

18 a public meeting near the VCSNS site to describe the results of the environmental review, 

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

20 EIS, respond to questions, and accept public comment. The public meeting also serves as the 

21 USACE public hearing, which means a public proceeding conducted for the purpose of 

22 acquiring information or evidence that will be considered in evaluating a proposed DA permit 

23 action and that affords the public an opportunity to present their views, opinions, and information 

24 on such permit actions or Federal projects. After the comment period, the review team will 

25 consider all the comments received during the comment period. These comments and review 

26 team responses will be included in the final EIS. 

27 The NRC staff’s evaluation of the site safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the 

28 proposed action will be addressed in the NRC’s final Safety Evaluation Report. 

April 2010 xxxv Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Abbreviations/Acronyms 

2 7Q10 lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade 

3 AADT annual average daily traffic 

4 ac acre(s) 

5 ACE Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto (river basin) 

6 ac-ft acre feet 

7 ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

8 A.D. Anno Domini 

9 ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

10 AIS (South Carolina) Aquatic Invasive Species (Task Force) 

11 ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

12 AP1000 Advanced Passive 1000 pressurized water reactor 

13 APE Area of Potential Effect 

14 ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

15 AQCR Air Quality Control Region 

16 AQI Air Quality Index 

17 

18 BA biological assessment 

19 BACT Best Available Control Technologies 

20 BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

21 BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 

22 BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

23 BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

24 BMP best management practice 

25 BOD biochemical oxygen demand 

26 BP Before Present 

27 Bq becquerel(s) 

28 BRWMA Broad River Wildlife Management Area 

29 Btu British thermal unit(s) 

30 

31 °C degree(s) Celsius 

32 C&D construction and demolition debris 

33 CAA Clean Air Act 

34 CBS Carnagey Biological Services 

35 CDC U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

36 CDF core damage frequency 

37 CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 

38 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

39 CFL compact fluorescent light 
Draft NUREG-1939 xxxvi April 2010 

1 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

2 cfs cubic foot/feet per second 

3 CGS Cope Generating Station 

4 Ci curie(s) 

5 cm centimeter(s) 

6 CO carbon monoxide 

7 CO2 carbon dioxide 

8 COL combined construction permit and operating license 

9 COLA combined license application 

10 CORMIX Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System 

11 CPCN Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and 

12 Necessity 

13 CWA Clean Water Act (aka Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 

14 CWIS cooling-water intake structure 

15 CWS circulating-water system 

16 CY calendar year 

17 

18 d day(s) 

19 DA Department of the Army 

20 DAR Daughters of the American Revolution 

21 dB decibel(s) 

22 dBA decibel(s) on the A-weighted scale 

23 DBA design basis accident 

24 DCD Design Control Document 

25 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

26 DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

27 D/Q deposition factor(s); annual normalized total surface concentration rate(s) 

28 DSM demand-side management 

29 DTS demineralized water treatment 

30 

31 EA environmental assessment 

32 EAB exclusion area boundary 

33 EDE effective dose equivalent 

34 EE/DSM energy efficiency/demand-side management 

35 EIA Energy Information Administration 

36 EIS environmental impact statement 

37 ELF extremely low frequency 

38 EMF electromagnetic field 

39 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

40 EPACT Energy Policy Act 

41 EPC Engineer, Procure, Construct (contract) 
April 2010 xxxvii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

2 EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (Index) 

3 ER Environmental Report 

4 ESA Endangered Species Act 

5 ESP Early Site Permit 

6 ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan 

7 

8 °F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

9 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

10 FES Final Environmental Statement 

11 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

12 FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

13 FP&S Facilities Planning & Siting 

14 FPC Federal Power Commission 

15 fps foot (feet) per second 

16 FPSF Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility 

17 FR Federal Register 

18 FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

19 FSER Final Safety Evaluation Report 

20 ft foot/feet 

ft2 21 square foot/feet 

ft3 22 cubic foot/feet 

23 FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

24 

25 μg microgram(s) 

26 g gram(s) 

27 gal gallon(s) 

28 GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Council 

29 GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

30 GHG greenhouse gas 

31 GI-LLI gastrointestinal lower large intestine

32 GIS geographic information system 

33 gpd gallon(s) per day 

34 gpm gallon(s) per minute 

35 

36 HLW high-level waste 

37 hr hour(s) 

38 HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

39 Hz hertz 

40 

41 I U.S. Interstate 
Draft NUREG-1939 xxxviii April 2010 

1 IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

2 IEA International Energy Agency 

3 ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

4 IEA International Energy Agency 

5 IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle 

6 in. inch(es) 

7 IRP Integrated Resource Plan 

8 IRWST in-containment refueling water storage tank 

9 ISFSI independent spent-fuel storage installation 

10 

11 kg kilogram(s) 

12 km kilometer(s) 

km2 13 square kilometer(s) 

14 km/hr kilometer(s) per hour 

15 kV kilovolt(s) 

16 kW kilowatt(s) 

17 kW(e) kilowatt(s) electric 

18 kWh kilowatt-hour(s) 

19 

20 L liter(s) 

21 Ldn day night average sound level 

22 LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

23 lb pound(s) 

24 LFG landfill-based gas 

25 LLC Limited Liability Company 

26 LLW low-level waste 

27 LOCA loss-of-coolant accident 

28 LOS level of service 

29 LPZ low-population zone 

30 LTRA Long-Term Reliability Assessment 

31 LWA Limited Work Authorization 

32 LWD large woody debris 

33 LWR light water reactor 

34 

35 m meter(s) 

m2 36 square meter(s) 

m3 37 cubic meter(s) 

m3 38 /s cubic meter(s) per second 

39 mA milliampere(s) 

40 mg milligram(s) 

41 MEI maximally exposed individual 
April 2010 xxxix Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Mgd million gallon(s) per day 

2 mGy milligray(s) 

3 MHW mean high water 

4 mi mile(s) 

mi2 5 square mile(s) 

6 MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

7 mL milliliter(s) 

8 mm millimeter 

9 MMTCE million metric tons of carbon equivalent 

10 MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

11 MOX mixed oxides 

12 mpg mile(s) per gallon 

13 mph mile(s) per hour 

14 mrad millirad 

15 mrem millirem 

16 msl mean sea level 

17 mSv millisievert(s) 

18 MT metric ton(nes) 

19 MTU metric ton(nes) uranium 

20 MW megawatt(s) 

21 MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

22 MWh megawatt-hour(s) 

23 MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

24 MWd megawatt-day(s) 

25 

26 NA not applicable 

27 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

28 NAVD Northern American Vertical Datum 

29 NCBI North Carolina Biotic Index 

30 NCI National Cancer Institute 

31 NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

32 NCW&SA Newberry County Water & Sewer Authority 

33 NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

34 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

35 NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

36 NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

37 NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

38 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

39 NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

40 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

41 NO2 nitrogen dioxide 
Draft NUREG-1939 xl April 2010 

1 NOx nitrogen oxides 

2 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

3 NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

4 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

5 NSA New South Associates 

6 NSPS new source performance standard 

7 NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units 

8 NUREG U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical document 

9 NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

10 

11 O3 ozone 

12 ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

13 OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 

14 OL operating license 

15 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

16 OW observation well 

17 

18 p. page 

19 PAM primary amoebic meningoencephalitis 

20 PARS Publicly Available Records System 

21 PBA powerblock area 

22 pCi picocurie(s) 

23 pH measure of acidity or basicity in solution 

24 PIR Public Interest Review 

25 PIRF Public Interest Review Factor 

26 PK–12 preschool through 12th grade 

27 PM particulate matter 

28 PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

29 PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 2.5 microns or less 

30 pp. pages 

31 ppm part(s) per million 

32 PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

33 PSC Public Service Commission 

34 PSCSC Public Service Commission of South Carolina 

35 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration (Permit) 

36 PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act 

37 PV photovoltaic 

38 

39 QL quantification limit 

40 
April 2010 xli Draft NUREG-1939 

1 rad radiation absorbed dose 

2 RAI Request(s) for Additional Information 

3 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 

4 rem roentgen equivalent man 

5 REMP radiological environmental monitoring program 

6 RFP Request for Proposal 

7 RIMS II Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

8 ROI region of interest 

9 RRS (SERC’s) Reliability Review Subcommittee 

10 Ryr reactor year 

11 

12 μS/cm microsievert(s) per centimeter 

13 s or sec second(s) 

14 SACTI Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact (prediction code) 

15 SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

16 SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternative 

17 Santee Cooper The State-owned electric and water utility, formally called South Carolina Public 

18 Service Authority. 

19 SC South Carolina 

20 SCBCB South Carolina Budget and Control Board 

21 SCDAH South Carolina Department of Archives and History 

22 SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

23 SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

24 SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation 

25 SCE&G South Carolina Electric and Gas 

26 SCFC South Carolina Forestry Commission 

27 SCIAA South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 

28 SCORS South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics 

29 SCR selective catalytic reduction 

30 SCS Santee-Cooper System 

31 SER Safety Evaluation Report 

32 SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council 

33 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office (or Officer) 

34 SO2 sulfur dioxide 

35 SOx oxides of sulfur 

36 SR Savannah River (alternative site) 

37 SRP Savannah River Plant 

38 SRS Savannah River Site 

39 SSC structures, systems, or components 

40 SU Standard Unit(s) 

41 Sv sievert(s) 
Draft NUREG-1939 xlii April 2010 

1 SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan 

2 SWS service-water system 

3 

4 T ton(s) 

5 TBD to be determined 

6 T&E threatened and endangered 

7 TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

8 TDS total dissolved solids 

9 TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

10 THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

11 TLD thermoluminescent dosimeters 

12 TRC TRC Companies, Inc. 

13 

14 UC University of Chicago 

15 UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

16 UMTRI University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

17 UO2 uranium dioxide 

18 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

19 USC United States Code 

20 USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

21 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

22 USFA U.S. Fire Administration 

23 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

24 US U.S. (State Highway) 

25 

26 VACAR Virginia-Carolinas (subregion) 

27 VCSNS Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

28 VEGP Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

29 VOC volatile organic compound 

30 

31 Webb R.S. Webb and Associates 

32 Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

33 WHO World Health Organization 

34 WWTP wastewater-treatment plant 

35 WY water year (October 1 through September 30) 

36 

37 /Q atmospheric dispersion factor(s); annual average normalized air concentration 

38 value(s) 

39 
April 2010 xliii Draft NUREG-1939 

1 yd yard(s) 

yd3 2 cubic yard(s) 

3 yr year(s) 

yr-1 4 per year 

5 

6 

7 

April 2010 1-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 1.0 Introduction 

2 By letter dated March 27, 2008, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an 

3 application from South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee 

4 Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public 

5 Service Authority), for combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) for two 

6 new nuclear reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, 

7 South Carolina (SCE&G 2008). The location of the proposed reactors is approximately 1 mi 

8 south of the existing VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2009a). The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

9 would be jointly owned by SCE&G (55 percent) and Santee Cooper (45 percent), and operated 

10 by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a). VCSNS Unit 1 is also jointly owned by SCE&G (66.7 percent) and 

11 Santee Cooper (33.3 percent), and operated by SCE&G (NRC 2004). With the exception of the 

12 transmission systems needed to route power from the proposed units, all of the construction 

13 and operation related to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be completely within the confines of the 

14 VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009b). On March 2, 2010, SCE&G submitted an application to the U.S. 

15 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to conduct 

16 construction activities that would result in alteration of waters of the United States, including 

17 wetlands. 

18 The proposed actions in these two applications are (1) NRC issuance of COLs for constructing 

19 and operating two new nuclear power reactors at the VCSNS site in Fairfield County, South 

20 Carolina, and (2) USACE issuance of permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water 

21 Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1344), as amended, by the Clean Water Act of 1977 

22 (33 USC 1251 et seq.) (hereafter referred to as the Clean Water Act) and Section 10 of the 

23 Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403). The USACE is participating in 

24 the preparation of this environmental impact statement (EIS) as a cooperating agency. The 

25 COL and DA permit applications, as well as review processes for the NRC and the USACE, are 

26 described in Section 1.1.1. 

27 1.1 Background 

A COL is a Commission(a) 28 approval for constructing and operating one or more nuclear power 

29 facilities. NRC regulations related to COLs are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

30 Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Subpart C. 

 

(a) The Commission is the NRC body of up to five commissioners that formulates policies, develops regulations 

governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal matters. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1939 1-2 April 2010 

1 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 

2 4321 et seq.) directs that an EIS be prepared for major Federal actions that have the potential to 

3 significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 

4 102 of NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51. Further, in 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC has determined that the 

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

6 According to 10 CFR 52.80(b), an application for a COL must contain an Environmental Report 

7 (ER). The ER provides input that the NRC staff evaluates in preparing the NRC’s EIS. NRC 

8 regulations related to ERs and EISs are found in 10 CFR Part 51. 

9 1.1.1 Applications and Reviews 

10 The objective of SCE&G’s requested NRC action is to obtain two COLs to construct and operate 

11 two baseload nuclear power reactors. In addition to the COLs, SCE&G must obtain and 

12 maintain permits from other Federal, State, and local agencies and permitting authorities. The 

13 objective of SCE&G’s requested USACE action is to obtain a DA permit to perform regulated 

14 dredge-and-fill activities that would affect wetlands and other waters of the United States and to 

15 erect overhead transmission lines across navigable waters. Collectively, the NRC staff 

16 (including its contractor staff at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) and USACE staff who 

17 reviewed the ER and decided on impact levels are referred to as the “review team” throughout 

18 this EIS. 

19 1.1.1.1 NRC COL Application Review

20 The objective of the NRC environmental review of the SCE&G application is to determine 

21 whether two nuclear reactors of the proposed design can be constructed and operated at the 

22 VCSNS site. SCE&G submitted Revision 1 of its ER on February 13, 2009 (SCE&G 2009a). 

23 The ER focuses on the environmental effects of constructing and operating two Westinghouse 

24 Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water 

25 reactors at the VCSNS site. The NRC standards for review of a COL application are outlined in 

26 10 CFR 52.81. Detailed guidance for conducting the environmental portion of the review is 

27 found in guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, the Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) 

28 (NRC 2000) and recent updates, hereinafter referred to as the ESRP. 

29 The SCE&G application references Revision 17 of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor certified 

30 design (Westinghouse 2008). Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52 contains NRC regulations related to 

31 standard design certification. An application for a standard design certification undergoes an 

32 extensive review. Revision 15 of the AP1000 design is codified in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. 

33 The NRC staff is currently reviewing Revision 17. Where appropriate, this EIS incorporates 

34 results of the review of Revision 15 and insights from the ongoing review of Revision 17. 

35 (Additional information about design certification is discussed in Section 3.2.1.) 
Introduction 

April 2010 1-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 In this EIS, the NRC staff evaluates the environmental effects of two Westinghouse AP1000 

2 reactors at the VCSNS site. In addition to considering the environmental effects of the 

3 proposed action, the NRC considers alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action 

4 alternative and the building and operation of new reactors at alternative sites. Also, the benefits 

5 of the proposed action (e.g., meeting an identified need for power) and measures and controls 

6 to limit adverse impacts are evaluated. 

7 After acceptance of the SCE&G application, the NRC began the environmental review process 

8 described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing in the Federal Register (FR) on January 5, 2009, a 

9 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping in compliance with requirements set 

10 forth in 10 CFR Part 51 (74 FR 323). Two scoping meetings were held to obtain public input on 

11 the scope of the environmental review. The first meeting was held in Winnsboro, South 

12 Carolina, on January 27, 2009. The second meeting was held in Blair, South Carolina, on 

13 January 28, 2009. The staff reviewed the comments received during the scoping process and 

14 responses were developed for each substantive comment. Comments and responses for 

15 comment categories that are within the scope of the NRC environmental review are included in 

16 Appendix D. A complete list of the scoping comments and responses is documented in the 

17 V.C. Summer Combined License Scoping Summary Report (NRC 2009a). 

18 The NRC also held a public informational meeting for the local community on March 28, 2009, 

19 at McCrorey-Liston Elementary School in Blair, South Carolina. The March 28 meeting was an 

20 informal open house at which members of the public could engage NRC staff and ask questions 

21 about the NRC’s environmental review process. A meeting summary is available electronically 

22 from ADAMS (NRC 2009b) 

23 To gather information and to become familiar with the proposed and alternative sites and their 

24 environs, the review team visited the VCSNS site and four alternative sites in March 2009. 

25 During the VCSNS site visits, the NRC staff met with SCE&G staff, public officials, and the 

26 public. The staff reviewed the comments received during the scoping process and contacted 

27 Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. A list of the 

28 organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B of this EIS. Other documents related to the 

29 VCSNS site and alternative sites were reviewed and are listed as references where appropriate. 

30 To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative 

31 actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts based on Council on 

32 Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance (40 CFR 1508.27). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, 

33 Subpart A, Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels 

34 established by the NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE: 

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. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1939 1-4 April 2010 

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

2 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

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

4 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

5 This EIS presents the review team’s analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental 

6 impacts of the proposed action at the VCSNS site, including the environmental impacts 

7 associated with constructing and operating reactors at the site, the impacts of constructing and 

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

9 COLs, and the mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

10 effects. This EIS also provides the NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission 

11 regarding the issuance of the COLs for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

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

13 Protection Agency (EPA) Notice of Availability of the draft EIS to allow members of the public to 

14 comment on the results of the NRC staff’s review. A public meeting will be held near the 

15 VCSNS site during the public comment period. During this public meeting, the staff will describe 

16 the results of the NRC environmental review, provide members of the public with information to 

17 assist them in formulating comments on the draft EIS, respond to questions, and accept 

18 comments. After the comment period, the review team will consider all submitted comments. 

19 Comments within the scope of the environmental review will be addressed in the final EIS. 

20 1.1.1.2 USACE Permit Application Review 

21 The USACE role as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS is intended to provide 

22 the environmental information USACE needs to meets its NEPA obligation, complete its review, 

23 and draw conclusions regarding the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

24 (LEDPA), public good, and the Public Interest Review Factors (PIRFs) for its permitting 

25 decision. The USACE Record of Decision regarding the aforementioned permit application will 

26 reference those analyses and present any additional information required by USACE to support 

27 its permit decision. 

28 In this EIS, the USACE evaluates certain construction and maintenance activities proposed in 

29 waters of the United States, including wetlands that would be affected by the proposed project. 

30 The USACE decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and use of important 

31 resources. The benefit that may reasonably be expected to accrue from the proposal must be 

32 balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. 

33 The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, 

34 including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended effect on the public 

35 interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts that the proposed activity may have on the public 
Introduction 

April 2010 1-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 interest requires a careful weighing of all of the factors that become relevant in each particular 

2 case. A decision by the USACE to authorize this proposal, and if so, the conditions under which 

3 it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of this general balancing 

4 process. All factors that may be relevant to the proposal must be considered, including the 

5 cumulative effects thereof. The USACE PIRFs are listed and described more fully in 

6 Appendix I. 

7 For activities involving discharges regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will 

8 be denied if the discharge would not comply with the EPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines for 

9 Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material found at 40 CFR Part 230 (hereafter 

10 the 404 (b)(1) Guidelines). Subject to the aforementioned guidelines and any other applicable 

11 guidelines and criteria (see 33 CFR 320.2 and 320.3), a permit will be granted unless the 

12 USACE district engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest. The 

13 following general criteria are considered in the evaluation of every application: 

14  the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work 

15  where there are unresolved conflicts about resource use, the practicability of using 

16 practicable and reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of 

17 the proposed structure or work 

18  the extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects that the proposed 

19 structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited. 

20 1.1.2 Preconstruction Activities 

21 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of 

22 “construction” (10 CFR 50.10 and 51.4) to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority. 

23 Many of the activities required to construct a nuclear power plant are not within NRC’s 

24 regulatory authority. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview 

25 of the NRC action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities 

26 include clearing and grading, excavating, erecting support buildings and transmission lines, and 

27 other associated activities. These preconstruction activities may take place before the 

28 application for a COL is submitted, during the staff’s review of a COL application, after a COL is 

29 granted, or in some cases, concurrently with NRC-regulated construction. Although 

30 preconstruction activities are outside the NRC’s regulatory authority, many of them are within 

31 the regulatory authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies, including certain 

32 preconstruction activities that require permits from the USACE. 

33 Because the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, their impacts are not 

34 reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the preconstruction 

35 activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. In addition, certain 

36 preconstruction activities that require permits from the USACE are viewed by that agency as 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1939 1-6 April 2010 

1 direct effects related to its Federal permitting action. Chapter 4 describes the relative magnitude 

2 of impacts related to preconstruction and construction activities. 

3 1.1.3 Cooperating Agencies 

4 NEPA lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead agency preparing an EIS and 

5 other Federal agencies that may have jurisdiction by law or special expertise regarding an 

6 environmental issue. These other agencies are referred to as “cooperating agencies.” 

7 Cooperating agencies have the responsibility to assist the lead agency through early 

8 participation in the NEPA process, including scoping, by providing technical input to the EIS and 

9 by making staff support available as needed by the lead agency. 

10 Most proposed nuclear power plants require a permit from the USACE, where impacts are 

11 proposed on waters of the United States, in addition to a license from the NRC. Therefore, the 

12 NRC and the USACE concluded that the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in 

13 the review of nuclear power projects would be achieved by a cooperative agreement. On 

14 September 12, 2008, the NRC and the USACE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

15 regarding the review of nuclear power plant license applications (USACE and NRC 2008). 

16 Therefore, the Charleston District of the USACE is a cooperating agency as defined in 

17 10 CFR 51.14. 

18 As described in the MOU, the NRC is the lead Federal agency, and the USACE is a cooperating 

19 agency in the development of the EIS. Under Federal law, each agency has jurisdiction related 

20 to portions of the proposed project. The goal of this cooperative agreement is the development 

21 of one EIS that serves the needs of both the NRC license decision process and the USACE 

22 permit decision process. While both agencies must comply with the requirements of NEPA, 

23 they also have mission requirements that must be met in addition to the NEPA requirements. 

24 The NRC makes license decisions under the Atomic Energy Act, and the USACE makes permit 

25 decisions under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act. 

26 The USACE is cooperating with the NRC to ensure that the information presented in the NEPA 

27 documentation is adequate to fulfill the requirements of USACE regulations, the EPA’s Clean 

28 Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230), which contain the substantive 

29 environmental criteria used by the USACE in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material 

30 into waters of the United States, and the USACE public interest review process. 

31 As a cooperating agency, the USACE is part of the NRC review team and is involved in all 

32 aspects of the environmental review, including scoping, public meetings, public comment 

33 resolution, and EIS preparation. The USACE refers to public meetings as hearings, but there is 

34 no adjudicatory process involved as there is for NRC hearings conducted by the Atomic Safety 

35 and Licensing Board. For the purposes of assessing environmental impacts under NEPA, the 

36 EIS uses the SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE criteria discussed in Section 1.1.1.1 of this 

37 chapter; this approach has been vetted by the CEQ. However, for permit decisions under 
Introduction 

April 2010 1-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the USACE can only permit the LEDPA and must address 

2 PIRFs. This EIS is intended to provide the information about the environmental impacts 

3 necessary to allow the USACE to address the public interest in the Record of Decision 

4 associated with the permit decision. However, some of the PIRFs not specifically related to 

5 environmental impact, such as mineral needs, are not addressed in this EIS. 

6 The timing of the preparation of the EIS compared to the timing of the USACE permit review is 

7 such that the USACE will not have completed its assessment of the LEDPA criterion until it 

8 receives public feedback in the form of public comments on the draft EIS. The USACE will 

9 address whether the LEDPA criterion is met in the Record of Decision. The goal of the process 

10 is for the USACE to have all of the information necessary to make a permit decision when the 

11 final EIS is issued. However, it is possible that the USACE will still need some information from 

12 SCE&G to complete the permit documentation – information that SCE&G could not make 

13 available by the time of final EIS issuance. Also, any conditions required by the USACE, such 

14 as compensatory mitigation, will be addressed in the permit issued by the USACE. Mitigation is 

15 an important aspect of the review and balancing process on many DA permit applications. 

16 Consideration of mitigation will occur throughout the permit application-review process and 

17 includes avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating for resource losses. 

18 Losses will be avoided to the extent practicable. Compensation may occur onsite or at an 

19 offsite location. 

20 1.1.4 Concurrent NRC Reviews 

21 In reviews separate from the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety characteristics of the 

22 proposed site and emergency planning information. These analyses are documented in a 

23 Safety Evaluation Report (SER). The SER presents the conclusions reached by the NRC 

24 regarding (1) whether there is reasonable assurance that two new reactors can be constructed 

25 and operated along with the existing unit at the VCSNS site without undue risk to the health and 

26 safety of the public; (2) whether the emergency preparedness program meets the applicable 

27 requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 52, 10 CFR Part 73, and 10 CFR Part 100; and 

28 (3) whether site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and measures can be 

29 developed (10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 52, 10 CFR Part 73, and 10 CFR Part 100). The final 

30 SER for SCE&G’s COL application is expected to be published as a NUREG document in the 

31 future. Revision 1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for SCE&G’s COL application 

32 was published on July 9, 2009 (SCE&G 2009c).

33 The reactor design referenced in the application is Revision 17 of the AP1000 certified design 

34 (Westinghouse 2008). The amended AP1000 design is currently undergoing review. If the final 

35 design is different from the design considered in the EIS, the staff will determine whether the 

36 changes are significant enough to warrant an additional environmental review. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1939 1-8 April 2010 

1 1.2 The Proposed Federal Action 

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

3 COLs for the proposed VCSNS site for two new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. The proposed 

4 USACE Federal action is issuance of a permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Rivers and 

5 Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 authorizing certain preconstruction activities that could 

6 potentially affect waters of the United States based on evaluation of the probable impacts, 

7 including cumulative impacts of the proposed construction activities on the public interest. The 

8 DA permit would allow the disturbance via permanent filling of approximately 0.26 ac of 

9 wetlands and 774 linear feet of streams regulated as waters of the United States, as well as the 

10 permanent conversion of 224.2 ac of forested wetlands to nonforested wetlands as a result of 

11 required transmission lines to connect the VCSNS to the electrical grid. 

12 This EIS provides the NRC and USACE analyses of the environmental impacts that could result 

13 from building and operating two new proposed units at the VCSNS site or at each of the four

14 alternative sites. These impacts are analyzed by the NRC to determine whether the proposed 

15 site is suitable for the new units and whether any of the alternative sites are considered 

16 obviously superior to the proposed site. 

17 1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

18 The purpose of and need for the proposed NRC and USACE actions are described below. 

19 1.3.1 The NRC’s Proposed Action 

20 The purpose and need for the proposed NRC action (i.e., issuance of COLs) is to provide for 

21 additional baseload electric generating capacity by 2016 and 2019 within the service territories 

22 of SCE&G and Santee Cooper (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G has stated this additional capacity is 

23 necessary “...to meet future generating needs for baseload power as such needs may be 

24 determined by state and owner decision makers” (SCE&G 2009a). The need for additional 

25 baseload power is discussed in Chapter 8 of this EIS. 

26 Two COLs from the NRC are necessary for constructing and operating the proposed power 

27 plant. Preconstruction and certain long lead-time activities, such as ordering and procuring 

28 certain components and materials necessary to construct the plant, may begin before the COLs 

29 are granted. SCE&G must obtain and maintain permits or authorizations from other Federal, 

30 State, and local agencies and permitting authorities prior to undertaking certain activities. The 

31 ultimate decision whether to build a facility and the schedule for building are not within the 

32 purview of the NRC nor the USACE and would be determined by the license holder if the 

33 authorizations are granted. 
Introduction 

April 2010 1-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 1.3.2 The USACE Permit Action 

2 The SCE&G permit application to the USACE is for work to prepare the site and facilities for a 

3 nuclear power-generation station at the existing VCSNS site. Defining the project objectives is 

4 critical to the evaluation of any project and to evaluating compliance with the Clean Water Act 

5 Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In addition to the NEPA-required purpose and need described 

6 above, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and subsequent 404(q) guidance require that the USACE 

7 define the “basic project purpose” and the “overall project purpose” to verify appropriate 

8 consideration of alternatives. 

9 The basic purpose is the most simple or irreducible objective of the project and is used to 

10 determine whether the applicant’s project is “water dependent” (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). The 

11 water dependency test contained in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines creates a presumption that 

12 activities that do not require access to, proximity to, or siting within special aquatic sites to fulfill 

13 their basic project purpose are not water dependent. Therefore, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines state 

14 that practicable alternatives to non-water-dependent activities are presumed to exist, are less 

15 damaging, and are environmentally preferable to alternatives that involve discharges into 

16 special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands and riffle and pool stream complexes) (40 CFR 

17 230.10(a)(3)). The basic purpose of this project is to generate electricity for additional baseload 

18 capacity. Constructing facilities to create energy supplies is not a water-dependent activity, and 

19 in accordance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, practicable alternatives that do not involve 

20 discharges into special aquatic sites are presumed to exist unless clearly demonstrated 

21 otherwise (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3)). 

22 In addition to defining the basic project purpose, the USACE must also define the overall project 

23 purpose. The overall project purpose establishes the scope of the alternatives analysis and is 

24 used for evaluating practicable alternatives under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. In accordance with 

25 the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and guidance from USACE Headquarters, the overall project purpose 

26 must be specific enough to define the applicant’s needs, but not so narrow and restrictive as to 

27 preclude a proper evaluation of alternatives. The USACE is responsible for controlling every 

28 aspect of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis (HQUSACE 1989). In this regard, defining the 

29 overall project purpose for issuance of USACE permits is the sole responsibility of the USACE. 

30 While generally focusing on the SCE&G’s statement, the USACE will in all cases exercise 

31 independent judgment in defining the purpose and need for the project from both SCE&G’s and 

32 the public’s perspectives (33 CFR Part 325; 53 FR 3120). 

33 The overall purpose of the project is to construct a power-generating facility to provide for 

34 additional baseload electrical generating capacity to meet the growing demand in the State of 

35 South Carolina. The USACE concurs with the stated project purpose and long-term need to 

36 generate electricity to meet the growing demand in South Carolina. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1939 1-10 April 2010 

1 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

2 Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA states that EISs are to include a detailed statement analyzing 

3 alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC regulations for implementing Section 102(2) of 

4 NEPA provide for including in an EIS a chapter that discusses the environmental impacts of the 

5 proposed action and the alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A). This EIS 

6 addresses five categories of alternatives to the proposed action: (1) the no-action alternative, 

7 (2) energy source alternatives, (3) alternative sites, (4) system design alternatives, and 

8 (5) onsite alternatives to reduce impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

9 In the no-action alternative, the proposed action would not go forward. The NRC could deny 

10 SCE&G’s request for the COLs. If the request was denied, the construction and operation of 

11 two new nuclear generating units at the VCSNS site would not occur, nor would any benefits 

12 intended by the approved COLs be realized. The USACE could deny SCE&G’s permit request. 

13 If the permit were defined, SCE&G’s construction of the two new units would not go forward as 

14 proposed. Energy source alternatives include energy-replacement technologies such as oil15 and gas-fired generation and wind power, focusing on alternatives that could generate baseload 

16 power. System design alternatives include heat-dissipation and circulating-water systems, 

17 intake and discharge structures, and water use and treatment systems. Finally, onsite 

18 alternatives evaluated by the USACE to reduce impacts on wetlands and shoreline resources 

19 are described. 

20 In its ER, SCE&G defines a region of interest for use in identifying and evaluating potential sites 

21 for power generation (SCE&G 2009a). In this EIS the NRC staff evaluates the region of 

22 interest, the process by which alternative sites were selected, and the environmental impacts of 

23 construction and operation of new power reactors at those alternative sites using 

24 reconnaissance-level information. Using this process, SCE&G reviewed multiple sites and 

25 identified the suite of candidate sites for this project. The alternative sites included the Fairfield 

26 Unit 1 (FA-1) site, a greenfield site owned by SCE&G on the Broad River in South Carolina; an 

27 existing fossil-fired site owned by SCE&G near Cope, South Carolina; a greenfield site owned 

28 by SCE&G in Saluda County, South Carolina; and the Savannah River Site in Aiken County, 

29 South Carolina (SCE&G 2009a). The objective of the comparison of environmental impacts is 

30 to determine whether any of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable and obviously 

31 superior to the proposed VCSNS site. 

32 As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

33 the USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines 

34 (33 USC 1344; 40 CFR Part 230). These guidelines establish criteria that must be met for the 

35 proposed activities to be permitted pursuant to Section 404. Specifically, these guidelines state, 

36 in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable 

37 alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic 
Introduction 

April 2010 1-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant adverse consequences 

2 (40 CFR 230.10(a)). An area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

3 obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may 

4 be considered if it is otherwise a practicable alternative. 

5 1.5 Compliance and Consultations 

6 Before the construction and operation of the proposed new units, SCE&G is required to obtain 

7 certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as to meet applicable statutory 

8 and regulatory requirements. In its ER (SCE&G 2009a), SCE&G provided a list of 

9 environmental approvals and consultations associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

10 Potential authorizations, permits, and certifications relevant to the proposed COLs are included 

11 in Appendix H of this EIS. The staff reviewed the list and contacted the appropriate Federal, 

12 State, Tribal, and local agencies to identify any compliance, permit, or significant environmental 

13 issues of concern to the reviewing agencies that may affect the acceptability of the VCSNS site 

14 for the construction and operation of the proposed two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. A list of 

15 the key consultation correspondence is provided as Appendix F. 

16 1.6 Report Contents 

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

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

19 nuclear reactor units. Chapter 3 describes the power plant layout, structures, and activities 

20 related to building and operation that are used as the basis for evaluating the environmental 

21 impacts. Chapters 4 and 5 examine the environmental impacts of building (Chapter 4) and 

22 operating (Chapter 5) proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Chapter 6 analyzes the environmental 

23 impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials, and decommissioning, 

24 while Chapter 7 examines the cumulative impacts of the proposed action as defined in 

25 40 CFR 1508.7. Chapter 8 addresses the need for power. Chapter 9 discusses alternatives to 

26 the proposed action and analyzes energy sources, alternative sites and systems, and compares 

27 the proposed action with these alternatives. Chapter 10 summarizes the findings of the 

28 preceding chapters and provides a benefit-cost evaluation; it also presents the staff’s 

29 preliminary recommendation with respect to the Commission’s approval of the proposed site for 

30 COLs based on the NRC staff’s evaluation of environmental impacts. 

31 The appendices to this EIS provide the following additional information. 

32  Appendix A – Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement 

33  Appendix B – Organizations Contacted 

34  Appendix C – Chronology of NRC and USACE Environmental Review Correspondence 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1939 1-12 April 2010 

1  Appendix D – Scoping Comments and Responses 

2  Appendix E – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses 

3  Appendix F – Key Combined License Consultation Correspondence Regarding the Virgil C. 

4 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application; and Biological 

5 Assessments 

6  Appendix G – Supporting Documentation for Radiological Dose Assessment 

7  Appendix H – Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications 

8  Appendix I – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Interest Review Factors 

9  Appendix J – Carbon Dioxide Footprint Estimates for a Reference 1000-MWe Reactor 

10 1.7 References 

11 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

12 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

16 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." 

17 10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, "Physical Protection of 

18 Plants and Materials." 

19 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site 

20 Criteria." 

21 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

22 Part 320, "General Regulatory Policies.” 

23 33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

24 Part 325, "Processing of Department of the Army Permits.” 

25 40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

26 "Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material." 

27 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

28 1508, "Terminology and Index." 
Introduction 

April 2010 1-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 53 FR 3120. February 3, 1988. “Environmental Quality; Procedures for Implementing the 

2 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).” Federal Register. Corps of Engineers, Department 

3 of the Army. 

4 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

5 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

6 74 FR 323. January 5, 2009. “South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Acting for Itself and 

7 as Agent for the South Carolina Public Service Company (Also Referred to as Santee Cooper) 

8 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3; Combined License Application; Notice of Intent 

9 To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process.” Federal 

10 Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

11 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 USC 2011 et seq. 

12 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

13 Act [FWPCA]). 

14 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33 USC 1344. 2008. "Permits for Dredged or Fill 

15 Material." United States Code. 

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

17 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 Section 403. 33 USC 403 as amended. 

18 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 

19 Project No. 743. Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear Station 

20 Units 2 and 3. Revision 0, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

21 ML081300460. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 

23 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

24 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

25 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

26 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

27 May 5, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

28 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

29 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

30 Information Needs: ALT-1/NP-1, AQ-1, AQ-15, G-5, G-6, G-8, and NRHH-2.” NND-09-0110. 

31 Accession No. ML091890158. 
Introduction 

Draft NUREG-1939 1-14 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

2 3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South 

3 Carolina. Accession No. ML092170463. 

4 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

5 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

6 May 11, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 

7 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit Information Needs: 

8 ACC-11, ALT-3, AQ-5, AQ-6, GW-11, LU-3, and SW-12.” NND-09-0126. Accession No. 

9 ML091350104. 

10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters (HQUSACE). 1989. Memorandum from Patrick 

11 J. Kelly, USACE Director of Civil Works, to Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, New 

12 Orleans, regarding "Permit Elevation, Plantation Landing Resort, Inc." April 21, 1989. Available 

13 at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/PlantationLandingRGL.pdf. 

14 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USACE and NRC). 

15 2008. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. 

16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

17 Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants. Accession No. ML082540354. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan— 

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

20 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

22 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

23 Station, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping 

25 Process Summary Report, V. C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Combined License 

26 Fairfield County, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091960347. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun (U.S. 

28 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Project Manager, Office of New Reactors) to Ryan Whited 

29 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Chief, Office of New Reactors) dated May 5, 1009, 

30 “Subject: Summary of Public Meeting to Discuss Environmental Review Process for the Virgil C. 

31 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application” Accession No 

32 ML091140076. 

33 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

34 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

35 ML083230868. 
April 2010 2-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 2.0 Affected Environment 

2 The site proposed by South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) for combined construction 

3 permits and operating licenses (COLs) and a Department of the Army (DA) permit is located in 

4 Fairfield County, South Carolina, 26 mi northwest of the State capital, Columbia, South 

5 Carolina. The proposed Units 2 and 3 would be located approximately 1 mi to the south6 southwest of existing Unit 1 on the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site. The 

7 location of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is described in Section 2.1, with the land use, water, 

8 ecology, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, geology, 

9 meteorology and air quality, and the radiological environment of the site presented in 

10 Sections 2.2 through 2.11, respectively. Section 2.12 examines related Federal projects and 

11 consultations, and references are presented in Section 2.13. 

12 2.1 Site Location 

13 SCE&G’s proposed location for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is shown in Figure 2-1 (SCE&G 2009b). 

14 The centerline of proposed Units 2 and 3 would be located approximately 4700 ft south and 

15 1800 ft west of the center of the existing Unit 1 containment building (SCE&G 2009a). 

16 The VCSNS site is located in an unincorporated area of Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

17 nearest population center to the VCSNS site that has more than 25,000 residents is Columbia, 

18 South Carolina, with a population of population 124,818 in 2007 (SCBCB 2009e). Figure 2-2 

19 shows the location of the VCSNS site in relationship to the counties, cities, and towns within a 

20 50-mi radius of the site (SCE&G 2009b). The VCSNS site is generally bounded by the 

21 Monticello Reservoir to the north, with Interstate 26 (I-26) approximately 13 mi due west and 

22 I-77 approximately 18 mi due east. The Broad River is 1 mi west of the site (Figure 2-3). 

23 Access to the site from the south is via State Highway 215 (SC-215; Monticous Road) then west 

24 on County Road 311 (CR-311; Ollie Bradham Boulevard), which enters the site. Although the 

25 Broad River is considered navigable by the State of South Carolina, it is not considered so by 

26 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and there is no barge access to the site (SCE&G 

27 2009c) but local access points may be used to launch smaller barges and push vessels for 

28 cofferdam work as described in Section 4.3.2.1. Railroad access to the site is from a spur 

29 coming off the Norfolk Southern Railway transportation track from Columbia to Spartanburg 

30 (SCE&G 2009a). Jenkinsville, South Carolina, is the closest community and is located 

31 immediately east and south of the VCSNS site. The closest commercial or public general 

32 aviation airports located within the VCSNS region are the Fairfield County Airport 15 mi to the 

33 east, Newberry County Airport 18.6 mi to the west, Columbia Metropolitan Airport 27 mi to the 

34 south, and Columbia Owens Airport 27 mi south of the site (Maps of the World 2009). The 

35 VCSNS site occupies approximately 3600 ac of land and water within the exclusion area 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-2 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-1. SCE&G’s Proposed Location for VCSNS Units 2 and 3
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-2. The Location of the VCSNS Site in Relationship to the Counties, Cities, and Towns 

3 Within a 50-Mi Radius of the Site (SCE&G 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-4 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-3. Map of the VCSNS Site and Vicinity Within the 6-mi Radius (SCE&G 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 boundary (SCE&G 2009a). The Nuclear Training Facility, which would be used temporarily 

2 during development of the proposed new units, is located on an additional tract of approximately 

3 1000 ac owned by SCE&G south of the site boundary (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 2.2 Land Use 

5 This section discusses land-related issues for the VCSNS site. Section 2.2.1 describes the site 

6 and the vicinity within a 6-mi radius of the site. Section 2.2.2 discusses the existing and proposed 

7 transmission-line corridors and offsite areas. Section 2.2.3 discusses the region, defined as the 

8 area within 50 mi of the center point of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 powerblock footprint. 

9 2.2.1 VCSNS Site and Vicinity 

10 The VCSNS site (see Figure 2-3) is located along the western edge of Fairfield County, South 

11 Carolina, on the southern shore of the Monticello Reservoir. It is in the immediate vicinity of four 

12 counties: Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland, which together make up the Central 

13 Midlands region of the state. 

14 The VCSNS site includes the following components: the existing Unit 1 plant site, part of 

15 Monticello Reservoir, part of the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility, and the proposed locations 

16 for the Units 2 and 3 powerblocks, cooling towers, switchyard, discharge structures and 

17 blowdown lines, the proposed independent spent-fuel storage installation, and the proposed 

18 support facilities and laydown areas associated with the new units (see Figure 2-1). VCSNS 

19 Unit 1, which is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has a net electric 

20 generating capacity of 966 MW(e) (NRC 2004). Unit 1 began commercial operation on 

21 January 1, 1984 (DOE/EIA 2009). The one existing nuclear unit, auxiliary facilities such as the 

22 training center, and transmission-line corridors occupy approximately 492 ac of the VCSNS site. 

23 Another 784 ac extend into the Monticello Reservoir. Most of the remaining VCSNS site area is 

24 mixed forest, some of which is managed for timber production. 

25 The VCSNS site is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small 

26 farms composing the dominant land use. The site is primarily composed of low rolling hills with 

27 elevations ranging from 210 ft to 560 ft above mean sea level (msl). This Piedmont terrain 

28 varies from gently rolling to hilly and includes broad stream valleys. Jenkinsville and Peak are 

29 the closest settlements, although there are also homes built along the Unit 1 access road and 

30 the Monticello Reservoir shoreline. The Broad River flows in a northwest-to-southeast direction 

31 approximately 1 mi west of the site and serves as the boundary between Fairfield County (to the 

32 east) and Newberry County (to the west). 

33 Columbia, South Carolina, the State capital, lies approximately 26 mi southeast of the VCSNS 

34 site. Within the 6-mi radius of the site are the towns of Jenkinsville (immediately east and 

35 south), Peak (1.6 mi from the closest point on the VCSNS property boundary and 3.1 mi from 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-6 April 2010 

1 the centerpoint of the site), and Pomaria (4.5 mi to the closest point on the VCSNS property 

2 boundary and 5.5 mi from the site centerpoint). Small communities in the vicinity include 

3 Dawkins (about 5 mi northwest of the site) and Monticello (about 5 mi northeast of the site). 

4 Winnsboro, the County Seat of Fairfield County lies, 15 mi east of the site. 

5 VCSNS is co-located with a hydroelectric facility known as the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility 

6 (FPSF). The general area has been used for energy production since 1914 when this reach of 

7 the Broad River was impounded for the Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (also Parr 

8 Hydroelectric Plant or Parr Hydro), a small run-of-the-river hydroelectric plant, and Parr 

9 Reservoir was created. Later, a nearby coal-fired power plant operated for decades. Originally 

10 1850 ac in area, the Parr Reservoir was enlarged to approximately 4400 ac in 1977 by raising 

11 the level of the Parr Shoals Dam 9 ft. This modification was necessary to support the 

12 development of the FPSF, which was built on Frees Creek, a small tributary of the Broad River. 

13 Monticello Reservoir was built in the Frees Creek valley to serve as the upper pool for the FPSF 

14 and the source of cooling water for VCSNS Unit 1. Parr Reservoir, which historically had been 

15 the source of water for Parr Hydro, assumed a dual function, providing water for both Parr 

16 Hydro and the FPSF (NRC 2004). 

17 Current primary road access to the VCSNS site is via CR-311 (Ollie Bradham Boulevard), a 

18 two-lane paved road (see Figure 2-3). CR-311 intersects SC-215 approximately 1.5 mi east of 

19 Unit 1. SC-215 has a north-south orientation and is used by employees traveling from Richland 

20 and Fairfield Counties. Employees traveling from Richland and Lexington Counties may use 

21 U.S. Highway 176 (US-176) north to SC-213, which intersects SC-215 approximately 2 to 3 mi 

22 south of the VCSNS site. The site is also accessed by a railroad spur connected to the Norfolk 

23 Southern line. There is no direct access to the site via the Broad River. No natural gas lines or 

24 other fuel lines traverse the site. 

25 The site is zoned as “industrial,” with electricity production and transmission among the 

26 permitted uses (Vismor 1997; Fairfield County 2005). Soil surveys covering the site and 

27 surrounding areas indicated that none of the site contains prime farmland as that term is defined 

28 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service at Title 7 of the 

29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 657.5(a). There is no active farmland on the VCSNS site, 

30 but there are active farms in the vicinity. Most of the site is actively managed for forest 

31 products. No mineral deposits are actively mined on the site, but the vicinity has a significant 

32 blue granite quarrying industry (SCIway 2009). 

33 Portions of the Sumter National Forest lay along the Broad River north of the VCSNS site. In 

34 addition, there are several boat launches and the 4400-ac Parr Hydro Wildlife Management Area 

35 in the vicinity of the Monticello Reservoir. Recreational uses in the vicinity include boating, 

36 fishing, hunting, hiking, and bicycling, and are generally associated with the Monticello Reservoir, 

37 Parr Hydro Wildlife Management Area, and Sumter National Forest. While SCE&G owns public 

38 recreation sites around Monticello Reservoir, the VCSNS site is not open to public recreation. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Land-use and land-cover statistics for the vicinity and region of the VCSNS site are listed in 

2 Table 2-1, and are based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2001) geographic information 

3 system (GIS) data on land cover. 

4 Table 2-1. Land Use and Land Cover in the Vicinity and Region of the VCSNS Site

Land Use/Land Cover 

Site and Vicinity (6 mi) Region (50 mi) 

Acres Percent Acres Percentage 

Fresh water 10,827 13.95 159,273 3.21 

Marsh/emergent wetland 23 0.03 2381 0.05 

Pocosin 0 0.00 1472 0.03 

Swamp 0 0.00 82,765 1.67 

Bottomland/floodplain forest 3145 4.05 284,929 5.74 

Wet soil 0 0.00 3200 0.06 

Wet scrub/shrub thicket 697 0.90 55,828 1.12 

Dry scrub/shrub thicket 3591 4.63 433,269 8.73 

Sandy bare soil 0 0.00 2710 0.05 

Open canopy/recently cleared forest 10,107 13.02 456,723 9.20 

Rock outcrop 3 0.00 486 0.01 

Aquatic vegetation 0 0.00 245 0.00 

Closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland 20,054 25.83 929,537 18.72 

Needle-leaved evergreen mixed forest/woodland 8301 10.69 572,401 11.53 

Pine woodland 0 0.00 21,505 0.43 

Dry deciduous forest/woodland 409 0.53 45,830 0.92 

Mesic deciduous forest/woodland 12,240 15.77 769,774 15.50 

Dry mixed forest/woodland 54 0.07 45,931 0.93 

Mesic mixed forest/woodland 2399 3.09 88,327 1.78 

Grassland/pasture 1171 1.51 124,336 2.50 

Cultivated land 3562 4.59 603,971 12.16 

Urban development 700 0.90 96,969 1.95 

Urban residential 346 0.45 176,845 3.56 

Wet evergreen 0 0.00 6284 0.13 

Total 77,629 100.00 4,964,993 100.00 

Source: USGS 2001 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-8 April 2010 

1 2.2.2 Transmission-Line Corridors 

2 The existing transmission system supporting VCSNS Unit 1 has ten 230-kV lines with one 

3 115-kV line connecting the site to the transmission system. In addition, transmission-line 

4 corridors owned by Duke Energy pass to the northwest of the site but are not connected to 

5 Unit 1. The existing transmission systems owned by SCE&G and Santee Cooper (the State6 owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) in 

7 the vicinity of the VCSNS site are shown in Figure 2-4. 

8 The addition of Units 2 and 3 to the VCSNS site would require six new 230-kV lines (three for 

9 Unit 2, three for Unit 3) (SCE&G 2009a). Three transmission lines would also be required to 

10 connect the Unit 1 switchyard to the switchyards for Unit 2 and Unit 3. Finally, some existing 

11 transmission lines would require upgrading to support transmission for the additional power 

12 through the transmission system. Representative routes for potential new transmission-line 

13 corridors are illustrated in Figure 2-5. 

14 The potential routes of the new transmission lines are described as follows (SCE&G 2009a): 

15  VCSNS-Killian – This SCE&G line would be routed to the vicinity of Winnsboro and then 

16 generally follow the I-77 corridor to connect to the existing Killian substation near Killian, 

17 South Carolina, southeast of the plant and northeast of Columbia. 

18  VCSNS-Flat Creek – This Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Winnsboro 

19 substation near Winnsboro, then to the existing Richburg switching station near Great Falls, 

20 South Carolina, and finally to the existing Flat Creek substation west of Lancaster, South 

21 Carolina. 

22  VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 – This SCE&G line would connect to the existing Lake Murray 

23 switchyard for the McMeekin and Saluda Hydro stations near the eastern boundary of Lake 

24 Murray. 

25  VCSNS-St. George – This double-circuit SCE&G line would connect to a new substation near 

26 St. George, South Carolina. 

27  VCSNS-Varnville – This Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Sandy Run 

28 substation near Sandy Run, then to the Orangeburg substation in Orangeburg, then to the 

29 St. George substation near St. George, and then to the existing Varnville substation near 

30 Varnville, South Carolina, in Hampton County. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-4. Existing Unit 1 Transmission Lines (SCE&G 2009a)
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-10 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-5. VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Representative Routes for Potential New Transmission-Line 

3 Corridors (SCE&G 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-2 and Table 2-3 characterize the representative land uses in the potentially affected 

2 transmission-line corridors for SCE&G’s and Santee Cooper’s corridors, respectively. These 

3 values are based on independent siting studies performed on behalf of each utility (FP&S 2008; 

4 MACTEC 2008). The review team used GIS data supplied by SCE&G (the basis of Figure 2-5) 

5 as a starting point for its review of affected land uses in the existing and proposed transmission6 line corridors. The review team used aerial imagery to estimate corridor width for existing 

7 corridors where widths could not be identified from ER references. To determine which existing 

8 corridors would be expanded, the SCE&G-supplied GIS data for existing transmission lines 

9 were overlaid with the SCE&G-supplied GIS data for the proposed transmission line. Based on 

10 the areas where routing appeared to follow the same corridor, the following existing corridor 

11 expansions were assumed (all corridors that would be expanded by proposed transmission lines 

12 were widened by an extra 100 ft, regardless of existing width): 

13  Approximately 0.85 mi of the Newberry, Graniteville, Ward, and Parr No. 1 and No. 2 corridor 

14 would be expanded to 500 ft due to the addition of the Varnville and St. George lines. 

15  Approximately 5.5 mi of the Newberry, Ward, and Graniteville corridor would be expanded to 

16 300 ft due to the addition of Varnville and St. George lines. 

17  Approximately 23 mi of the remaining Ward and Graniteville line would be expanded to 200 ft 

18 due to the addition of the St. George line. 

19  All of the Lake Murray No. 1 line would be expanded to 200 ft due to the addition of Lake 

20 Murray No. 2 line. 

21  Approximately 17 mi of the Pineland, Blythewood, and Denny Terrace corridor would be 

22 expanded to 340 ft due to the additions of the Flat Creek and Varnville lines. 

23 2.2.3 The Region 

24 The region surrounding the VCSNS site is shown in Figure 2-2. The region consists of the area 

25 within the 50-mi radius of the VCSNS site. It includes several heavily populated counties, but 

26 much of the region surrounding the VCSNS has a low population density. Columbia, the State 

27 capital of South Carolina, Newberry, the County Seat of Newberry County, and Winnsboro, the 

28 County Seat of Fairfield County, are shown in Figure 2-2. 

29 All or portions of 22 counties are within 50 mi of the VCSNS site, 21 of which are in South 

30 Carolina. The largest cities in the region include Columbia (population 124,818 in 2007) 26 mi 

31 to the southeast, Newberry (population 10,893 in 2007) 14 mi to the west, Lexington (population 

32 14,995 in 2007) 15 mi south, and Winnsboro (population 3564 in 2007) 14 mi east of the site 

33 (SCBCB 2009e). The major interstate highways running near the site are I-20, I-26, and I-77. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-12 April 2010 

1 Table 2-2. Land Use and Land Cover in Potentially Affected SCE&G Transmission-Line 

2 Corridors 

Land Use/Land Cover 

VCSNS-Killian VCSNS-St. George VCSNS-Lake Murray 

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent 

Fresh water 0.89 0.20 51.37 1.55 5.56 1.25 

Marsh/emergent wetland 0.22 0.05 10.90 0.33 0.44 0.10 

Pocosin 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.07 0.00 0.00 

Swamp 0.22 0.05 81.17 2.44 0.00 0.00 

Bottomland/floodplain forest 9.79 2.19 317.80 9.56 23.35 5.23 

Wet soil 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.01 1.33 0.30 

Wet scrub/shrub thicket 2.45 0.55 74.28 2.23 1.78 0.40 

Dry scrub/shrub thicket 18.90 4.24 377.18 11.35 23.35 5.23 

Sandy bare soil 5.56 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Open canopy/recently cleared forest 120.76 27.07 269.76 8.11 46.70 10.46 

Rock outcrop 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Closed canopy evergreen 

forest/woodland 

62.05 13.91 311.57 9.37 78.28 17.53 

Needle-leaved evergreen mixed 

forest/woodland 

42.92 9.62 320.69 9.65 80.95 18.13 

Pine woodland 0.00 0.00 2.22 0.07 0.00 0.00 

Dry deciduous forest/woodland 6.89 1.55 45.81 1.38 1.56 0.35 

Mesic deciduous forest/woodland 71.83 16.10 253.97 7.64 78.73 17.63 

Dry mixed forest/woodland 0.67 0.15 63.60 1.91 3.34 0.75 

Mesic mixed forest/woodland 2.45 0.55 129.43 3.89 32.02 7.17 

Grassland/pasture 15.35 3.44 184.81 5.56 13.79 3.09 

Cultivated land 39.36 8.82 716.33 21.55 17.79 3.98 

Urban development 35.81 8.03 33.36 1.00 13.79 3.09 

Urban residential 10.01 2.24 24.91 0.75 23.80 5.33 

Wet evergreen 0.00 0.00 52.49 1.58 0.00 0.00 

Total acreage 446.1 100.00 3324.6 100.00 446.6 100.00 

Linear run (mi) 36.58 134.23 19.06 

Average width (ft) 101 204 193 

Source: USGS 2001 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-3. Land Use in Potentially Affected Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Corridors 

Land Use/Land Cover 

VCSNS-Flat Creek VCSNS-Varnville 

Acres Percent Acres Percent 

Fresh water 11.56 1.18 28.47 1.13 

Marine water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Marsh/emergent wetland 0.00 0.00 55.38 2.20 

Pocosin 0.00 0.00 2.45 0.10 

Swamp 0.00 0.00 64.94 2.58 

Bottomland/floodplain forest 30.91 3.15 185.48 7.37 

Wet soil 0.89 0.09 0.00 0.00 

Wet scrub/shrub thicket 7.78 0.79 134.10 5.33 

Dry scrub/shrub thicket 47.81 4.87 258.20 10.26 

Sandy bare soil 1.56 0.16 0.00 0.00 

Open canopy/recently cleared forest 300.01 30.54 455.91 18.11 

Rock outcrop 5.56 0.57 0.00 0.00 

Aquatic vegetation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland 181.25 18.45 194.37 7.72 

Needle-leaved evergreen mixed forest/woodland 79.62 8.11 207.94 8.26 

Pine woodland 2.89 0.29 2.67 0.11 

Dry deciduous forest/woodland 3.11 0.32 26.24 1.04 

Mesic deciduous forest/woodland 149.23 15.19 189.26 7.52 

Dry mixed forest/woodland 0.00 0.00 34.47 1.37 

Mesic mixed forest/woodland 6.00 0.61 60.49 2.40 

Grassland/pasture 43.37 4.41 77.17 3.07 

Cultivated land 80.06 8.15 346.27 13.76 

Urban development 18.46 1.88 45.81 1.82 

Urban residential 12.23 1.25 125.88 5.00 

Wet evergreen 0.00 0.00 21.57 0.86 

Maritime forest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Beach 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total acreage 982.3 100.00 2517.1 100.00 

Linear run (mi) 71.71 163.4 

Average width (ft) 113 127 

Source: USGS 2001 

2 The closest commercial or public general aviation airports located within the VCSNS region are 

3 the Fairfield County Airport 15 mi to the east, Newberry County Airport 18.6 mi to the west, 

4 Columbia Metropolitan Airport 27 mi to the south, and Columbia Owens Airport 27 mi south of 

5 the site. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-14 April 2010 

1 Table 2-1 characterizes the existing land uses in the affected region. The State of South 

2 Carolina mandates that cities and counties have comprehensive land-use plans to govern 

3 regional growth and associated commercial and residential development. As a result, zoning 

4 ordinances are in effect in all of the affected counties to ensure that new development is 

5 managed and conforms to the intent of the comprehensive plans. 

6 2.3 Water 

7 This section describes the hydrologic processes and waterbodies in and around the VCSNS 

8 site, the existing water use, and the quality of water in the proposed Units 2 and 3 environment. 

9 Building activities would make use of or affect local groundwater, surface water, and public 

10 water supplies. During proposed Units 2 and 3 operations, makeup water for cooling and other 

11 plant uses would be drawn from the Monticello Reservoir. Units 2 and 3 liquid effluents, except 

12 for water-treatment plant return flow, would discharge to the Parr Reservoir. The water13 treatment plant return flow would discharge to Monticello Reservoir. The VCSNS site and these 

14 hydrologic features are shown in Figure 2-6. 

15 Descriptions of the building impacts, operating impacts, cumulative impacts, and alternative 

16 sites and alternative plant systems are provided in sections of Chapters 4, 5, 7, and 9, 

17 respectively. Sections of these chapters that relate to hydrology draw from information 

18 presented in this chapter and the VCSNS Environmental Report (ER) (SCE&G 2009a). 

19 Elevations in this environmental impact statement (EIS) are reported based on either the 

20 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) or the National American Vertical Datum 

21 of 1988 (NAVD88). In the vicinity of the VCSNS site, the NGVD29 is 0.696 ft lower than the 

22 NAVD88. For example, VCSNS Units 2 and 3 have a design plant grade of 400 ft NAVD88 and 

23 400.696 ft NGVD29. 

24 2.3.1 Hydrology 

25 This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrologic features that would affect, or be 

26 altered by, construction, preconstruction, and operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The 

27 hydrologic conditions at the proposed location for Units 2 and 3 are described in Section 2.3 of 

28 the VCSNS ER (SCG&E 2009a) and in Section 2.4 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 

29 (SCE&G 2009i). 

30 2.3.1.1 Surface-Water Hydrology 

31 Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 show the location of the VCSNS site with respect to the Broad River 

32 and its watershed. The VCSNS site is located approximately 150 mi from the Atlantic Ocean. 

33 The only major river near VCSNS is the Broad River, which is approximately 1 mi west of the 
April 2010 2-15 DRAFT NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-6. Major Hydrologic Features Within the 6-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCG&E 2009a) 2 
DRAFT NUREG-1939 2-16 April 2010 

Affected Environment 

1 

Figure 2-7. Major Hydrologic Features Within the 50-mi Radius of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCG&E 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-8. Broad River Basin Upstream of the VCSNS Site, Showing the Nearest Stream3 Flow Gauging Stations (SCG&E 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-18 April 2010 

1 proposed location of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The river reach near the VCSNS site is 

2 approximately 2000 ft wide and has a maximum depth of about 15 ft. The Broad River is 

3 impounded by Parr Shoals Dam (Figure 2-3), which is located about 2 mi downstream of the 

4 proposed locations of the two new units. Above the Parr Shoals Dam, the Broad River 

watershed area is approximately 4550 mi2 5 (SCG&E 2009a). 

6 The Broad River originates in North Carolina at Lake Lure in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The 

7 Broad River drainage is mostly composed of forest and agricultural lands. The Broad and the 

8 Saluda rivers combine to form the Congaree River near Columbia, South Carolina, about 28 mi 

9 southeast of the site (SCG&E 2009a). The Congaree River combines with the Wateree River to 

10 form the Santee River, which discharges to the Atlantic Ocean. 

11 During the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, makeup water for the circulating-water 

12 system would be obtained from the Monticello Reservoir whose storage is controlled by 

13 operation of the FPSF and from withdrawals and exchanges with the Broad River/Parr 

14 Reservoir. The intake structure for Units 2 and 3 would be located on the southern shore of 

15 Monticello Reservoir. Characteristics of Parr Reservoir and Monticello Reservoir are listed in 

16 Table 2-4. Monticello Reservoir was created by four dams (referred to as Dams A, B, C, and D 

17 as noted in Table 2-4) on Frees Creek at the southern end of the reservoir (SCG&E 2009a). 

18 Table 2-4. Summary of Reservoir Characteristics 

Parr Reservoir Monticello Reservoir 

Created by Parr Shoals Dam Dams A, B, C, and D 

Surface Area 4400 ac 6800 ac (including a 300-ac subimpoundment 

for recreational use) (SCE&G 2009a) 

Usable Storage at Crest Elevation 29,000 AF 400,000 AF 

Drainage Area 4550 mi2

 17.4 mi2

Evaporation 50 ac-ft/day 

(25 cfs) 

65 ac-ft/day (33 cfs), plus 44 ac-ft/day (22 cfs) 

from condenser water 

19 The existing VCSNS Unit 1 withdraws water from and discharges it to Monticello Reservoir. 

20 Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir and discharge 

21 it to Parr Reservoir. The discharges to Parr Reservoir would include Units 2 and 3 cooling22 water system blowdown and discharges from the radwaste building. A small discharge from the 

23 proposed water-treatment plant would be made into Monticello Reservoir (SCG&E 2009a). 

24 The two nearest active U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations are at Alston 

25 downstream of the VCSNS site on the Broad River and at Carlisle upstream of the VCSNS site. 

26 A third nearby gauging station (Richtex), located downstream from the Alston station, was 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 discontinued in 1983. The locations of these stations are shown in Figure 2-8. SCE&G 

2 summarized flow characteristics for the Broad River at these three gauging stations (SCE&G 

3 2009a) (see Table 2-5). The summary data reported for Alston and Carlisle in the VCSNS ER 

4 are consistent with those in Water Resources Data, South Carolina, Water Year 2005: Water5 Data Report SC-05-1 published by the USGS in 2006 (Cooney et al. 2006). There is 

6 seasonality in Broad River flows. The review team determined that about 64 percent of the 

7 annual Broad River flow (at Alston, South Carolina) occurs during the 6 months (December to 

8 May) while 36 percent occurs during the remaining months. The review team based these 

9 calculations on data presented by the Cooney et al (2006). 

10 Table 2-5. Broad River Flow Characteristics at Three Gauges Near the VCSNS Site. All 

11 values in the table are reported in cubic feet per second. 

Carlisle Richtex Alston 

Mean Annual Daily Flow 3880 6155 6302 

Highest Annual Mean Flow 5977 NA 11,750 

Lowest Annual Mean Flow 1255 NA 2153 

Annual 7-Day Minimum 220 NA 200 

Maximum Mean Daily Flow 114,000 NA 130,000 

Instantaneous Maximum Flow 123,000 228,000 140,000 

Source: SCE&G 2009a.

12 The reported Broad River flow characteristics are comparable to those independently calculated 

13 by the review team. The values are based on all data that were available as of June 22, 2009, 

14 and are presented in Table 2-6. The USGS data sets only reflect daily averages, so the 

15 maximum instantaneous flows are not included in the following table. Maximum and minimum 

16 values from the data set were determined from the processed daily values; the minimum 7-day 

17 average was similarly determined. 

18 Table 2-6. Broad River Flow Characteristics Calculated by the Review Team (cfs) 

 Carlisle Richtex Alston 

Mean Daily 3767 6228 5950 

Highest Monthly Mean 6088 14,209 12,541 

Highest Daily Mean 114,000 211,000 130,000 

Lowest Daily Mean 44 149 48 

Minimum 7-Day Within CY 206 593 200 

19 The VCSNS ER reports that the annual precipitation in the region is about 45 in. and runoff is 

20 reported to be approximately 18 in. These averages are consistent with those reported by the 

21 South Carolina State Climatology Office (SCSCO 2009). The long-term annual runoff amounts 

22 for the Broad River as reported by the USGS for Carlisle and Alston are 18.89 in. and 17.78 in., 

23 respectively. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-20 April 2010 

1 Historical flooding is described in ER Section 2.3.1.1.2. Of the two flood seasons – January to 

2 April and July to December – the latter, associated with the hurricane season, has yielded the 

3 larger floods. The ER references peak flow and water levels at the USGS gauging stations 

4 (SCE&G 2009a). Corresponding flow values for the Broad River at Parr Shoals Dam were 

5 estimated used measured flows at nearby stations and scaling them by the ratios of watershed 

6 areas from gauged sites (Richtex and Alston). 

7 Historical low flows are reported for USGS gauging stations located at Alston and Richtex. 

8 SCE&G reported lowest daily means at Richtex and Alston of 149 and 48 cfs, respectively. The 

9 latter value was reported to have been reduced due to active withdrawal by the FPSF at the 

10 time of the measurement; the next lowest daily reported discharge at Alston is 156 cfs, which is 

11 46 cfs below the annual 7-day minimum reported by the USGS. The review team independently 

12 verified that 156 cfs was the second lowest value in the Alston data set and that 149 cfs is the 

13 minimum value in the Richtex data set. 

14 SCE&G estimated a 100-year minimum flow at Richtex of 125 cfs. The review team confirmed 

15 this determination. 

16 The 7-day low flow estimated at Parr Shoals Dam is 190 cfs using the synthetic record 

17 produced by SCE&G (as previously described). The 100-year daily mean flow estimate was 

18 125 cfs; this estimate was based on annual low daily mean flows. When analysis was repeated 

19 using annual minimum 7-day low flows, the 100-year low flow was estimated to be 430 cfs. The 

20 USGS reported a 7Q10 low flow (lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per 

21 decade) for Alston of 853 cfs (SCE&G 2009a). 

22 The flow of water between Parr Reservoir and Monticello Reservoir is controlled by the FPSF. 

23 The Parr Reservoir pool elevation can vary by as much as 10 ft/day based on FPSF operations; 

24 the average daily fluctuation is about 4 ft. Daily fluctuation in Monticello Reservoir due to FPSF 

25 operations can cause pool elevation to range from 420.5 to 425 ft NGVD29. 

26 Bathymetric surveys were made in 2006 in both Parr and Monticello reservoirs to map areas in 

27 the vicinity of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 discharge outlet and intake structures, respectively. 

28 These surveys indicate that Monticello Reservoir rapidly deepens in front of the proposed 

29 location of the intake structure (by 425 ft within 125 ft of the shore) (SCE&G 2009a, 

30 Figure 2.3-10). The surveys also indicate that the proposed discharge diffuser would extend 

31 into a relatively deep channel along the eastern shore of Parr Reservoir. 

32 2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology 

33 Section 2.8 of this chapter briefly describes the geologic setting of the VCSNS site. VCSNS 

34 FSAR Section 2.5 (SCE&G 2009i) provides a detailed description of the geology and geologic 

35 history of the site and surrounding area. As described in Section 2.8, the VCSNS site is located 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 in the Piedmont physiographic province (see Figure 2-9) and has crystalline bedrock 

2 (predominantly igneous granitic rocks with some metamorphic rocks) mantled by saprolite and 

3 residual soils. Based on regional descriptions and site characterization in this area (as 

4 described below), two groundwater zones were identified: an uppermost saprolite/shallow 

5 bedrock zone (which contains the water table) and a bedrock zone in fractured crystalline rocks 

6 (see Figure 2-10). 

7 

8 Figure 2-9. Physiographic Provinces of South Carolina and Hydrogeologic Provinces of the 

9 Southeastern United States Showing the VCSNS Site Location (SCE&G 2009a)
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-22 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-10. Diagram of Regolith and Fractured Bedrock Groundwater Zones in the Piedmont 

3 Physiographic Province of the Southeastern United States (USGS 1990) 

4 Regional Groundwater Description 

5 The USGS Groundwater Atlas (USGS 1990) provides a regional description (Alabama, Florida, 

6 Georgia, and South Carolina) of the aquifers within the Piedmont physiographic province, which 

7 underlies the VCSNS site. The USGS Groundwater Atlas also provides a generalized 

8 conceptual model of groundwater flow in the Piedmont physiographic province (see Figure 2-11 

9 [from Figure 92 of USGS GW Atlas HA-730G]). The atlas describes the aquifers in the 

10 Piedmont physiographic province as generally unconfined with the water table forming a 

11 “subdued replica of surface topography.” Groundwater recharges on the hilltops and slopes 

12 (everywhere except the lower parts of valleys) and “discharges as springs, seeps, baseflow to 

13 streams, and as seepage to lakes” (USGS 1990). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-11. Conceptual Model of Groundwater Flow in the Piedmont Physiographic Province 

3 of the Southeastern United States (USGS 1990) 

4 According to the atlas, the crystalline bedrock has “few primary pore spaces, and the porosity 

5 and permeability of the unweathered and unfractured bedrock are extremely low” (USGS 1990). 

6 The atlas explains that groundwater from this region is obtained from the regolith (which 

7 includes the residual soils and saprolite) and fractures in the bedrock (see Figure 2-11). Well 

8 yields in the Piedmont physiographic province of the southeastern United States are described 

9 as follows (USGS 1990): 

10 Although some wells completed in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifers yield 

11 almost 500 gallons per minute, the average reported well yield is much less and 

12 generally is in the range of about 15 to 20 gallons per minute. Yields of large13 diameter wells drilled for public water supply average about 30 gallons per 

14 minute. Part of the variation in yield depends upon the type of rock in which the 

15 well is completed. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-24 April 2010 

1 The USGS Groundwater Atlas summarizes well yield data from different rock types for one site 

2 located in the Piedmont physiographic province (Greenwood County, South Carolina) (USGS 

3 1990) that range from 0 to 150 gpm; however, the reported median well yields are less than 

4 30 gpm. The USGS Groundwater Atlas describes well yields from the regolith as being related 

5 to the thickness and topography (USGS 1990) with larger volumes (50 gpm or more) occurring 

6 in valleys with regolith thicknesses greater than 50 ft and only “small volumes of water” for wells 

7 on slopes and hills where the regolith is generally thin. In the South Carolina Department of 

8 Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) 2006 South Carolina Annual Water Use 

9 Summary, Butler et al. (2007) state that for the Piedmont physiographic province “groundwater 

10 occurs in the fractures of the bedrock and overlying soil and saprolite” and “[t]he saprolite 

11 grades downward through a highly permeable transition zone to unaltered parent bedrock. 

12 Groundwater conditions of the bedrock are dependent on the number of fractures and degree of 

13 interconnection of the fracture systems.” Comparing well yields in the physiographic provinces 

14 of South Carolina (see Figure 2-9), the report also states that, “[i]n general, wells in the Blue 

15 Ridge and Piedmont regions yield little water when compared to wells drilled in the Coastal 

16 Plain owing to the inherently low porosity and permeability of the crystalline rock present in the 

17 upstate.” 

18 The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) South Carolina Water Plan 

19 (Badr et al. 2004) describes the aquifers in the Piedmont physiographic province as follows: 

20 “[t]he storage capacity of fractures and saprolite is very small compared to that of the Coastal 

21 Plain aquifers.” In addition, Badr et al. (2004) state that wells in the fractured bedrock of the 

22 Piedmont physiographic province “typically yield only between 5 and 15 gpm.” 

23 According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website (EPA 2009a), no sole24 source aquifers are designated in the area. 

25 Onsite Groundwater Description 

26 The hydrogeology of the VCSNS site as described by SCE&G in its ER (SCE&G 2009a) is 

27 consistent with the regional descriptions of the aquifers listed above. Detailed hydrogeologic 

28 characterization was conducted at the site as part of the Unit 1 characterization and 

29 construction and extensive preapplication subsurface characterization for proposed VCSNS 

30 Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a,i). 

31 As part of the groundwater characterization of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site, 31 

32 monitoring wells were installed with 22 completed in the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone (see 

33 Figure 2.3-26 in the SCE&G ER [2009a] and Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-9 this chapter) completed 

34 in the deep bedrock zone (see Figure 2.3-27 in the SCE&G ER [2009a] and Figure 2-11 this 

35 chapter). This network contains five adjacent monitoring well pairs for saprolite/shallow bedrock 

36 zone and deep bedrock zone monitoring. Table 2.3-19 of the VCSNS ER (SCE&G 2009a) 

37 provides the observation well details. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Groundwater levels were collected monthly for 1 year from this monitoring well network from 

2 June 2006 to June 2007 (see Table 2.3-20 of the ER [SCE&G 2009a]). SCE&G provided trend 

3 plots for the water levels measured in these wells (see Figures 2.3-28 and 2.3-29 of the ER 

4 [SCE&G 2009a]) and prepared four quarterly piezometric surface maps (June 2006, September 

5 2006, December 2007, and March 2007) for the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone and the deep 

6 bedrock zone in the FSAR (SCE&G 2009i, Figures 2.4-237 to 2.4-244). Piezometric surface 

7 maps were also prepared for the last monthly water-level measurements in June 2007 and are 

8 shown in Figures 2.3-30 and 2.3-31 of SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2009a). The piezometric surface 

9 maps are consistent with the regional conceptual model of groundwater in the Piedmont 

10 physiographic province from the USGS Groundwater Atlas (USGS 1990), described above, 

11 where the water table reflects a subdued version of the surface topography. 

12 In general, the trend plots showed that the water levels were relatively constant during the 

13 monitoring period except for three wells that showed large increases. These increases were 

14 interpreted as being caused by slow recovery due to low permeability. One of the observation 

15 wells (OWs), OW-624, was screened in the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone and two wells, 

16 OW-233 and OW-627a, were screened in the deep bedrock zone. One shallow monitoring well 

17 in the network, OW-312, which was screened higher than the water table measured in other 

18 wells in its vicinity, was dry over the entire period. 

19 Based on the piezometric surface maps developed from the 2006-2007 water-level monitoring 

20 data at the site and using the most recent measurements to account for well recovery (Shown in 

21 Figures 2.3-30 and 2.3-31 of SCE&G’s ER [SCE&G 2009a]), it appears that the groundwater in 

22 the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone flows from the “ridgetops toward the drainage swales, with 

23 the piezometric surface approximately parallel to the topography” (SCE&G 2009i). The 

24 drainage swales include the two unnamed creeks to the northwest and southwest of the location 

25 for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and Mayo Creek to the east. 

26 The vertical gradients from the five shallow and deep well pairs installed at the site for the June 

27 2006 to June 2007 monthly water-level measurements are depicted in VCSNS ER Figure 2.3-32 

28 (SCE&G 2009a). The largest calculated vertical gradients were for the two wells farthest away 

29 from the ridgetops at the proposed locations of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and indicated a downward 

30 vertical flow direction; however based on the water-level data collected, one well that appeared 

31 to have an upward vertical gradient may not have fully recovered from installation during this 

32 water-level monitoring period (deep bedrock well OW-627a). 

33 Aquifer Material Properties 

34 Field hydraulic testing consisted of slug testing in 29 of the 31 observations wells installed 

35 around the site in both the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone and deep bedrock zone. Packer 

36 tests were conducted on four selected deep bedrock zone boreholes (SCE&G 2009a). 

37 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures were followed when conducting 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-26 April 2010 

1 the slug tests and packer tests (ASTM D4044 and D4630, respectively [SCE&G ER 2009a]). 

2 Slug tests were not conducted on 2 of the 31 observation wells because one well was dry and 

3 the other well was screened in fill and residual soil. The results of 8 of the 29 slug tests were 

4 identified as being invalid or unreliable (SCE&G 2009a). Hydraulic conductivity results, along 

5 with calculated minimum, maximum, and geometric mean values, from the analysis of the slug 

6 tests using the AQTESOLV software are reported in VCSNS ER Table 2.3-21 and updated in 

7 the FSAR Request for Additional Information (RAI) response of May 1, 2009 (SCE&G 2009d); 

8 the packer test analysis results are reported in VCSNS ER Table 2.3-22, also updated in FSAR 

9 RAI response of May 1, 2009 (SCE&G 2009d). For the slug tests, the maximum hydraulic 

10 conductivity result reported for each well was selected based on the highest value of either the 

11 falling head test or rising head test analysis. Overall the hydraulic conductivities measured for 

12 the saprolite/shallow bedrock zone were higher than the deep bedrock zone based on these 

13 tests. A general trend of decreasing hydraulic conductivity with increasing depth was seen from 

14 the slug test and packer test data for the deep bedrock zone (see Figure 2.4-246 of the VCSNS 

15 FSAR [SCE&G 2009i]). 

16 Grain size, moisture content, specific gravity, and total porosity measured for residual soil and 

17 saprolite samples from the VCSNS site are listed in Table 2.3-23 of the VCSNS ER (SCE&G 

18 2009a). Porosity measurements for the fractured deep bedrock were estimated using mean 

19 values from a study conducted in the Piedmont physiographic province (SCE&G 2009a, r). 

20 Groundwater Pathways 

21 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be situated on a hilltop near a groundwater divide, as indicated in 

22 the piezometric surface maps (SCE&G 2009a, Figures 2.3-30 and 2.3-31). Based on the 

23 piezometric surface maps, groundwater flows off the hill toward the drainage swales of the 

24 unnamed creeks to the northwest and southwest of the proposed units and toward Mayo Creek 

25 on the east. Groundwater velocities are estimated from hydraulic gradients, hydraulic 

26 conductivity values based on hydraulic tests, and effective porosity estimates for the two 

27 groundwater zones. SCE&G provided conservative estimates for groundwater velocities and 

28 travel times along the primary and alternate groundwater pathways identified in Section 2.4.13 

29 of the VCSNS FSAR (SCE&G 2009i as updated by SCE&G 2009k, o). The staff’s description 

30 and evaluation of groundwater pathways and travel times will be documented in the Safety 

31 Evaluation Report (SER). 

32 2.3.2 Water Use 

33 This section describes the current water use in the vicinity of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

34 Permitting the use of water resources is regulated by the SCDHEC as part of its Water Quality 

35 Protection Program (SCDHEC 2009a). If the groundwater withdrawals are inside a Capacity 

36 Use Area, such use falls under the SCDHEC Groundwater Use and Reporting Program 

37 (SCDHEC 2005). The VCSNS site is not in a capacity use area. Laws applicable to the use of 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 groundwater near the VCSNS site include the Groundwater Use and Reporting Act (SC Code 

2 Ann. 49-5 2009). Applicable laws regarding the use of surface water include the South Carolina 

3 Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act (SC Code Ann. 49-4 2009). 

4 2.3.2.1 Surface-Water Use 

5 Total (surface and ground) water use within South Carolina is reported by SCDHEC (SCDHEC 

6 2009a). These annual summaries include the previous years’ total water use. This use 

7 includes both consumptive and nonconsumptive water use. The totals are listed in Table 2-7 

8 below. The data indicate a significant fluctuation in water usage on an annual basis and the 

9 dominance of surface-water usage. 

10 Table 2-7. Annual Water Use Within South Carolina

Year 

Total 

(trillion gallons) 

Surface 

(trillion gallons) 

2001 11.8 11.7 

2002 14.3 14.2 

2003 22.9 22.8 

2004 18.8 18.7 

2005 20.4 20.4 

2006 16.4 16.3 

Source: SCDHEC 2009a

11 Local surface-water users include hydroelectric and thermal power industries and public water 

12 suppliers. Several hydroelectric projects use surface water, but not consumptively. Local 

13 surface-water sources are used by Fairfield, Newberry, and Richland Counties (Table 2-8). The 

14 total reported water use for these three counties in 2004 was 3.9 trillion gallons (SCE&G 

15 2009a). Fairfield County represents 83 percent of this use, the majority of which was 

16 hydroelectric power generation (SCDHEC 2009a). Local users of surface water in Fairfield 

17 County include the town of Winnsboro and VCSNS Unit 1. At a distance of approximately 28 mi 

18 along the Broad River from the VCSNS site, the City of Columbia is the closest downstream 

19 large user of surface water. 

20 Table 2-8. Local and Downstream Surface-Water Users Reported by SCE&G for 2004

Users County Surface-Water Source 

Town of Winnsboro Fairfield Sand Creek and 192-Acre Lake 

VCSNS Unit 1 Fairfield Broad River transfers to Monticello Reservoir 

City of Columbia Richland Broad River and Lake Murray 

City of Newberry Newberry Saluda River 

Town of Whitmire Newberry Duncan Creek and Enoree River 

Parr Shoals Dam Fairfield Broad River 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-28 April 2010 

1 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) establishes a minimum flow through Parr 

2 Shoals Dam. Modification of the FERC license would be necessary to establish use 

3 requirements at Parr and Monticello reservoirs for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 needs. 

4 2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use 

5 The SCDHEC 2006 South Carolina Water Use Report (Butler et al. 2007) states “Counties in 

6 the Piedmont and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces depend primarily on the abundant 

7 regional rainfall that recharges lakes, reservoirs and major river systems.” Correspondingly, 

8 these bodies of surface water serve as the main source of water for public supply, industry, 

9 agriculture, and power production in the Piedmont Region. 

10 The SCDHEC reports water use annually by county and category (aquaculture, golf course, 

11 industrial, irrigation, mining, water supply, and other) (Butler et al. 2007). Water use for these 

12 categories is reported separately for groundwater and surface water. Table 2.3-26 of the 

13 VCSNS ER (SCE&G 2009a) summarizes groundwater use for counties within a 50-mi radius of 

14 the VCSNS site in 2004 (based on the SCDHEC water-use data) and shows that public water 

15 supplies are the largest users of groundwater reported for this region. The groundwater use in 

16 Fairfield County, reported for 2006 was 71.9 million gallons, which is about 10 percent of the 

17 reported value for water supply from surface water (722 million gallons) for this county (Butler et 

18 al. 2007). Of the groundwater water-use categories in this report, only the “water supply” 

19 category had values reported for groundwater use in Fairfield County in 2006. 

20 Public water-supply wells within 6 mi of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are listed in FSAR Table 2.4-215 

21 (SCE&G 2009i) based on the SCDHEC database and EPA Safe Drinking Water Information 

22 System database for population served (see SCE&G 2009d). The table lists 14 active public 

23 water-supply wells in the area screened in the Piedmont physiographic province bedrock aquifer 

24 with design yields, where known, ranging from 5 to 29 gpm. 

25 The ER states that “[g]roundwater within 2 miles of the site is primarily used for domestic 

26 purposes” (SCE&G 2009a). The closest groundwater well to the site is at a private residence 

27 approximately 1 mi east of the site (SCE&G 2009a). Information about pumping rates for 

28 private wells is not available (SCE&G 2009d), but well yields are generally limited in this area by 

29 the relatively low productivity of the aquifers in the Piedmont physiographic province, as 

30 discussed in Section 2.3.1.2 of this chapter. The ER states that “the nearest large groups of 

31 wells are located approximately 1.5 miles east of the site along SC 215 and in Jenkinsville 

32 approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the site” which serve “private residences and stores” 

33 (SCE&G 2009a). The ER also lists the Jenkinsville Water Company that has nine wells, three 

34 wells within 2 mi of the site. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-29 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Process and domestic water for VCSNS Unit 1 is supplied by Monticello Reservoir 

2 (SCE&G 2009a). Groundwater is pumped from two wells at a total rate of approximately 

3 26 gpm to reduce below-grade seepage in buildings in the protected area around Unit 1 

4 (SCE&G 2009a). Seepage in this area is due to the close proximity of the Monticello Reservoir 

5 (SCE&G 2009a). 

6 2.3.3 Water Quality 

7 The following sections describe the quality of surface-water and groundwater resources in the 

8 vicinity of the VCSNS site. 

9 2.3.3.1 Surface-Water Quality 

10 The bodies of surface water where water quality could be affected by VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

11 the Parr Reservoir/Broad River, Monticello Reservoir, and Mayo Creek. Smaller unnamed 

12 creeks on the site could also be affected by stormwater runoff. All VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling 

13 water would discharge to Parr Reservoir. A new water-treatment plant would return water to 

14 Monticello Reservoir. Mayo Creek and other unnamed creeks could temporarily receive 

15 discharge from the dewatering system during the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction period. 

16 Some surface-water runoff from the proposed Units 2 and 3 site would also drain to Mayo Creek 

17 and other unnamed creeks to the south and west (SCG&E 2009a). 

18 Water quality in the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir has been periodically 

19 evaluated by SCDHEC, SCDNR, and SCE&G. SCE&G has conducted monthly water-quality 

20 monitoring in Monticello Reservoir since 1995 (SCE&G 2009a). The SCDHEC measures 

21 turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, alkalinity, nitrogen, phosphorous, fecal 

22 coliform, organic carbon, and metals in the Parr Reservoir/Broad River as well as at two stations 

23 in Monticello Reservoir (Figure 2-12). As described earlier in Section 2.3.1, the Parr Reservoir 

24 is a run-of-the-river impoundment of the Broad River adjacent to the VCSNS site. Water is 

25 exchanged between Monticello and Parr reservoirs by the FPSF. Because of this exchange of 

26 water the long-term water quality will be similar between the reservoirs. The range of water27 quality constituent concentrations measured in Monticello and Parr reservoirs in 2004 and 2005 

28 and in Monticello Reservoir in 2006 are shown in Table 2-9, Table 2-10, and Table 2-11. 

29 Monitoring data for the Monticello Reservoir demonstrate that these waters are low in common 

30 ions, hardness, dissolved solids, and conductivity. Analysis of these sampling data sets does 

31 not reveal any atypical values for waterbodies located in the Piedmont region (SCE&G 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-30 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-12. The SCDHEC Water-Quality Sampling Locations near the VCSNS Site 

3 (SCE&G 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-31 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-9. Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2004

Analyzed Parameters 

Monticello Reservoir Parr Reservoir 

Sample Location 

B-327 

Sample Location 

B-328 

Sample Location 

B-345 

Sample Location 

B-346 

Temperature (°C)/( °F) 9.3°–31.6°C 8.9°–31.2°C 8.0°–29.2° C 7.0°–28° C 

 48.7°–88.9°F 48°–88.2°F 46.4°–84.6°F 44.6°–82.4°F 

Turbidity (NTU) 3.0–12.0 1.3–4.9 4.6–46 6.4–95 

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 6.38–12.72 6.99–13.25 4.95–11.50 Less than QL–11.90

BOD (mg/L) Less than QL–2.0 All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL 

pH 7.11–8.68 7.41–8.11 6.95–7.66 7.12–7.68 

Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3 (mg/L) 17–25 23–24 16–26 14–25 

Total Nitrogen (NH3) (mg/L) Less than QL–0.50 Less than QL–0.20 Less than QL–0.20 Less than QL–0.50 

Total N (Kjeldahl) (mg/L) 0.22–0.60 0.38–0.74 0.23–0.48 0.14–0.61 

Total N (nitrite/nitrate) (mg/L) 0.11–0.46 Less than QL–0.062 0.25–0.51 0.28–0.58 

Total Phosphorous (mg/L) Less than QL–0.039 Less than QL–0.021 Less than QL–0.052 0.030–0.13 

Total Fecal Coliform (# cells/100 mL) Less than QL–7 Less than QL–32 2 – 140 Less than QL–240 

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 2.4–3.2 4.7–5.2 2.2–2.9 2.0–3.3 

Cadmium, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL 

Chromium, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL 

Copper, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL 

Iron, Total (μg/L) 130–600 42–160 220–880 450–1100 

Lead, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL Less than QL All less than QL 

Manganese, Total (μg/L) Less than QL–18 Less than QL–44 20–40 33–50 

Mercury, Total (μg/L) All less than QL Less than QL–19 All less than QL All less than QL 

Nickel, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL All less than QL 

Zinc, Total (μg/L) Less than QL–21 All less than QL Less than QL–48 All less than QL 

Sources: EPA 2006a; SCE&G 2009a 

Note: Sample depths 0.3 m 

NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units; BOD = biochemical oxygen demand; QL = quantification limit; < = less than 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-32 April 2010 

1 Table 2-10. Surface-Water-Quality Data for 2005

Analyzed Parameter 

Monticello Reservoir 

Sample Location 

B-327 Result 

Parr Reservoir 

Sample Location 

B-345 Result 

Temperature (°C)/(°F) 11.4°–32°C 10.6°C–29.3°C 

52.5°F–89.6°F 51.1°F–84.7°F 

Turbidity (NTU) 2.5–12 6.5–47 

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 5.15–10.92 4.32–10.52 

BOD (mg/L) All less than QL All less than QL 

pH (SU) 6.9–8.5 6.7–7.88 

Total Nitrogen (NH3) (mg/L) <QL–0.2 <QL–0.25 

Total N (Kjeldahl) (mg/L) 0.21–0.53 0.24–0.56 

Total N (nitrite/nitrate) (mg/L) 0.14–0.59 0.27– 0.62 

Total Phosphorous (mg/L) <QL–0.038 0.027–0.083 

Hardness, Ca & Mg-Total (mg/L) 14 15 

Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3, Total (mg/L) 17–24 17–24 

Cadmium, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL 

Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) <QL–3.2 3.0–3.9 

Chromium, Total (μg/L) All less than QL <L–25 

Copper, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL 

Iron, Total (μg/L) 150–350 330–1800 

Lead, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL 

Nickel, Total (μg/L) All less than QL All less than QL 

Zinc, Total (μg/L) <QL–10 All less than QL 

Total Fecal Coliform (# cells/100 mL) <QL–100 2–480 

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, Total (# cells/100 mL) <QL–12 <QL–310 

Sources: EPA 2006a; SCE&G 2009a 

NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units; BOD = biochemical oxygen demand; SU = standard units; QL = quantification 

limit; < = less than 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-33 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-11. Monticello Reservoir Water-Quality Data for 2006

Analyzed Parameter Result Analyzed Parameter Result 

Antimony (μg/L) <QL Nickel (μg/L) <QL 

Arsenic (μg/L) <QL Potassium (μg/L) 2206 

Barium (μg/L) 17.7 Selenium (μg/L) <QL 

Beryllium (μg/L) <QL Silver (μg/L) <QL 

Cadmium (μg/L) <QL Sodium (μg/L) 10,280 

Calcium (μg/L) 3425 Thallium (μg/L) <QL 

Chromium (μg/L) <QL Zinc (μg/L) <QL 

Copper (μg/L) <QL Silica (μg/L) 8025 

Iron (μg/L) 101 Sulfate (mg/L) 4.3 

Lead (μg/L) <QL Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 63 

Magnesium (μg/L) 1856 Total Hardness (Calcium) (mg/L) 16.2 

Manganese (μg/L) <QL Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 3 

Mercury (liquid) (μg/L) <QL Turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units) 2.3 

Ammonia-N (mg/L) 0.21 Platinum-Cobalt (SU) 15 

Chlorophyll a (mg/L) 0.00690 Total Organic Carbon (mg/L) 1.7 

Ortho-phosphorous (mg/L) 0.034 Strontium (mg/L) 0.038 

Phosphorous (mg/L) 0.021 Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) <QL 

BOD 5-Day (mg/L) <QL Cyanide (mg/L) <QL 

Fecal Coliform-MF (# cells/100 mL) <QL 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

Water sample also analyzed for volatile organics (Method 624), semi-volatile organics (Method 625), and for 

pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (Method 608). All parameter results were below laboratory quantitative limits 

levels. 

< = less than; QL = quantification limit; SU = standard units 

2 The SCDHEC regularly assesses water quality in the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and 

3 Monticello Reservoir and compares results to State water-quality standards (SCDHEC 2008a, 

4 b). The standards are used to assemble a Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired 

5 waters based on metal concentrations, pH, dissolved oxygen levels, organic elements, fecal 

6 coliform and organism tissue evaluations, and the presence of biota. The variability of pH in the 

7 Monticello Reservoir was such that it was listed as impaired (aquatic life use would not be 

8 supported) (SCDHEC 2008b). Stations B-046 on the Broad River near Carlisle and B-345 in 

9 Parr Reservoir were considered impaired due to elevated copper level and/or potential 

10 degradation of the aquatic life uses standards established by the Clean Water Act and 

11 SCDHEC. Parr Reservoir station B-346 was included in the list as impaired because of 

12 elevated total phosphorus concentrations (SCDHEC 2008b). 

13 Monthly water-temperature profiles in Monticello Reservoir have been measured by SCE&G 

14 since 1991 (SCE&G 2009a). Measurement locations were selected to characterize the 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-34 April 2010 

1 circulation and thermal aspects of the reservoir near the VCSNS Unit 1 intake, discharge canal, 

2 and a control site. Other water-quality parameters were also monitored (pH, conductivity, 

3 dissolved oxygen). Monticello Reservoir temperature data are presented in detail in Section 2.3 

4 of the ER (SCE&G 2009a). Most of the reservoir, represented by a station near the Unit 1 

5 intake and a station away from Unit 1 or FPSF influence, can be briefly characterized as varying 

6 from about 50°F in winter months up to 85°F at the surface in summer. Through spring and 

7 midsummer, temperatures at the 50-ft depth were up to 12°F cooler than the surface; other 

8 times of the year, little variation with depth was observed (SCE&G 2009a). 

9 Broad River water-temperature data are available from the USGS stations in the area (Richtex, 

10 Alston, and Carlisle) (see Figure 2-8). Analysis of these data sets suggests that the water 

11 temperatures in Parr Reservoir varied seasonally from 38.3°F to 86°F. To independently 

12 characterize the water temperatures in Parr Reservoir, the daily water temperature record at 

13 Carlisle gauging station was examined. This is the closest station to Parr Reservoir with a 

14 recent and long observational record (1983-2009). For each year of data, the daily records 

15 were averaged over a 3-month rolling period. Then monthly statistics (mean, minimum, and 

16 maximum) were computed over all years for each rolling 3-month period. The lowest 3-month 

17 average for February to March was 43°F and the highest for summer (July-August) was 84°F. 

18 Sediment transport within the Broad River has not been measured. Changes in land-use 

19 patterns since the 1800s have affected the soil erosion in the watershed (Kovacik and Winberry 

20 1987; NCDWQ 1998). Parr Reservoir bed sediment grain-size analysis was reported in the ER, 

21 Section 2.3.1.1.6 (SCE&G 2009a). The reservoir bed material is primarily clay, clay-silt, sand, 

22 sand-silt; some gravel was also noted. This characterization is consistent with that of the USGS 

23 (USGS 2003). No bedload sediment transport measurements are available for the Broad River. 

24 Measurements of Broad River total suspended solids are reported by SCDHEC once every 2 

25 years. The water-quality sampling stations closest to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are B-047 (12 mi 

26 upstream of Parr Shoals Dam) and B-046 (21 mi upstream of Parr Shoals Dam), as shown in 

27 Figure 2-8 (SCE&G 2009a). 

28 Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity in Mayo Creek, measured during 

29 macroinvertebrate surveys conducted in 2008 and 2009, are provided in Table 2-12 (CBS 

30 2009b). These data were consistent with earlier measurements made by SCE&G at three 

31 locations in July 2006 and November 2006 (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007). Water-quality 

32 measurements were within the State standards for Class FW (freshwaters) (SCDHEC 2008a), 

33 and indicated that Mayo Creek water quality was similar to other groundwater-fed streams in the 

34 area (SCE&G 2009a). 

35 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-35 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-12. Mayo Creek Water-Quality Data for 2008 and 2009

Date Station Temperature (°C) pH 

Conductivity 

(μmhos/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen (mg/L) 

July 2008 1 22.6 7.2 122 6.5 

July 2008 2 21.3 7.0 123 7.2 

July 2008 3 20.9 7.0 126 6.8 

October 2008 1 17.1 7.4 101 12.3 

October 2008 2 15.1 7.3 96 10.8 

October 2008 3 14.9 7.3 106 8.9 

January 2009 1 8.9 7.3 89 11.5 

January 2009 2 9.6 7.6 87 9.9 

January 2009 3 9.4 7.5 88 11.7 

April 2009 1 13.6 7.1 82 9.2 

April 2009 2 13.7 7.2 110 9.5 

April 2009 3 15.2 7.3 111 9.5 

Source: CBS 2009b 

2 2.3.3.2 Groundwater Quality 

3 Baseline nonradiological groundwater quality was established around the proposed VCSNS 

4 Units 2 and 3 location by monitoring that consisted of one round of sampling from nine wells in 

5 late August/early September 2006 for a subset of analyses (SCE&G 2009a) and more detailed 

6 water-quality analyses from eight wells during the second half of 2007. The 2007 water-quality 

7 monitoring consisted of one sampling round for four wells, two sampling rounds for three wells, 

8 and three sampling rounds for one well (SCE&G 2009a, ER Table 2.3-36, which was updated in 

9 SCE&G 2009q with water-quality criteria). The detailed water-quality monitoring results from 

10 2007 were compared to SCDHEC drinking-water standards (SCE&G 2009a, ER Table 2.3-36 

11 updated in SCE&G 2009q). These standards (Class GB) are available in R.61-68, Water 

12 Classifications & Standards (SCDHEC 2008a). Based on this comparison, the groundwater 

13 exceeded the SCDHEC State Drinking Water standards in at least one well during a sampling 

14 round for the following analyses: sulfates, total dissolved solids, turbidity, total coliform, 

15 cadmium, iron, lead, and pH. 

16 Low levels of tritium were detected in two wells located near the proposed VCSNS Unit 3 

17 location during the 2007 monitoring (SCE&G 2009a). The potential source of this tritium was 

18 the permitted disposal of condensate polisher resin in the area in 1994. The results from soil 

19 samples collected and analyzed from this area in 2006 indicated that radiological concentrations 

20 were below the Low Limits of Detection specified in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual as 

21 described by SCE&G (2009e). Details about the sampling and results are contained in SCE&G 

22 2009e. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-36 April 2010 

1 2.3.4 Water Monitoring 

2 Surface-water and groundwater monitoring are described in the following sections. 

3 2.3.4.1 Surface-Water Monitoring 

4 Broad River flows are monitored continuously at several USGS gauging stations near the 

5 VCSNS site (Figure 2-8). Flow information is mostly available for calculation of long-term daily 

6 average flows. The station name, number, location, and period of record for the three Broad 

7 River gauging stations closest to VCSNS are summarized in Table 2-13. The USGS also 

8 records or has recorded Broad River water temperature at these three stations during periods 

9 listed in Table 2-13. 

10 Table 2-13. USGS Flow and Temperature Monitoring on the Broad River 

Station Number Location 

Flow Monitoring 

Period(s) 

Temperature Monitoring 

Period(s) 

Carlisle 02156500 21 mi upstream of Parr 

Shoals Dam 

October 1938 to 

present 

1965 to 1965; 1968-1975 

Alston 02161000 1.2 mi downstream 

from Parr Shoals Dam 

October 1896 to 

December 1907, 

October 1980 to present

November 1971 to July 

1972 

Richtex 02161500 14 mi downstream 

from Parr Shoals Dam 

October 1925 to 

September 1983 

October 1959 to 

September 1960; July 

1972 to July 1974 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

11 Water quality in the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir continues to be 

12 periodically monitored by SCE&G and SCDHEC. SCE&G’s water-monitoring program for 

13 VCSNS Unit 1 at Monticello Reservoir has been ongoing since 1995; SCE&G measures 

14 temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance monthly at three reservoir 

15 locations (SCE&G 2009a, Section 2.3.1.1.5). Monitoring locations are (1) near the circulating16 water intake for VCSNS Unit 1, (2) near the VCSNS Unit 1 thermal discharge, and (3) in the 

17 northern part of Monticello Reservoir outside of the influence of the FPSF and VCSNS Unit 1. 

18 SCE&G recorded temperature continuously near the VCSNS Unit 1 circulating-water intake 

19 during the summer months from 1992 to 1994. SCDHEC monitors water quality statewide, 

20 cycling through each watershed at least every 5 years for the (SCDHEC 2008b). SCDHEC 

21 monitors the following suite of water-quality parameters at the stations in the vicinity of VCSNS 

22 shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-12: 

23  temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand 

24  pH and alkalinity 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-37 Draft NUREG-1939 

1  total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total fecal coliform, total organic carbon 

2  metals, including cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

3 zinc. 

4 As described in Section 2.3.3, SCE&G conducted preapplication water-quality monitoring of 

5 Mayo Creek in 2006, 2008, and 2009 (TetraTech NUS, Inc. 2007; SCE&G 2009a; CBS 2009b). 

6 2.3.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring 

7 The results of preconstruction preapplication groundwater monitoring for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

8 were described previously in Section 2.3.1.2 for hydrologic monitoring (i.e., water levels) and 

9 EIS Section 2.3.3.2 for groundwater-quality monitoring. Hydrologic groundwater monitoring 

10 reported in the ER (see ER Table 2.3-20 [SCE&G 2009a]) consisted of monthly measurements 

11 of water levels from June 2006 through June 2007 from 31 wells around VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

12 Monitoring of groundwater quality around VCSNS Units 2 and 3 consisted of one round of 

13 sampling of nine wells in late August/early September 2006 for a subset of analyses (see ER 

14 Table 2.3-35, SCE&G 2009a). More detailed water-quality analyses were conducted on water 

15 collected from eight wells during the second half of 2007, with one sampling round for four wells, 

16 two sampling rounds for three wells, and three sampling rounds for one well (see Table 2.3-36 

17 of ER and updated version [SCE&G 2009a, q]). 

18 EIS Section 4.2.4 describes the hydrologic and water-quality groundwater monitoring proposed 

19 during facility preconstruction/construction and EIS Section 5.2.4 describes the hydrologic and 

20 water-quality groundwater monitoring proposed during operations. Radiological monitoring of 

21 groundwater is discussed in EIS Sections 2.11 and 5.9. 

22 2.4 Ecology 

23 This section describes the terrestrial and aquatic ecology of the site and vicinity, which includes 

24 the biological communities and habitats that might be affected by the building, operation, or 

25 maintenance of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 provide general 

26 descriptions of terrestrial and aquatic environments on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site as 

27 well as the additional area associated with the proposed six new 230-kV transmission-line 

28 corridors. 

29 Detailed descriptions are provided where needed to support the analysis of potential ecological 

30 impacts from the building, operation, or maintenance of new nuclear power-generation facilities 

31 and the associated power-transmission systems. These descriptions also support the 

32 evaluation of mitigation activities identified during the assessment to avoid, reduce, minimize, 

33 rectify, or compensate for potential impacts. Descriptions of terrestrial and aquatic monitoring 

34 programs are also included. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-38 April 2010 

1 2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecology 

2 The VCSNS site is surrounded by a mosaic of forests and farmland, typical of the Piedmont 

3 physiographic province. This province begins in the southernmost portion of New York State 

4 and stretches in a southwestward direction to approximately mid-Alabama (Godfrey 1980). The 

5 Piedmont region has been heavily farmed and cultivated, thereby altering the pre-settlement 

6 landscape considerably (Kirkman et al. 2007). This section identifies terrestrial ecological 

7 resources and describes species composition and other structural and functional attributes of 

8 biotic communities that might be affected by the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

9 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the proposed transmission-line system. It also identifies 

10 important terrestrial resources, as defined by the NRC (NRC 2000) that might be affected by the 

11 proposed action. 

12 2.4.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

13 The terrestrial communities found on the VCSNS site and vicinity are characteristic of the 

14 Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2002). The surrounding landscape 

15 comprises gently rolling hills and valleys dissected by an abundance of streams. Vegetation 

16 communities common in the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion include mixed oak forest and 

17 oak-hickory-pine forest. Common tree canopy species consist of white oak (Quercus alba), 

18 southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black oak (Q. velutina), mockernut (Carya alba) and pignut 

19 hickories (C. glabra), some loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). 

20 Sites that have a moderate amount of moisture (mesic sites) such as riparian areas contain 

21 American beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak (Q. rubra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron 

22 tulipifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum) (Griffith et al. 2002). The dominant cover in the vicinity 

23 of VCSNS is mixed forest (SCE&G 2009a). 

24 The VCSNS site comprises approximately 3600 ac, which includes approximately 784 ac of 

25 open water in the Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). The Parr Reservoir lies just west of the 

26 site (SCE&G 2009a). The proposed project site for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is within the current 

27 nuclear facility boundary just south of existing VCSNS Unit 1, in an area that was cleared and 

28 used for storage, spoils disposal, and laydown areas during the construction of Unit 1 (SCE&G 

29 2009a). The VCSNS site is primarily a human-altered system that has changed dramatically 

30 since the development of VCSNS Unit 1 and the damming of the Broad River and Frees Creek, 

31 which created Parr and Monticello reservoirs, respectively. Historical photographs illustrate the 

32 change on this site since 1938 (see Figure 2-13). Also, see Table 2-14 for the current land-use 

33 categories and acreage on the VCSNS site. 

34 
April 2010 2-39 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment 1 Figure 2-13. Historical Photos Showing How the VCSNS Site Has Changed Since 1938 (SCE&G 2009a) 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-40 April 2010 

1 Table 2-14. Land-Use Categories and Acreage on the VCSNS Site (out of a total of 

2 approximately 3600 ac) 

Land-Use Category 

Approximate 

Acreage 

Approximate 

Percent of Site 

Mixed Forest 2334 64.8 

Open Water 874 24.2 

Urban or Developed Land 388 10.7 

Wetlands 44 41.2 

3 Existing Terrestrial Cover Types 

4 Forests on the VCSNS site are managed by SCANA Services’ Forestry Operations group, but 

5 timber harvests are not common (NRC 2003). A variety of cover types are present including 

6 planted pine forest, naturally vegetated pine forest, mixed pine-hardwood forest, and hardwood 

7 forest. Pine forests are primarily second-growth stands of loblolly pine either natural or planted; 

8 older forests are characterized by the presence of hardwoods such as white oak. Hardwood9 dominant stands occur mainly along streams and side slopes (Figure 2-14) (SCE&G 2009a). 

10 Pine Forest

11 Natural and planted pine forests on the VCSNS site (including those most recently harvested 

12 since 2004) consist mostly of naturally vegetated and cultivated loblolly pine. These forests are 

13 early successional, even-aged stands that produce a closed canopy with little to no understory 

14 of either woody or herbaceous cover (FPC 1974). Much of the pine forest consists of planted 

15 pines, which are generally poor wildlife habitat, lacking in both food and cover needed by native 

16 wildlife (SCDNR 2005a). 

17 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest

18 Mixed pine-hardwood forests occur primarily in the eastern portion of the VCSNS site and 

19 consist of loblolly pine and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), with a variety of other species 

20 including tulip poplar, red maple, winged elm (Ulmus alata), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), 

21 eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), American beech, 

22 American holly (Ilex opaca), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sweetgum (Liquidambar 

23 styraciflua) (SCE&G 2002a; Nelson 2006). 

24 Hardwood Forest

25 Hardwood forests make up a small portion of the forested communities on the VCSNS site and 

26 are predominately located along stream bottoms and surrounding ravines (NRC 2004). Typical 

27 canopy species present include white oak, southern red oak, black gum, and some American 

28 beech (Nelson 2007). Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) is a dominant understory 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-41 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-14. Map of the Cover Types on the VCSNS Site 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-42 April 2010 

1 species and herbaceous species such as Hepatica (Hepatica americana), golden alexander 

2 (Zizia trifoliata), sanicle (Sanicula marilandica), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), 

3 and little nut-rush (Scleria oligantha) are common along small streams (SCE&G 2002a). 

4 Wetlands

5 Wetlands present on the VCSNS site are typical of those found in the South Carolina Piedmont 

6 and include both palustrine (marshes, bogs, fens, etc.) and lacustrine (on the shores of lakes 

7 and/or reservoirs) wetlands. Most of the wetlands are forested and are associated with small 

8 streams, seeps, and beaver ponds (SCE&G 2009a). Typical species that would be found on 

9 these types of sites include those mentioned above in the mixed pine-hardwood and hardwood 

10 cover types as well as tulip poplar, sweetgum, white ash (Fraxinus americana), black cherry, 

11 sedge (Carex spp.), and red maple. There is also limited freshwater marsh habitat in shallow 

12 backwaters along Parr Reservoir that contains emergent wetland species, such as cattail 

13 (Typha latifolia), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), 

14 smartweed (Polygonum hydropiperoides), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), lizard’s tail 

15 (Saururus cernuus), water primrose (Ludwigia spp.), and water pennywort (Hydrocotyle spp.) 

16 (SCE&G 2009a). 

17 Wildlife 

18 Terrestrial wildlife species found on the VCSNS site are typical of those found in the Southern 

19 Outer Piedmont ecoregion of South Carolina. A variety of species inhabit the forested, wetland, 

20 and open water habitats present, including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Recent 

21 biological surveys of the site have been conducted in support of VCSNS Unit 1 license renewal 

22 (SCE&G 2002a) and more recently to provide information regarding potential occurrences of 

23 threatened and/or endangered species on the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008, 2009a; 

24 Nelson 2006, 2007). Informal observations of wildlife and vegetation were made during the 

25 surveys. Ecological monitoring data collected in the early 1970s to mid-1980s were also 

26 reviewed to provide additional information regarding the wildlife likely to be observed on the 

27 VCSNS site and vicinity. 

28 Mammals

29 Mammals that occur on the VCSNS site include those typically found in the Piedmont such as 

30 the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus 

31 carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), bobcat 

32 (Lynx rufus ), beaver (Castor canadensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), hispid cotton rat 

33 (Sigmodon hispidus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), house mouse (Mus musculus), white34 footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and the eastern 

35 spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius ) (SCDNR 2005b). Small-mammal trapping was conducted in 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-43 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the early 1970s before construction of VCSNS Unit 1 and then again in 2008 and 2009 with 

ShermanTM 2 live traps (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008). 

3 Amphibians and Reptiles 

4 Several species of reptiles and amphibians are known to occur on the VCSNS site, including 

5 black racer snake (Coluber constrictor), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and rat snake 

6 (Elaphe obsolete); lizards such as the Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), and fence lizard 

7 (Sceloporus undulates); and various skinks and toads (FPC 1974; SCE&G 2009a). The 

8 Piedmont of South Carolina is not as rich in herpetofauna as the other parts of the state 

9 (SCDNR 2005a). 

10 Birds

11 Birds that occur on the VCSNS site include those typically found in the Piedmont. Various 

12 species of dabbling ducks such as mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), black duck (Anas rubripes), 

13 and green-winged teal (Anas crecca) use the freshwater marsh habitat in Parr Reservoir, and 

14 Monticello Reservoir supports a resident population of Canada geese (Branta canadensis 

15 leucopareia). Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest near the site and are observed 

16 frequently, and a variety of wading birds, songbirds, birds of prey, and other migratory and 

17 nonmigratory birds occur on the VCSNS site. Table 2-15 lists avian species observed and 

18 recorded on the VCSNS site during other previously described ecological surveys conducted in 

19 2002, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The taxa in bold are species the State of South Carolina have 

20 determined to be Priority Species (SCDNR 2005b). 

21 2.4.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines 

22 This section describes terrestrial resources known to occur on or in the vicinity of the existing 

23 transmission lines and new transmission-line corridors required to integrate the electrical power 

24 generated at proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 into the electrical grid system. As described in 

25 Section 2.1, a total of six new offsite 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to distribute 

26 the power generated by the proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Santee Cooper would 

27 maintain two of the lines, and SCE&G would maintain the other four in three corridors (one 

28 double-circuit line and two single-circuit lines). Two of the SCE&G transmission-line corridors 

29 have been proposed as viable options, but the final routes have not yet been determined (FP&S 

30 2008; MACTEC 2008; SCE&G 2009a). The proposed transmission-line corridors pass through 

31 forested and agricultural lands typical of central South Carolina; span two ecoregions, the 

32 Southern Outer Piedmont and Sandhills; and two of the planned transmission lines extend 

33 slightly into the Coastal Plain ecoregion (Figure 2-5). Land use along the proposed SCE&G 

34 transmission-line corridors is summarized in Table 2-2. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-44 April 2010 

1 Table 2-15. Avian Species Observed on the VCSNS Site 

Wading Birds, Shorebirds, and Other Water Birds 

Blue-winged teal (Anas discors) 

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 

Black duck (Anas rubripes) 

Great egret (Ardea alba) 

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) 

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 

Green heron (Butorides virescens) 

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 

Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) 

Herring gull (Larus argentatus) 

Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 

Birds of Prey and Soaring Birds 

Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 

Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 

Black vulture (Coragyps atratus) 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Passerines and Other Birds 

Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 

Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) 

Great horned owl (Bubo virginiana) 

Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) 

Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus) 

Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) 

Eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens) 

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 

White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 

Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 

Passerines and Other Birds (continued) 

Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) 

Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 

Yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata) 

Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) 

Pine warbler (Dendroica pinus) 

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) 

Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) 

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) 

Great crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) 

Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) 

Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) 

Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) 

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 

Rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 

Summer tanager (Piranga rubra) 

Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) 

Eastern bluebird (Siala sialis) 

Brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) 

Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 

Northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis)

Barred owl (Strix varia) 

Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 

American robin (Turdus migratorius) 

Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 

White-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus) 

Sources: SCDNR 2005a; SCE&G 2009a. 

NOTE: Taxa in bold represent South Carolina Priority Species (SCDNR 2005b).
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-45 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The proposed VCSNS-Lake Murray line (SCE&G) and VCSNS-Flat Creek line (Santee Cooper) 

2 would be located entirely within the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion. Both lines would be 

3 routed within existing rights-of-way with the exception of a small section of the VCSNS-Flat 

4 Creek line that would require 2.44 mi of new right-of-way next to an existing transmission-line 

5 corridor near the VCSNS site (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). The proposed VCSNS-Killian line 

6 study site lies within Fairfield, Richland, and Lexington Counties and all but approximately 18 mi 

7 of the proposed corridor would be routed in existing right-of-way (FP&S 2008). Because these 

8 three proposed transmission lines would lie entirely within the Southern Outer Piedmont 

9 ecoregion, the habitat types are the same as those described for the VCSNS site in Section 

10 2.4.1.1. 

11 The proposed VCSNS-Varnville and VCSNS-St. George transmission lines cross several 

12 counties and ecoregions. Both begin in the Southern Outer Piedmont and cross the Sandhills 

13 into the Coastal Plain ecoregion. Brief descriptions of the habitat types for both ecoregions are 

14 provided below (Griffith et al. 2002). The VCSNS-Varnville line (Santee Cooper) would be 

15 routed entirely within existing transmission-line corridors, while the VCSNS-St. George line 

16 (SCE&G) would require the creation of approximately 68 mi of new right-of-way (MACTEC 

17 2008; FP&S 2008). 

18 The Sandhills ecoregion is the inland portion of the Coastal Plain that forms a discontinuous belt 

19 of varying widths of deep sands across the middle of the state (SCDNR 2005a). The sandy 

20 soils create a xeric environment that supports a distinctive vegetation dominated by longleaf 

21 pines and American turkey oaks (Quercus laevis). High-frequency, low-intensity fires in the past 

22 created and supported fire-adapted longleaf pine-wiregrass communities, characterized by 

23 longleaf pine and loblolly pine with a midstory of oaks, mostly turkey oak along with blackjack 

24 oak (Q. marilandica), upland willow oak (Q. incana), and post oak (Q. stellata). However, fire 

25 suppression in the last several decades has allowed succession to proceed to oak-hickory 

26 forests similar to those of the Piedmont. Logging activities and fire suppression created large 

27 tracts of even-aged pine plantations and forests that do not provide high-quality wildlife habitat 

28 (SCDNR 2005a). Vegetation community types in the Sandhills ecoregion include grassland and 

29 early successional habitats, Sandhills pine woodland, seepage slopes, ponds and depressions, 

30 blackwater stream systems, and river bottoms. Common wildlife species found in the Sandhills 

31 ecoregion are white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, opossum, and raccoon. A 

32 variety of bird species also inhabit the region and include wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 

33 northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and several species of warblers. A high diversity of 

34 reptiles and amphibians reside in the various habitats present in this region (SCDNR 2005a; 

35 Griffith et al. 2002). 

36 The Coastal Plain, the largest ecoregion in South Carolina, consists of two different landscapes. 

37 The inner portion bordering the Sandhills is largely agricultural, with small patches and 

38 hardwood remnant forests along creeks. The flatwoods make up the outer portion, which is 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-46 April 2010 

1 primarily pine-dominant forest. Large floodplains cross both portions and a majority of them are 

2 forested. The most dominant vegetation habitat types are grassland and early successional 

3 habitats, pine forest, and river bottoms (SCDNR 2005a). The southern floodplain forests 

4 include bottomland hardwood forest consisting of bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green 

5 ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and cypress-gum swamps 

6 dominated by water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), bald cypress 

7 (Taxodium distichum), and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) (Griffith et al. 2002). Although 

8 understory vegetation in the cypress-gum swamp community is sparse, a variety of wildlife 

9 species − from amphibians to mammals – use this habitat. Common wildlife species found in 

10 this region include many game species – white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, 

11 opossum, raccoon, wild turkey, northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), mourning dove 

12 (Zenaida macroura), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox, wood duck (Aix sponsa), mink (Mustela 

13 vision), otter (Lontra canadensis), and beaver (SCE&G 2009a; SCDNR 2005b). 

14 2.4.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

15 The NRC has defined important species as any species that are rare, ecologically sensitive, 

16 play an ecological role, or are relied on by a valuable species, and/or have economic or 

17 recreational value (NUREG-1555 [NRC 2000]). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

18 identifies threatened or endangered species in 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12. Important 

19 species also include rare species proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, published in 

20 the Federal Register as candidates for listing, or listed as threatened, endangered, or species of 

21 concern by the state in which they occur. Biological indicator species that respond to and 

22 indicate environmental change are also classed as important species. 

23 No areas designated by FWS as critical habitat exist at the VCSNS site (NRC 2004). SCE&G 

24 conducted surveys for threatened and endangered species at the VCSNS site and found none 

25 (SCE&G 2002a; Nelson 2006, 2007). The locations of ecological surveys conducted on the 

26 VCSNS site are shown in Figure 2-15. 

27 Threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that may occur in the vicinity of the 

28 VCSNS site are listed in Table 2-16. This table is composed of listed species with recorded 

29 occurrences in Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties in South Carolina (FWS 

30 2008; SCDNR 2006a). 

31 The review team’s biological assessment of the Federally listed threatened and endangered 

32 terrestrial plant and animal species that potentially could occur at or near the VCSNS site is 

33 provided in Appendix F. Life-history attributes of species pertinent to the review of SCE&G’s 

34 application, as well information about the occurrence of these species in the project area, are 

35 summarized this section. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-47 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-15. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Locations at the VCSNS Site 

3 (SCE&G 2009) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-48 April 2010 

1 Table 2-16. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species Occurring Within and in the Vicinity 

2 of the VCSNS Site (within 6 mi of the site) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal/State 

Status County 

Mammals 

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SE Richland, Aiken 

Birds 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA, SE Fairfield, Newberry, 

Richland 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE , Richland 

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Newberry, Richland 

Amphibians 

Hyla andersonii Pine Barrens treefrog ST Richland 

Plants 

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE , Richland 

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE/SE Richland 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Richland 

Sources: SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008 

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; SE = State listed as 

endangered; ST = State listed as threatened 

3 Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring Within and in the Vicinity of the VCSNS 

4 Site (within 6 mi of the site) 

5 Fauna

6 Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is State7 listed as endangered and is found in forested areas, primarily in pine or mixed pine-hardwood 

8 stands. This species roosts in a variety of places including hollow trees, under bark, in 

9 abandoned buildings, and under bridges. The species has been recorded in Aiken and 

10 Richland Counties, but there are no recorded occurrences at the VCSNS site (NRC 2004). 

11 Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The bald eagle was the only Federally listed species 

12 found on the VCSNS site during the surveys conducted in 2002, 2006, 2008, and 2009 (SCE&G 

13 2002a; Nelson 2006; Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008, 2009a). The bald eagle was delisted in 2007 

14 and is not protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird 

15 Treaty Act. Adult and juvenile bald eagles are commonly observed on the VCSNS site, and 

16 they nest and forage along Monticello and Parr reservoirs. The closest nest is located on the 

17 north end of the jetty in the Monticello Reservoir, approximately 1.7 mi north of proposed 

18 VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and another one is located on the west side of the Parr Reservoir 

19 approximately 1.8 mi northwest of the proposed new reactor units as shown in Figure 2-14 

20 (SCE&G 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-49 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Wood stork (Mycteria americana). The wood stork is Federally and State-listed as endangered 

2 and is known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2008). A variety of wetlands are used by this 

3 species for nesting, feeding, and roosting, and in South Carolina, colony sites are surrounded 

4 by extensive palustrine forested wetlands. Wood storks are known to nest in the upper 

5 branches of black gum or cypress trees that are located in standing water (swamps). Shallow, 

6 open water is required for successful foraging (FWS 1986; Murphy 2006). 

7 Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). The red-cockaded woodpecker is listed as 

8 Federally and State endangered and is known to occur in Lexington and Richland Counties 

9 (FWS 2008). Populations of this species are distributed across the southeastern United States 

10 and managed by distinct recovery units. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are dependent on open, 

11 mature pine forests and savannahs for prime foraging and nesting habitat. The large, old pines 

12 are needed because the birds excavate cavities in the living trees completely within the 

13 heartwood to roost and nest in. The cavity trees must be in homogeneous stands of pine with 

14 little to no midstory present. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require 75 to 200 ac of foraging 

15 habitat (large mature pines) with a well-developed herbaceous layer that includes native 

16 bunchgrasses and forbs. There is no suitable habitat for this species on the VCSNS site 

17 (NRC 2004). 

18 Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii). The pine barrens treefrog is State-listed as threatened 

19 and is known to occur in Richland County (SCDNR 2006a). This species inhabits trees in 

20 swamps adjacent to sandhill habitats (NRC 2004). There is no recorded occurrence of this 

21 species on or near the VCSNS site (FPC 1974) and none of the species was encountered 

22 during any of the surveys in 2002, 2006, or 2007 (see Figure 2-15) (SCE&G 2002a; Nelson 

23 2006, 2007). 

24 Flora

25 Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Smooth coneflower is Federally and State-listed as 

26 endangered and is known to occur in Richland County and may possibly occur in Lexington 

27 County (SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008). This species is found in meadows and open woodlands 

28 on basic or near neutral soils, often with eastern redcedar. Questions remain concerning the 

29 biology and natural distribution of this species in South Carolina (Nelson 2006). It is rare 

30 throughout its range and has sustained significant habitat loss, at least in part due to fire31 suppression activities (Porcher and Rayner 2001). Smooth coneflower was not observed in the 

32 study area during surveys and the likelihood of it being present on the VCSNS site is marginal 

33 due to the lack of appropriate soils (Nelson 2007). 

34 Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia). The rough-leaved loosestrife is Federally 

35 and State-listed as endangered and is known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2008; SCDNR 

36 2006a). This perennial herb occurs in ecotones between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine 

37 pocosins (upland swamps) in moist, sandy, or peaty soils with low vegetation. Rough-leaved 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-50 April 2010 

1 loosestrife has also been found to occur in disturbed areas such as roadside depressions, 

2 powerline rights-of-way, firebreaks, and trails (NatureServe 2009a). There is no recorded 

3 occurrence of this species at or near the VCSNS site (NRC 2004) and none of this species is 

4 encountered during surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007 (Nelson 2006, 2007). 

5 Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi). Canby’s dropwort is Federally and State-listed as 

6 endangered and is known to occur in Richland County (FWS 2008). This perennial herb grows 

7 in wet meadows, wet pine savannahs, shallow pineland ponds, and cypress-pine swamps (NRC 

8 2004). There are no recorded occurrences of this species at or adjacent to the VCSNS site 

9 (NRC 2004; Nelson 2006, 2007). 

10 Important Species 

11 Other important species, as defined in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000) that occur on the VCSNS site 

12 are game species and Federal and/or State-listed species of concern. The game species 

13 present on the VCSNS site include white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, northern bobwhite, 

14 mourning dove, wild turkey, and various species of waterfowl. Hunting is allowed and occurs in 

15 the Broad River Wildlife Management Area (BRWMA) that is adjacent to the VCSNS site and is 

16 managed by the SCDNR (SCE&G 2009a; SCDNR 2007). Several species listed as species of 

17 concern by the State of South Carolina are known to occur in Fairfield County and they include 

18 12 plant species and 1 mammal, but none of the species was found on the VCSNS site during 

19 surveys (SCDNR 2006a; Nelson 2007). 

20 Important Habitats 

21 Important habitats include those designated as critical habitats by FWS as well as sanctuaries, 

22 refuges, and/or preserves that have been set aside and protected by State and/or Federal 

23 agencies or organizations. Critical habitats are those that are designated to support Federally 

24 listed threatened or endangered species. There are no areas on or near the VCSNS site that 

25 are designated as critical habitat by the FWS (SCE&G 2009a). 

26 Wetlands on the VCSNS site are typically associated with small streams in steep ravines. 

27 Some wetlands on the site were created by beaver activity and could provide habitat for 

28 migratory birds and other avian communities throughout the year (Edwards and Otis 1999). 

29 There is also freshwater marsh habitat along the shores of reservoirs that contains emergent 

30 plants, such as pickerelweed, smartweed, and lizard’s tail, which provide food and/or cover for a 

31 variety of wildlife including waterfowl, migratory birds, white-tailed deer, and reptiles and 

32 amphibians (SCE&G 2009a, Table 2.4-4). Interior wetlands, reservoirs, and riverine systems 

33 present on the VCSNS site provide migration and wintering habitat for waterfowl and some 

34 shorebirds (SCDNR 2005a). SCE&G stated that all streamside management zones on the 

35 VCSNS site are protected and managed according to the South Carolina Forestry Commission 

36 best management practices (BMPs) (SCFC 1994). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-51 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 There are two waterfowl management areas on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site: the 

2 Monticello Reservoir Waterfowl Management Area and the Parr Reservoir Waterfowl 

3 Management Area, and both could be considered wildlife refuges (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G 

4 refers to the area as Parr Reservoir Waterfowl Management Area and the SCDNR refers to the 

5 same area as the BRWMA. The BRWMA was established in the late 1970s to mitigate for 

6 activities associated with the construction of VCSNS Unit 1 and it is managed by SCDNR. This 

7 area is used by a wide variety of species such as ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), wood 

8 duck, mallard, and green-winged teal. The BRWMA is also widely used for recreational 

9 activities such as hunting, bird watching, fishing, and boating. There is public access most of 

10 the year; however, due to the small size of the area, the BRWMA is closed to the public during 

11 winter months to avoid disturbing migrating waterfowl. Various other wildlife species use the 

12 BRWMA and are present throughout the year, such as wading birds and mammals (including 

13 deer, bobcat, fox, coyote, raccoon, and others). Birds of prey such as the bald eagle can also 

14 be found foraging in the BRWMA and nesting nearby (SCDNR 2007). 

15 Important Species – Transmission Lines 

16 Federally and State-listed terrestrial species classified as threatened and endangered and 

17 known to occur in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission lines (Aiken, Bamberg, 

18 Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, 

19 Orangeburg, Richland, and Saluda) are listed in Table 2-17. The list was obtained from FWS 

20 county lists for the State of South Carolina and the SCDNR Heritage Trust database (FWS 

21 2008; SCDNR 2006a). 

22 Field surveys for threatened and endangered Federally and State-listed species were 

23 conducted during May, June, July, and August of 2002 along existing transmission-line corridors 

24 associated with VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2002b). A portion of the new lines required for VCSNS 

25 Units 2 and 3 may be routed in the existing corridors (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G and Santee 

26 Cooper conducted reconnaissance-level studies for each proposed transmission-line corridor 

27 and determined there were three recorded occurrences of protected species (species not 

28 specified) within 100 to 500 ft of the proposed VCSNS-St. George transmission-line corridor 

29 (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). Field surveys were not conducted in the proposed corridors 

30 because the exact corridor routes have not been determined. Once siting studies are updated 

31 and final routes are determined, both SCE&G and Santee Cooper have stated that they would 

32 conduct field surveys along the final routes (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-52 April 2010 

1 Table 2-17. Federally and State-Listed Terrestrial Species in Counties Crossed by the Proposed 

2 Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status County 

Mammals 

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafineque's big-eared bat SE Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Orangeburg, Richland 

Birds 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT/ST Colleton 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's plover ST Colleton 

Elanoides forficatus American swallow-tailed kite SE Dorchester 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA/

SE 

Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, Chester, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, 

Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, 

Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda 

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Lexington, 

Richland 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, Chester, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Lexington, 

Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda 

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Colleton 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE/SE Colleton 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle FE/SE Colleton 

Amphibians 

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg 

Hyla andersonii Pine barrens treefrog ST Richland 

Plethodon websteri Webster's salamander SE Saluda 

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Orangeburg 

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Aiken, Dorchester 

Vascular Plants 

Amphianthus pusillus Pool sprite FT/ST Lancaster, Saluda 

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Richland 

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower FE/SE Lancaster, Lexington 

Isoetes melanospora Black-spored quillwort FE/SE Lancaster 

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry FE/SE Dorchester 

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE/SE Richland 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Bamberg, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Orangeburg, Richland 

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken, Saluda 

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken 

Sources: SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008 

FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; 

ST = State listed as threatened 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-53 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Important Habitats – Transmission Lines 

2 Wetlands

3 Palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine freshwater wetlands occur within and around all of the 

4 proposed six new transmission-line corridors and are typical of those found in the various 

5 physiographic regions of South Carolina. Palustrine wetlands make up approximately 

6 70 percent of the total wetland area in the State of South Carolina (Dahl 1999). Palustrine 

7 wetlands include areas commonly referred to as wet pine flatwoods, pocosins, Carolina bays, 

8 beaver ponds, bottomland hardwood forests, swamps (muck peat), and freshwater marshes. 

9 Although they may be seasonally dry and may lack surface connections to stream systems, 

10 Carolina bays provide breeding habitat for numerous amphibians, including the flatwoods 

11 salamander(Ambystoma cingulatum), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), and gopher frog 

12 (Lithobates capito) (SCDNR 2005a). Seeps and shrub bogs that occur in xeric longleaf pine 

13 habitat in the Sandhills ecoregion are home to the pine barrens treefrog (SCDNR 2005a). 

14 Lacustrine wetlands include the shallows of permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs and 

15 intermittent lakes. Riverine wetlands are limited to shallow freshwater river and stream 

16 channels or, in the case of deep rivers, to shallow areas along the shore. Palustrine forested 

17 wetlands are the most common wetland type that occurs in South Carolina and in the proposed 

18 transmission-line corridor (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; Dahl 1999). 

19 Santee Cooper estimated the extent of wetlands and other waters of the United States in its 

20 proposed transmission-line corridors by consulting available U.S. Department of Agriculture 

21 (USDA) county soil surveys, FWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, and USGS 

22 topographic maps (MACTEC 2008). A wetlands delineation was also conducted along the 

23 approximate 2.44 mi of the proposed new transmission-line corridors parallel to existing the 

24 right-of-way near the VCSNS site; however, the USACE has not yet verified the findings 

25 (MACTEC 2008; SCE&G 2009e). SCE&G estimated the extent of wetlands and other waters of 

26 the United States in its proposed transmission-line corridors and/or study areas by consulting 

27 FWS NWI maps (FP&S 2008). Because the VCSNS-Lake Murray line would be routed entirely 

28 within existing transmission-line corridors and the final routes for the VCSNS-Killian and 

29 VCSNS-St. George lines were not determined, no wetlands delineation was conducted on the 

30 proposed lines (FP&S 2008). 

31 2.4.1.4 Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring 

32 Many ecological studies were conducted on or near the VCSNS site before and since the 

33 construction of Unit 1, including a baseline biotic survey for the Broad River Study Area by 

34 Dames and Moore (1974), the final EIS for the Parr Hydroelectric Project by the Federal Power 

35 Commission in 1974 (FPC 1974), an environmental monitoring report for the VCSNS site 

36 prepared by Dames and Moore for SCDHEC and NRC (Dames and Moore 1985), and as 

37 recently as 2002, a threatened and endangered species survey of the site and transmission-line 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-54 April 2010 

1 corridors in support of license renewal (SCE&G 2002b). Targeted studies were conducted in 

2 2006 and 2007 to survey for threatened and endangered species and small mammal trapping 

3 was conducted in 2008 and 2009 (Nelson 2006, 2007; Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008, 2009a). No 

4 ecological monitoring beyond reconnaissance-level analysis has occurred in the proposed new 

5 transmission-line corridor associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3; however, SCE&G 

6 has stated it would conduct field studies once exact corridor routes have been determined. 

7 The review team evaluated the available information relative to the terrestrial ecological 

8 monitoring program and the data collected by the program. The review team concludes that the 

9 program provides adequate data to characterize and track impacts on the terrestrial ecological 

10 environment for the VCSNS site in support of the acceptance criteria outlined by the NRC (NRC 

11 2000). However, more information about the proposed transmission system would be required 

12 to provide adequate data to characterize and track terrestrial ecological impacts associated with 

13 specific transmission-line corridor routes. 

14 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 

15 The major aquatic environments within the vicinity of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 include 

16 the Broad River, Monticello and Parr reservoirs, and Mayo Creek (Figure 2-3). Mayo Creek is 

17 the largest stream within the site vicinity and it receives drainage from several small seasonal 

18 tributary channels. The Monticello and Parr reservoirs are the largest waterbodies near the site. 

19 The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir and 

20 discharge it to Parr Reservoir. 

21 2.4.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity 

22 Aquatic resources on or in the vicinity of the VCSNS site include the river, reservoirs, and creek 

23 mentioned previously. There are no aquatic sanctuaries or preserves that could be affected by 

24 the proposed action, and no habitats are present that could be defined as critical habitat for an 

25 aquatic species. 

26 Broad River 

The Broad River basin encompasses approximately 2400 mi2 27 and 27 watersheds within the 

28 State of South Carolina and includes almost 2800 mi of streams and more than 14,500 ac of 

29 lakes. The basin falls within the boundaries of seven counties in the state: Cherokee, 

30 Spartanburg, York, Union, Chester, Fairfield, and Richland (SCDHEC 2007). Within the State of 

31 South Carolina, the Broad River basin is entirely within the Piedmont ecoregion. The Piedmont 

32 is characterized by gently rolling to hilly terrain, with relatively confined stream valleys, and 

33 elevations ranging from 375 to 1000 ft above msl. Major tributaries of the Broad River basin 

34 include the Tyger and Enoree rivers, which intersect the Broad River from the west (SCE&G 

35 2009a). Of the 1.5 million ac associated with the basin, more than 60 percent are forested, with 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-55 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 approximately 24 percent used for agriculture, and less than 10 percent classified as urban 

2 development (SCDHEC 2007). As shown in Figure 2-3, the Broad River flows south along the 

3 Sumter National Forest and flows to the west of the VCSNS site. A run-of-the-river 

4 impoundment along the Broad River near the vicinity of the VCSNS forms the Parr Reservoir. 

5 Parr Reservoir 

6 As described by SCE&G (2009a), the Parr Reservoir was created in 1914 by installing a 2000-

7 ft-long dam across the Broad River at Parr Shoals (Figure 2-3). The purpose of the dam was to 

8 provide a pool for the original Parr Hydroelectric Plant. Before 1977, the surface area of the 

9 reservoir was 1850 ac. In 1977, the reservoir level was raised 9 ft, which increased the surface 

10 area to approximately 4400 ac, to accommodate the operation of the FPSF (SCE&G 2009a). 

11 Parr Reservoir is approximately 7 mi long and has an average water depth of 15 ft (SCE&G 

12 2009a). Because of the operation of the FPSF, hydrologic patterns in the Parr Reservoir are 

13 variable. Generally, water from the Monticello Reservoir is released through the FPSF into Parr 

14 Reservoir throughout the day and early evening to provide hydroelectric power at Parr Shoals 

15 Dam, resulting in a net southward flow in Parr Reservoir. During the night, when electrical 

16 demand is lower, water from Parr Reservoir is pumped upward into the Monticello Reservoir, 

17 reversing the flow to the north in Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 As described by SCE&G (2009a), the flow conditions and 4-day retention time of water in Parr 

19 Reservoir generally promote high dissolved oxygen levels and turbid conditions. As noted in 

20 Section 2.3, there are two SCDHEC water-quality monitoring stations in Parr Reservoir 

21 (Figure 2-12). The upstream station (B-346) is above the intake/discharge canal for the FPSF. 

22 The downstream station (B-345) is in the forebay near the Parr Shoals Dam. Fecal coliform 

23 concentrations at these stations were deemed low enough to support recreational 

24 (e.g., swimming) uses (SCDHEC 2007). According to SCDHEC (2007) water-monitoring 

25 results, water conditions were not optimal to support aquatic life at the two stations on Parr 

26 Reservoir. The total phosphorus concentrations at the upstream monitoring station above the 

27 intake/discharge canal for the FPSF were found to exceed the standards for supporting use by 

28 aquatic life. At the downstream station, elevated copper concentrations were deemed to 

29 exceed the aquatic life criterion, and therefore were not optimal to support aquatic life at this 

30 location (SCDHEC 2007). There are no fish consumption advisories in Parr Reservoir 

31 (SCDHEC 2009c). 

32 Following commencement of operation at the VCSNS Unit 1, aquatic monitoring efforts in Parr 

33 Reservoir included an evaluation of the fish community composition by means of gillnetting and 

34 boat electroshocking. During 1983 and 1984, 27 species were sampled from Parr Reservoir 

35 (Dames and Moore 1985). Eight species of centrarchids accounted for 44 percent of the entire 

36 catch and two species of clupeids (gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum] and threadfin shad 

37 [D. petenense]) accounted for 43 percent of the catch. The remaining catch included taxa that 

38 each contributed less than 10 percent of the total catch: ictalurids (6.5 percent), catostomids 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-56 April 2010 

1 (3.3 percent), moronids (0.9 percent), cyprinids (0.9 percent), percids (0.7 percent), lepisosteids 

2 (0.2 percent), and esocids (0.02 percent) (Dames and Moore 1985). 

3 During 2001 and 2002, SCDNR conducted an inventory of fishes in the Broad River. Using boat 

4 and backpack electroshocking methods, a total of 44 fish species were sampled throughout 

5 27 km of the Broad River at stations both upstream and downstream of Parr Reservoir 

6 (Bettinger et al. 2003). The most dominant species sampled throughout the study included 

7 redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), and notchlip redhorse 

8 (Moxostoma collapsum). These three fish species made up 50 percent of the total catch. Other 

9 commonly encountered taxa in the Broad River included gizzard shad, whitefin shiner 

10 (Cyprinella nivea), sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus), and brassy jumprock (Moxostoma cf.

11 lachneri). A quantitative evaluation of the data set derived from electroshocking efforts 

12 indicated that the presence of impoundments along the Broad River did not result in 

13 fragmentation of the community composition of fishes; however Bettinger et al. (2003) suggest 

14 “...a different community composition might exist in the absence of dams.” The Bettinger et al. 

15 (2003) study did not include a sampling station within the vicinity of the VCSNS site. However 

16 two stations between the Parr and Neal Shoals dams were included in the study (Figure 2-16); 

17 station 2 was located upstream of the confluence of the Enoree River, 22 km above Parr Shoals 

18 Dam and station 3 was located upstream of the Tyger River confluence. Taxa comprising more 

19 than 10 percent of the total combined catch at the sampling stations nearest the VCSNS site 

20 (i.e., stations 2 and 3) included gizzard shad, whitefin shiner, greenfin shiner 

21 (Cyprinella chloristia), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), sandbar shiner, notchlip redhorse, 

22 snail bullhead (Ameiurus brunneus), white perch (Morone americana), margined madtom 

23 (Noturus insignis), redbreast sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish (L. microlophus), and Piedmont 

24 darter (Percina crassa) (Bettinger et al. 2003). 

25 Between 2006 and 2009, SCE&G conducted intermittent inventories of fish community 

26 composition near the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The sampling efforts used a combination of 

27 boat electrofishing, gillnets, and hoop nets and documented 28 species of fish in Parr Reservoir 

28 (Table 2-18; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Similar to the species 

29 composition determined during the 1983-1984 study year, the Normandeau (2007, 2008, 

30 2009a) and Quattlebaum (2008a) sampling efforts found that clupeids and centrarchids 

31 comprised the largest percentages of catch in Parr Reservoir; 31 and 24 percent, respectively. 

32 Ictalurids (five species) accounted for 18 percent of the total abundance during the 2006-2009 

33 effort, which represents an increase from the 1983-1984 Dames and Moore (1985) results. 

34 Gizzard shad, representing over 18 percent of the total catch, was the most abundant species 

35 sampled during the 2006-2009 Parr Reservoir sampling effort. Other predominant species 

36 included bluegill (15 percent of the total catch), threadfin shad (12 percent of the total catch), 

37 channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus; 12 percent of the total catch), and white perch (11 percent 

38 of the total catch) (data derived from Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-57 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-16. Broad River Basin and Impoundments (after Bettinger et al. 2003). 
Draft NUREG-1939 2-58 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-18. Fish Species Sampled from 2006-2009 Survey Efforts in Mayo Creek and Parr and Monticello 1 Reservoirs 2 Family Common Name Scientific Name Relative Abundance (percent)(a) Species Status(b) Mayo Creek Parr Reservoir Monticello Reservoir Catostomidae Brassy jumprock Moxostoma cf. lachneri 4.43 0.590 0.00 -- Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer 0.00 0.147 0.00 Highest Priority

 Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans 0.6 0.00 0.194 -- 

 Notchlip redhorse Moxostoma collapsum 0.00 2.06 0.824 Moderate Priority

 Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus 0.00 0.811 0.048 High Priority 

 Robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum 0.00 0.147 0.00 Highest Priority

 Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum 0.00 5.16 1.45 -- 

Centrarchidae Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.00 0.147 2.28 -- 

 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 0.795 15.0 29.2 -- 

 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 0.227 6.78 5.67 -- 

 Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 0.00 1.11 1.36 -- 

 Redbreast Lepomis auritus 15.4 0.074 0.582 -- 

 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus 0.3 1.03 0.630 -- 

 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu 0.00 0.295 0.194 -- 

 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 0.00 0.00 0.291 -- 

Clupeidae Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 0.00 18.4 25.3 -- 

 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense 0.00 12.1 0.00 -- 

Cyprinidae Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus 29.6 0.00 0.00 -- 

 Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 7.83 0.00 0.00 -- 

Eastern silvery minnow Hybognathus regius 0.00 0.516 0.388 -- 

 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.00 0.590 0.00 -- 

 Greenfin shiner Cyprinella chloristia 0.681 0.00 0.00 Moderate Priority

 Sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus 10.8 0.147 0.00 -- 

 Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius 0.00 3.76 1.02 -- 

 Whitefin shiner Cyprinella nivea 0.00 0.221 1.60 -- 

 Yellowfin shiner Notropis lutipinnis 26.4 0.00 0.00 -- 

Ictaluridae Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus 0.00 5.38 12.6 -- 
April 2010 2-59 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment Table 2-18. (contd) 1 Family Common Name Scientific Name Relative Abundance (percent)(a) Species Status(b) Mayo Creek Parr Reservoir Monticello Reservoir Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 0.00 11.6 3.73 -- Flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus 0.114 0.00 0.485 Moderate Priority Margined madtom Noturus insignis 0.114 0.00 0.00 -- Snail bullhead Ameiurus brunneus 0.00 0.074 0.048 Moderate Priority White catfish Ameiurus catus 0.00 0.884 1.60 Moderate Priority Lepisosteidae Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus 0.00 0.295 0.00 -- Moronidae White bass Morone chrysops 0.00 0.00 0.097 -- White perch Morone americana 0.00 11.2 9.94 -- Percidae Piedmont darter Percina crassa 0.114 0.00 0.00 High Priority Seagreen darter Etheostoma thalassinum 1.02 0.00 0.00 High Priority Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi 2.38 0.00 0.00 -- Yellow perch Perca flavescens 0.00 1.33 0.485 -- Poeciliidae Eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 0.00 0.147 0.00 -- Sources: Data were derived from Normandeau (2007, 2008, 2009a), Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (2007, 2009b), and Quattlebaum (2008a, b). (a) Relative abundance was calculated as the total number of individuals (within a taxon) caught divided by the total number of individuals (among all taxa) within a particular waterbody. Note: survey approaches often included more than one sample method. (b) The species status is a priority conservation rank designated by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR 2005b). -- = No conservation status assigned 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-60 April 2010 

1 SCDNR (2005b) designated priority conservation species throughout the state. Designations 

2 were focused on species that are rare or at risk of imperilment and also included consideration 

3 for species that may be at risk in locations outside the state boundaries. The SCDNR (2005b) 

4 assessment identified 56 freshwater fishes, 6 diadromous fishes, 26 freshwater mussels, and 4 

5 freshwater snails. Species were ranked according to conservation priority, which included three 

6 categories: highest, high, and moderate. Of the 28 fish species collected during the 2006-2009 

7 Parr Reservoir sampling effort (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a), 6 are 

8 included in the SCDNR priority conservation species list. Designation of these six species 

9 ranges from moderate to highest priority (Table 2-18). 

10 To examine the benthic community in Parr Reservoir, Carnagey Biological Services (CBS) 

11 collected benthic invertebrates near the proposed location of the discharge structure for Units 2 

12 and 3 (approximately 1 km upstream of Parr Shoals Dam) and at an upstream control station 

13 approximately 9 km upstream of Parr Shoals Dam. Seasonal (e.g., quarterly) monitoring 

14 occurred for one year between 2008 and 2009 (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). Results were 

15 evaluated using a combination of bioassessment metrics and analyzed using statistical 

16 comparison techniques. The bioassessment metrics included taxa richness, various biotic 

17 indices (e.g., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera [EPT] index, North Carolina Biotic 

18 Index [NCBI]), and comparisons of functional groups and abundances described by Plafkin et al. 

19 (1989) in Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic 

20 Macroinvertebrates and Fish. The survey efforts yielded at least 22 different taxa from 8 orders 

21 (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). A temporally complete evaluation indicated that overall 

22 bioassessment metrics were not significantly different through time. These results indicate few 

23 differences in benthic community and water-quality conditions between the reference station 

24 and the proposed discharge location (CBS 2009d). 

25 Aquatic vegetation provides structural and functional ecosystem services to aquatic 

26 communities. Structurally, aquatic vegetation stabilizes sediments, can reduce flow velocities, 

27 and provides habitat for aquatic biota. Functionally, aquatic vegetation facilitates nutrient 

28 cycling in aquatic communities through growth and addition of biomass to the system, which can 

29 contribute to the base of the aquatic food web. SCE&G implemented an investigation of the 

30 aquatic vegetation community of Parr Reservoir during October 2008 by qualitatively assessing 

31 the occurrence of vegetation along 11 transects throughout the reservoir. Eleven plant species 

32 were identified during the survey. Two invasive species, alligatorweed (Alternanthera 

33 philoxeroides) and water primrose were observed at all locations (Quattlebaum 2008c). Other 

34 species noted by Quattlebaum (2008c) included smooth beggartick (Bidens laevis), bulrush, 

35 coon’s tail (Ceratophyllum demersum), lizard’s tail, marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), 

36 pickerelweed, smartweed (Polygonum persicaria), cattail, and rushes. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-61 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Monticello Reservoir 

2 The Monticello Reservoir was formed in 1977 by damming Frees Creek, a small tributary of the 

3 Broad River that flowed into Parr Reservoir approximately 1 mi upstream from the Parr Shoals 

4 Dam (SCE&G 2009a; NRC 2004). Monticello Reservoir is hydraulically connected to the Parr 

5 Reservoir via the FPSF, and it serves both as an upper pool for the FPSF and as a cooling pond 

6 for VCSNS Unit 1 (NRC 2004) (Figure 2-2). To the northeast, the reservoir contains a 

7 subimpoundment which is a 300-ac area owned by SCE&G and co-managed by SCE&G and 

8 SCDNR (SCE&G 2009a, SCDNR 2002). The subimpoundment fishery is managed differently 

9 from the main reservoir in that SCDNR regulates lower allowable fishery catch limits, restricts 

10 fishing effort to 2 days per week, and limits boat operations to electric motors (SCDNR 2002). 

11 The Monticello Reservoir, excluding the subimpoundment, is approximately 6 mi long with a 

12 total surface area of 6500 ac. The average water depth is 59 ft and the maximum depth is 

13 approximately 126 ft (SCE&G 2009a). 

14 Between 2000 and 2004, the SCDHEC evaluated the water quality in the Broad River basin to 

15 assess the overall health and condition of aquatic areas throughout the basin. There are four 

16 SCDHEC stations in Monticello Reservoir as shown in Figure 2-12). Stations B-328 and B-327 

17 were sampled monthly. At station B-328, located in the Monticello subimpoundment, water18 quality parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, toxins, turbidity, nutrients) met the compliance 

19 criteria and standards for supporting aquatic life and recreational uses. Throughout the 5-year 

20 monitoring period, this station yielded indications of improving conditions via a reduction in 

21 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, fecal coliform, and total nitrogen and phosphorus 

22 concentrations (SCDHEC 2007). Approximately 3.5 mi southwest of the subimpoundment 

23 station, water conditions were suboptimal to support aquatic life due to an exceedance of pH 

24 criteria at station B-327. Recreational use was not restricted at this mid-lake location (SCDHEC 

25 2007). Two randomly selected stations on Monticello Reservoir were monitored monthly for 1 

26 year during 2004. The first station (RL-04370) was approximately 1.5 mi southwest of the 

27 subimpoundment station, and the second station (RL-04374) was approximately 1 mi southeast 

28 of the mid-lake station. Station RL-04370 yielded benzoic acid, cadmium, DDD and DDE 

29 (metabolites of DDT) in the sediment sample. Station RL-04374 yielded benzoic acid, 

30 cadmium, nickel, chromium, copper, zinc, bis(n-octyl) phthalate, DDT, and DDE in the sediment 

31 sample. Despite the occurrence of these chemical constituents, recreational use was not 

32 restricted and water conditions were optimal for aquatic life near both stations (SCDHEC 2007). 

33 Based on analysis of fish tissue, there are no consumption advisories on Monticello Reservoir 

34 (SCDHEC 2007). 

35 Following commencement of operation at the VCSNS Unit 1, aquatic monitoring efforts in 

36 Monticello Reservoir included an evaluation of the fish community composition by means of 

37 gillnetting and boat electroshocking. During 1983 and 1984, 32 taxa representing 8 families 

38 were sampled from Monticello Reservoir (Dames and Moore 1985). Ten species of 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-62 April 2010 

1 centrarchids made up 55 percent of the entire catch and two species of clupeids (gizzard shad 

2 and threadfin shad) made up 28 percent of the catch. Dames and Moore (1985), reported the 

3 remaining catch in Monticello Reservoir to include ictalurids (7 percent), catostomids 

4 (5 percent), percids (3 percent), cyprinids (2 percent), moronids (<1 percent), and lepisostids 

5 (<1 percent). 

6 Cove rotenone studies conducted by SCDNR in 1987, 1988, 1995, and 1996 collected 29 

7 species of fish in Monticello Reservoir (Christie and Stroud 1996, 1997). Between 1988 and 

8 1995, the community composition of fish in the Monticello Reservoir remained stable. The 

9 predominant species were gizzard shad, channel catfish, white bass (Morone chrysops), and 

10 bluegill. In 1996, a shift in community structure was noted by a decrease in the standing stocks 

11 of white bass and a dramatic increase in the standing stocks of blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) 

12 (Christie and Stroud 1997). 

13 Seasonal creel surveys were conducted by SCDNR from 1997 to 1999. Fish targeted by 

14 anglers include ictalurids (blue catfish, channel catfish), centrarchids (bluegill, black crappie 

15 [Pomoxis nigromaculatus], largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), cyprinids (carp [Cyprinus

16 carpio]), and moronids (white bass, white perch). In Monticello Reservoir, ictalurids were 

17 targeted 46 percent of the time. Bluegill and largemouth bass were also popular fish targeted 

18 by anglers (Christie and Stroud 1999). While fishing efforts in Monticello Reservoir were found 

19 to be lower compared with other reservoirs, an increasing trend in fishing effort within Monticello 

20 Reservoir was noted (Christie and Stroud 1999). 

21 Between 2006 and 2009, SCE&G initiated inventories of fish community composition near the 

22 vicinity of the VCSNS site. The sampling effort used a combination of boat electrofishing, 

23 gillnets, and hoop nets and documented 24 fish species in Monticello Reservoir, excluding the 

24 subimpoundment (Table 2-18; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a). Similar to the trends noted by 

25 Dames and Moore (1985), centrarchids (comprising seven species) contributed the largest 

26 proportion (40 percent) of the total catch and clupeids (e.g., gizzard shad) were secondary in 

27 abundance (25 percent) during the 2006-2009 sampling effort. As noted in the fish community 

28 trends in Parr Reservoir, the abundance of ictalurids in Monticello Reservoir appears to have 

29 increased (18 percent of the total 2006-2009 catch) since the early 1980s (Normandeau 2007, 

30 2008, 2009a). The most predominant species captured in the Monticello Reservoir between 

31 2006 and 2009 included bluegill (29 percent of the total catch), gizzard shad (25 percent), blue 

32 catfish (13 percent), and white perch (10 percent). 

33 To examine the benthic community in Monticello Reservoir, CBS collected macroinvertebrate 

34 samples at three stations in the reservoir. The reference station was located approximately 3 mi 

35 northwest of the VCSNS site. Two additional stations were located at the south end of the 

36 reservoir near the proposed Units 2 and 3 water-treatment intake and raw-water intake 

37 structures, respectively (CBS 2009d). Seasonal (e.g., quarterly) monitoring occurred from July 

38 2008 to April 2009 (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). Results were evaluated using a combination 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-63 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 of bioassessment metrics and analyzed using statistical comparison techniques. The survey 

2 efforts yielded at least 15 different taxa from 11 orders (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). The 

3 general trends in benthic community structure at the control station and the two water-intake 

4 stations do not indicate disparate conditions (CBS 2008a, c; CBS 2009c, d). 

5 SCE&G conducted an investigation of the aquatic vegetation community of Monticello Reservoir 

6 on November 6, 2008 at six locations, including the proposed raw-water and water-treatment 

7 intakes. Biologists used a viewing tube to facilitate observations in shallow-water locations and 

8 used a rake for sampling in deep water areas. No aquatic plants were observed in the shallow 

9 water at the six sampling locations. Only stoneworts (Nitella spp.) branched multicellular algae, 

10 were collected from a deeper-water area offshore of the public boat landing on the eastern 

11 shore of Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). 

12 Onsite Streams 

13 There are 49,288 linear feet of streams within the VCSNS site boundary. Most of the onsite 

14 streams are seasonal (see Table 2-19, Figure 4-2). Mayo Creek is the primary perennial stream 

15 located on the VCSNS site. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (2007) describes Mayo Creek as a typical 

16 Piedmont stream characterized by flowing through a mixed hardwood forest, almost completely 

17 shaded by tree canopy. The creek originates 0.5 mi southeast of VCSNS Unit 1, and flows 

18 approximately 3.6 mi southwest before draining into the Broad River, downstream of the Parr 

Shoals Dam (Figure 2-3). The Mayo Creek drainage area is approximately 6 mi2 19 and 

20 encompasses mixed hardwood forests that may mitigate surface-water temperatures during 

21 warm summer months (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007; SCE&G 2009a, s). In addition to Mayo 

22 Creek, there are intermittent and seasonal stream channels within the VCSNS site vicinity. Fish 

23 have been noted in residual pools associated with intermittent tributary channels, but there may 

24 be insufficient water to maintain connectivity between habitats to perpetuate aquatic biota (Tetra 

25 Tech NUS, Inc. 2007). 

26 Aquatic biota rely on the overall quality of water within a particular habitat for survival and 

27 sustainability. The results of water-quality parameters measured in conjunction with four 

28 seasonal sampling events that occurred between July 2006 and July 2009 indicate that all 

29 sampling stations in Mayo Creek met the SCDHEC quality standards for temperature and 

30 dissolved oxygen in freshwater habitats (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b; Quattlebaum 

31 2008b; CBS 2008b, 2009a, b). The SCDHEC freshwater classification standards, which are 

32 approved by the EPA (in accordance with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 

33 Part 131), indicate the suitability of a waterbody for various purposes including the sustainability 

34 of aquatic biota (SCDHEC 2004). One metric, pH, did not meet the SCDHEC freshwater 

35 standards at one or more stations during the 2009 winter and spring sampling events which may 

36 have been due to a faulty water quality meter (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b). During the 2006 

37 summer and fall aquatic surveys, pH values met the criterion, but were detected at the minimum 

38 threshold value for the freshwater standard (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007; SCDHEC 2004). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-64 April 2010 

1 Increased acidity has been linked to environmental and biological conditions (organic content 

2 and phytoplankton production) within specific geographic regions (SCDHEC 2009d), but 

3 changes in increased acidity can impose adverse impacts on the growth and survival of critical 

4 early life stages of aquatic organisms (Fuiman 2002; Houde 2002). 

5 Table 2-19. VCSNS Onsite Stream Characteristics 

Stream Name 

Linear 

Feet 

Average width 

(ft) 

Average 

depth (ft) Substrate 

Tributary 

Stream Order 

Flow 

Regime 

C 3656 20 0.83 sand, gravel -- -- 

F 6850 12 <1 silt, sand First seasonal 

G 1778 15 4 silt Second seasonal 

H 1426 15 4 silt Second seasonal 

K 9517 25 6 silt, sand Third seasonal 

L 2342 12 4 sand Second seasonal 

M 9364 15 -- -- -- Perennial 

N 5454 12 0.25-3 silt, sand, gravel First seasonal 

P 2044 10 0.25-3 silt, sand, gravel First seasonal 

T 6857 10 0.25-3 silt, sand, gravel First seasonal 

Data Source: USACE 2009 

-- = Information not available 

6 Fish surveys were conducted in Mayo Creek throughout the lower, middle, and upper stream 

7 segments and within a tributary channel of the creek. Methods for fish sampling included 

8 minnow traps (unbaited and left to fish overnight) and backpack electrofishing (single-pass 

9 sampling transects ranging from 166 to 205 ft in length) (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., 2007, 2009b; 

10 Quattlebaum 2008b). A total of 16 taxa were sampled during the 2006-2009 fish survey efforts 

11 (Table 2-18). While there were similarities in the type of taxa encountered throughout the 

12 various stream reaches, species abundances were not distributed similarly within Mayo Creek. 

13 The most predominant species encountered during the Mayo Creek sampling efforts included 

14 the yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), sandbar 

15 shiner, and redbreast sunfish. 

16 Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled seasonally from three stations in Mayo Creek 

17 between July 2008 and April 2009. The intent of the sampling was to evaluate the community of 

18 macroinvertebrates and assess stream condition (CBS 2008b, d; CBS 2009a, b). The first 

19 station was the most upstream station sampled on Mayo Creek and located approximately 1 mi 

20 upstream of Parr Road. The second station was approximately 0.12 mi upstream of Parr Road 

21 on Mayo Creek, and the third station was located 164 ft downstream of Parr Road (CBS 2009b). 

22 Results were evaluated using a combination of 12 bioassessment metrics and analyzed using 

23 statistical comparison techniques. The bioassessment metrics included taxa richness, various 

24 biotic indices (e.g., EPT index, NCBI, community loss index, etc.), and comparisons of 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-65 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 functional groups and abundances described by Plafkin et al. (1989) in Rapid Bioassessment 

2 Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 

3 Based on the qualitative assessment of the composition of benthic macroinvertebrates in Mayo 

4 Creek, CBS concluded that the community was under duress, which may have been explained 

5 by drought conditions observed during the July 2008 sampling event (CBS 2008b). The 

6 October 2008 sampling event resulted in similar conclusions with regard to a community of 

7 benthic macroinvertebrates that demonstrated signs of stress. CBS (2008d) noted drought 

8 conditions persisted throughout much of the summer, which may partially explain the results, 

9 although no data were provided to support this supposition. According to the SCDHEC 

10 bioclassification rating system (e.g., the mean of the NCBI and EPT indices), conditions at the 

11 most upstream station improved slightly following the January 2009 sampling to achieve a score 

12 of “good” yet the remaining two downstream stations only achieved ratings of “good/fair,” 

13 indicating partial impairment (CBS 2009a). The April 2009 results indicated that conditions 

14 within Mayo Creek improved as all stations yielded “good” bioclassification scores. Throughout 

15 the study period, water quality (pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen) was measured in 

16 conjunction with macroinvertebrate collections. Despite a range of benthic community 

17 conditions (e.g., stressed, impaired, good), water-quality metrics were within the SCDHEC 

18 freshwater quality standards (CBS 2009b). During the survey efforts at least 43 taxa were 

19 encountered, representing 14 orders (CBS 2008b, d; CBS 2009a, b). Mayfly (Caenis sp.) and 

20 caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche sp.) were the most predominant. 

21 2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines 

22 The delivery of power associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require upgrading existing 

23 transmission-line corridors, and clearing new corridors, transmission lines, and substations. 

24 Two entities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, are responsible for identifying the proposed locations 

25 associated with new and upgraded transmission lines. In total, six new 230-kV lines are 

26 proposed for the transmission of electricity associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

27 (Figure 2-5) (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). Systematic aquatic surveys are not included as part 

28 of the transmission-line site-selection process. In the absence of empirical data, 

29 reconnaissance-level information pertaining to species designated as endangered, threatened, 

30 or species of concern associated with the counties in which the transmission lines would occur 

31 was derived from FWS (2008) and SCDNR (2006a) and is provided in Table 2-20. 

32 Santee Cooper Transmission Lines 

33 The following descriptions of the proposed actions associated with the Santee Cooper 

34 transmission lines were derived from the MACTEC (2008) transmission-line siting study. 

35 Santee Cooper proposed the addition of 235 mi of transmission lines with nearly all 

36 (98.9 percent) of the additions occurring within existing transmission-line corridors (Figure 2-5). 

37 The Flat Creek line, extending 72 mi northeast from the VCSNS site to the existing Flat Creek 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-66 April 2010 

1 Table 2-20. Aquatic Species Designated as Threatened, Endangered, or Species of Concern 

2 in the Transmission-Line Siting Studies 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT Colleton 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE Colleton

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle FE Colleton

Fish 

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Aiken, Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter FC/SC 

FC/ST

Fairfield, Richland 

Etheostoma hopkinsi Christmas darter SC Saluda

Fundulus diaphanus Banded killifish SC Richland

Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse FC Aiken

Notropis chiliticus Redlip shiner SC Richland

Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose dace SC Richland

Semotilus lumbee Sandhills chub SC Lancaster

Mollusks 

Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater FC/SC Lancaster 

Anodonta couperiana Barrel floater SC Hampton

Elliptio congaraea Carolina slabshell SC Orangeburg

Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance SC Newberry, Lancaster, Saluda 

Lampsilis splendida Rayed pink fatmucket SC Saluda

Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter FE/SE Chester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Richland, 

Newberry, Saluda, Lexington 

Pyganodon cataracta Eastern floater SC Fairfield, Lancaster, Orangeburg, Saluda 

Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot SC Lancaster, Richland, Saluda 

Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput SC Saluda

Utterbackia imbecillis Paper pondshell SC Orangeburg, Saluda 

Villosa constricta Notched rainbow SC Lancaster

Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshell SC Chester, Colleton, Fairfield, Lancaster, 

Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda 

Elimia catenaria Gravel elimia SC Richland 

Crustacean 

Distocambarus youngineri Saluda crayfish FC/SC Newberry 

Aquatic Vegetation 

Myriophyllum laxum Piedmont water-milfoil RC Aiken, Orangeburg, Richland, Lexington

Potamogeton 

confervoides 

Algae-like pondweed FC/SC Richland 

Potamogeton foliosus Leafy pondweed SC Orangeburg

Sources: FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; FWS 2008; SCDNR 2006a

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, RC = Regional species of concern 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-67 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 substation, is located within the Piedmont ecoregion of the state. This line crosses 55 perennial 

2 streams and 13 watersheds within the Broad, Catawba, and Pee Dee river basins. The 

3 Varnville line, extending 163 mi south from the VCSNS site to the existing Varnville substation, 

4 is located within the Piedmont and Coastal Plain ecoregions of the state. The Varnville line 

5 crosses 85 perennial streams within 23 watersheds and falls within the Salkehatchie, Edisto, 

6 Saluda, and Broad river basins. 

7 The largest water crossings associated with the Flat Creek line occur at an unnamed 

8 impoundment near Winnsboro (1200 ft wide) and the Fishing Creek Reservoir (1300 ft wide). 

9 The Varnville line crosses the Saluda River (240 ft wide) and the Broad River at two discrete 

10 locations (475 ft and 500 ft wide). The installation of transmission lines across waterbodies 

11 would be done in accordance with SCDHEC consultation and permitting. The 2.44 mi of new 

12 right-of-way proposed by Santee Cooper that runs across Parr Reservoir would require a 100-ft13 wide transmission-line corridor (MACTEC 2008). 

14 SCE&G Transmission Lines 

15 The following summary of proposed activities associated with the SCE&G transmission lines 

16 was obtained from the Facilities Planning & Siting (FP&S 2008) transmission-line siting study. 

17 SCE&G has outlined a plan to install or expand approximately 111 mi of new transmission lines 

18 and corridors as well as upgrade 17.6 mi of line within an existing corridor. The final location for 

19 the new lines has not been established, but SCE&G considers the potential routes identified 

20 through the siting study to be representative of the final routes. Once the site-selection process 

21 has ended and a final route for transmission lines has been identified, SCE&G would complete 

22 environmental surveys within the corridor to identify the occurrence of important biota. 

23 Determination of final routing is anticipated to commence between 2011 and 2016 (FP&S 2008). 

24 The new transmission-line corridors would be segregated into two lines: the Killian line and the 

25 St. George line. The Killian line is estimated to extend 25 mi to an existing substation near 

26 Columbia, South Carolina. Drainages associated within the Killian line would be primarily within 

27 the Piedmont ecoregion and include various streams within the Lower Broad River, Wateree 

28 River, and Congaree River watersheds (FP&S 2008). The St. George line is estimated to 

29 extend 86 mi to a new substation near St. George, South Carolina. A small portion of the 

30 St. George line would be located within the Piedmont ecoregion, but the majority of the 

31 transmission-line corridor would fall within the Coastal Plain ecoregion. The St. George line 

32 would encompass the drainage areas of the following systems: Lower Broad, Saluda, 

33 Congaree, Edisto (North & South Forks), and Salkehatchie rivers, and Four Hole Swamp 

34 (FP&S 2008). 

35 In addition to the two new lines, SCE&G proposes to upgrade 17.6 mi of existing corridor to an 

36 existing Lake Murray substation. The footprint of this corridor falls within a previously cleared 

37 right-of-way and is associated with the Piedmont ecoregion (FP&S 2008). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-68 April 2010 

1 2.4.2.3 Important Aquatic Species 

2 The NRC has defined important species as any species that are rare, ecologically sensitive, 

3 play an ecological role, are relied on by a rare or valuable species, and/or have commercial or 

4 recreational value (NUREG-1555 [NRC 2000]). The FWS identifies threatened or endangered 

5 species in 50 CFR 17.11 and 50 CFR 17.12. Important species also include rare species 

6 proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; published in the Federal Register as 

7 candidates for listing; or listed as threatened, endangered, or species of concern by the state in 

8 which they occur. Biological indicator species that respond to and indicate environmental 

9 change are also classed as important species. The following section includes recreationally 

10 important species, invasive species, important species, and protected species that have been 

11 documented at the VCSNS site, or are thought to occur in the vicinity of the site or in the 

12 counties proposed for transmission-line siting. The Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

13 Strategy developed by the SCDNR identifies conservation priority species (SCDNR 2005b), 

14 some of which are known to occur at the VCSNS site. Numerous aquatic taxa are State 

15 species of concern within the site and vicinity, including the counties proposed for the siting of 

16 transmission lines. The species specific to the proposed transmission line corridors are listed in 

17 Table 2-20. No commercially important aquatic species are known to occur in the vicinity of the 

18 VCSNS site. No Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species are known to occur 

19 at the VCSNS site, but there are listed species present within counties that are proposed for 

20 transmission-line siting. 

21 Recreationally Important Species 

22 The identification of species deemed to be recreationally important was derived from published 

23 creel surveys (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999) and game fish outlined in the SCDNR freshwater 

24 fishing rules and regulations document (SCDNR 2009a). Table 2-21 is a compilation of 

25 recreationally sought-after fish that are known to occur in the Parr and Monticello reservoirs. 

26 In South Carolina, largemouth bass are among the most sought-after sportsfish (Bulak and 

27 Crane 2009). While largemouth bass occur within waters near the VCSNS site and accounted 

28 for 15 to 19 percent of the fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir during the late 1990s, SCDNR 

29 creel surveys indicate that the fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir was primarily directed at 

30 channel catfish and blue catfish (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999). Qualitative data pertaining to 

31 fishing effort do not exist for Parr Reservoir, but efforts purportedly target catfish species in this 

32 reservoir as well (Hayes 1999). 
April 2010 2-69 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment Table 2-21. Summary of Recreational Fish Species Known to Occur in Parr or Monticello Reservoirs 1 Family Common Name Scientific Name Percent abundance(a) State Distribution Habitat Thermal tolerance Size Diet Notes 

 Centrarchidae 

Largemouth Bass(b)

Micropterus salmoides 

Parr: 6.8 Monticello: 5.7

Found in waters throughout the state

Streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds. Warm, clear, backwaters. Tolerant of turbidity, and warm-water temps for short periods 

Can tolerate warm water temp (36°C) for short periods Spawning: 16-24°C 

120-650 mm; adults 

Plankton, insects, small fish, crayfish, amphibians and mammals 

Native to SC; though information on native distribution within the state is conflicting 

Smallmouth Bass(c)

Micropterus dolomieu 

Parr: 0.3; Monticello: 0.2 

Occurs in the Broad, upper Saluda, and Savannah river tributaries 

Lakes, reservoirs, streams Prefers cold, clear water 

Spawning: 16-24°C 

200-686 mm; adults 

Microcrustaceans, aquatic insects, fish larvae, other fish, crayfish 

Non-native species Males guard nest 

Black Crappie(b) Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus 

Parr: 0.1; Monticello: 2.3 

Found in waters throughout the state

Backwater areas in rivers, reservoirs, and ponds. Associates with vegetation, LWD, and cool, clear waters 

Range: 4-33°CSpawning: 15-20°C 

130-490 mm; adults 

Microcrustaceans, insects, larval fish, small fish including gizzard and threadfin shad 

Native to SC. Highly fecund. Pelagic larvae.

Bluegill(b) Lepomis 

macrochirus 

Parr: 15; Monticello: 29 

Found in waters throughout the state

Rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs; pools, low-velocity waters, aquatic vegetation 

Range: 5-35°C. Critical thermal max: 37-41°C Spawning: 19-25°C 

178-410 mm; adults 

Insects, microcrustaceans, crayfish, mollusks, and small fish 

Native to SC, but widely stocked throughout the state. Commonly referred to as bream. Tolerant of many environmental conditions. 

Redbreast Sunfish(b)

Lepomis auritus Parr: 0.1; 

Monticello: 0.6 

Found in waters throughout the state

Streams, rivers, reservoirs; low velocity water; deep pools and backwaters; LWD and undercut banks 

Spawning: 16-31°C 

60-240 mm; adults 

Insects, crayfish, mollusks, arthropods, some fish 

Native to SC. 
Draft NUREG-1939 2-70 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-21. (contd) 1 Family Common Name Scientific Name Percent abundance(a) State Distribution Habitat Thermal tolerance Size Diet Notes 

Centrarchidae 

Redear Sunfish(b)

Lepomis microlophus 

Parr: Monticello: 0.6

Found in waters throughout the state 

Streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, swamps Associated with vegetation and backwaters 

Spawning: 16-24°C 

134-381 mm; adults 

Invertebrates, zooplankton, aquatic insects, gastropods, and mollusks 

In SC, native south of Savannah River; introduced in other drainages. Molariform pharyngeal teeth 

Pumpkinseed(b) Lepomis gibbosus Parr: 1.1; 

Monticello: 1.4 

Found in waters throughout the state 

Backwaters of streams, rivers, ponds, and reservoirs Associated with vegetation 

Range: 5-33°C Spawning: 16-27°C 

78-381 mm; adults 

Microcrustaceans, aquatic insects, gastropods, clams, some fish and aquatic vegetation 

Native to SC. Molariform pharyngeal teeth 

Ictaluridae 

Blue Catfish(b) Ictalurus furcatus Parr: 5.4; 

Monticello: 13 

Found in most major drainages 

Rivers and reservoirs Deep, swift, turbid water 

Spawning: 21-24°C 

508-1650 mm; adults 

Fish, crayfish, aquatic insects, vegetation, mollusks, crayfish, fish including threadfin and gizzard shad 

Non-native to SC 

Channel Catfish(b)

Ictalurus punctatus 

Parr: 12; Monticello: 3.7 

Found in most major drainages; often stocked in ponds 

Small-to-large rivers, tributaries, reservoirs, ponds; deep pools with structure/cover; tolerates warm and turbid water 

Spawning: 21-30°C 

267-1270 mm; adults 

Fish, crayfish, mollusks, aquatic insects, and aquatic vegetation 

Unclear if this species is native to SC 

Percidae 

Yellow perch(b) Perca flavescens Parr: 1.3; 

Monticello: 0.5 

Found in most major drainages 

Rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs. Can tolerate a range of temperatures; cool to warm 

Spawning: 2-19°C 

152-400 mm; adults 

Insects, microcrustaceans, crayfish, fish 

In SC, native range occurs south to the Santee River basin  Introduced elsewhere 
April 2010 2-71 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment Table 2-21. (contd) 1 Family Common Name Scientific Name Percent abundance(a) State Distribution Habitat Thermal tolerance Size Diet Notes 

Moronidae 

White Bass(b) Morone chrysops Parr: 0.0; 

Monticello: 0.1 

Occurs in river basins within the Piedmont and Coastal Plains 

Mainstream rivers and deep areas within reservoirs; low velocity water, aquatic vegetation and other structure 

Spawning: 15-17°C 

275-450 mm; adults 

Zooplankton, aquatic insects, crayfish, fish

Non-native to SC 

White perch(b) Morone americana Parr: 11; 

Monticello: 10 

Found in most major drainages 

Initially associated with estuarine and brackish waters, but has established in freshwater environments 

Spawning: 10-16°C 

100-350 mm; adults 

Microcrustaceans, shrimp, crab, crayfish, worms, fish 

Info on native range in SC is conflicting Some reports indicate its native range extends south as far as the Pee Dee 

Percent abundance was determined based on total number of individuals sampled during the 2006-2009 (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009, and Quattlebaum 2008a) aquatic surveys of Parr and Monticello reservoirs. Sources: Rohde et al. 2009; Marcy et al. 2005; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994 Sources: Rohde et al. 2009; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994 LWD = large woody debris, SC = South Carolina 

2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-72 April 2010 

1 Invasive Species 

2 While some circumstances may result in economical or ecological benefits from non-native 

3 species, biological invasions by non-native species are primarily associated with adverse 

4 impacts (OTA 1993; Strayer et al. 2006; Vitousek et al. 1996). The decline of native taxa, 

5 especially species at risk of imperilment, has been linked to the introduction of non-native 

6 species throughout the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998). There are many mechanisms by 

7 which non-native species affect native taxa. At the species level, the presence of invasive 

8 species can affect the growth and behavioral patterns of native species, and lead to increased 

9 competition. At the ecosystem level, large-scale effects of invasive species can induce changes 

10 in abundance and community structure and alteration of structural and functional integrity of 

11 habitats (Parker et al. 1999; Vitousek et al. 1996). Detriment from non-native species also 

12 includes economic impacts. Non-native vegetation can clog waterways by altering hydrologic 

13 flow and increasing sedimentation (OTA 1993). Invasive mollusks, including Asian 

14 clams (Corbicula fluminea), zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), and quagga mussels 

15 (D. bugensis), clog water systems associated with power-generation facilities and at a national 

16 level can cost $1 billion/year to manage (OTA 1993; Pimentel et al. 2005). 

17 The South Carolina Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Task Force, represented by Federal, State, 

18 and nongovernmental entities, has developed a management strategy aimed at minimizing 

19 adverse impacts imposed by aquatic invasive species. The AIS Task Force has identified AIS 

20 as species that are nonindigenous to South Carolina and may be capable of asserting adverse 

21 impacts on aquatic ecosystems or presenting economic constraints. Of the list of invasive 

22 species considered to be a management concern within South Carolina, two plant species, two 

23 fish species, and one mollusk species are known to occur in the vicinity of the VCSNS site 

24 (Table 2-22). 

25 Ecologically Important Species 

26 Species that occupy a role critical to the function of the local ecosystem are also considered 

27 important, in addition to species that may serve as biological indicators of environmental change. 

28 Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus)

29 The bluehead chub is an ecologically important species because of its role as an ecosystem 

30 engineer in freshwater habitats. The male bluehead chub facilitates spawning activities by 

31 constructing a nest from stream gravel. The nest structures are used by other species such as 

32 blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofasciata), yellowfin shiner, and rosyface chub (Hybopsis 

33 rubrifrons). The attribute of manipulating substrate, which provides structure beneficial to other 

34 fish, has resulted in the designation of bluehead chub as a keystone species (Rohde et al. 2009; 

35 Marcy et al. 2005). Wallin (1992) documented a symbiotic spawning relationship between 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-73 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 bluehead chub and yellowfin shiner and suggested that yellowfin shiner cannot spawn in the 

2 absence of their symbiotic counterpart. 

3 Table 2-22. Aquatic Invasive Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Site

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name Type Invasive Attributes 

Occurrence at 

the VCSNS Site 

Alligatorweed Alternanthera 

philoxeroides 

Freshwater 

plant 

Aggressive, rapid colonizing plant, 

affects flow and uptake of water 

Parr Reservoir 

Water 

primrose 

Ludwigia 

uruguayensis 

Freshwater 

plant 

Rhizomatous, chokes shorelines, 

affects water use and access, 

decreases flow, clogs water-intake 

structures 

Parr Reservoir 

Blue catfish Ictalurus 

furcatus 

Freshwater 

fish 

Can tolerate a range of 

environmental conditions, 

piscivorous, competes for prey 

resources with native catfish 

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir 

White perch Morone 

americana 

Freshwater 

fish 

Competes with recreationally 

important fish such as white bass 

and crappie 

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir 

Asian clam Corbicula 

fluminea 

Freshwater 

clam 

Competes with native mollusks for 

food and space, alters substrate 

conditions; high densities clog 

water-intake structures 

Parr Reservoir 

Sources: SCDNR 2008; SCE&G 2009a 

Survey efforts included multiple sample methodologies and spanned multiple spatial and temporal scales 

4 The bluehead chub is commonly found in the Piedmont ecoregion of South Carolina (Rohde et 

5 al. 2009). It was the most abundant species encountered during surveys in Mayo Creek (Tetra 

6 Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b). The diet of bluehead chub consists of aquatic and terrestrial 

7 insects as well as crustaceans, clams, and algae (Rohde et al. 2009). 

8 Eastern Creekshell (Villosa delumbis)

9 The eastern creekshell maintains a global status rating of secure; however, the State-level 

10 status of this freshwater mussel is undetermined within South Carolina (NatureServe 2009b). It 

11 has been identified as a species of moderate conservation priority (SCDNR 2005b) and is listed 

12 as a species of concern within Fairfield County (SCDNR 2006a). This species occurs in 

13 streams and rivers in benthic conditions ranging from mud to coarse substrates and is often 

14 associated with tree roots near the edges of aquatic habitats. The eastern creekshell is thought 

15 to be sensitive to alterations of aquatic habitats (e.g., modifications, sedimentation, water 

16 quality), but empirical evidence to support these suppositions is lacking (SCDNR 2006b). It is 

17 unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-74 April 2010 

1 Eastern Floater (Pyganodon cataracta)

2 At the global and national scales, the eastern floater, a freshwater mussel, has been designated 

3 as secure, yet the overall status of this species within the State of South Carolina is 

4 undetermined (NatureServe 2009b). In Fairfield County, the eastern floater is listed as a South 

5 Carolina species of concern (SCDNR 2005b). Eastern floaters commonly occur throughout 

6 drainages of the Atlantic Ocean. They are reportedly tolerant of a range of environmental 

7 conditions and are found within a variety of aquatic environments, including lakes, streams, and 

8 large rivers (NatureServe 2009b). The eastern floater is characterized by an easily penetrable 

9 thin shell, making it a preferred prey resource by other aquatic biota (PDCNR 2007). One 

10 individual of this species was collected near the proposed raw-water intake in April 2009 (CBS 

11 2009c, d). 

12 Yellow Lance (Elliptio lanceolata)

13 This freshwater mussel is designated as being globally imperiled to vulnerable (NatureServe 

14 2009b) and is a species of concern in Newberry County, South Carolina (SCDNR 2005b). 

15 Precise population assessments are difficult to achieve due to questions regarding the 

16 taxonomic classification of Elliptio sp. As such, there are few detailed accounts of life-history 

17 information pertaining to the yellow lance. It occurs in association with sandy sediments and 

18 appears to be intolerant of fine sediments and chemical pollutants (NatureServe 2009b). It is 

19 unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site. 

20 Broad River Spiny Crayfish (Cambarus spicatus)

21 The Broad River spiny crayfish is relegated to a narrow distribution within the States of North 

22 and South Carolina. Little is known about the life-history characteristics of this crayfish 

23 (NatureServe 2009b; SCDNR 2006b). This species has been classified as vulnerable at both 

24 global and national scales. In South Carolina, the Broad River spiny crayfish is considered 

25 vulnerable and has been designated as a species with the highest ranked conservation priority 

26 (SCDNR 2006b; SCDNR 2005b). Fairfield County is one of three counties in which the Broad 

27 River spiny crayfish has been documented. Habitat associations include areas characterized by 

28 sand deposits, log jams, and debris (SCDNR 2006b). No spiny crayfish were collected during 

29 sampling efforts and it is unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech 

30 NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b). 

31 Crayfish (Distocambarus youngineri)

32 Distocambarus youngineri, also commonly known as the Saluda crayfish (FWS 2008) and the 

33 Newberry burrowing crayfish (Taylor et al. 2007), is a species of crayfish that is listed as 

34 critically imperiled at global, national, and State levels due to its very limited distribution 

35 (NatureServe 2009). This species has been encountered in few locations in South Carolina; all 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-75 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 occurrences have been limited to Newberry County and only one occurrence has been 

2 documented within the Broad River (SCDNR 2006b). The crayfish is designated as a South 

3 Carolina species with the highest conservation priority (SCDNR 2005b). It burrows in moist 

4 sediments and leaf litter and is associated with headwater or seasonal streams characterized by 

5 a mixed-hardwood overstory (SCDNR 2006b). No Saluda crayfish were collected during 

6 sampling efforts and it is unknown whether this species occurs at the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech 

7 NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b). 

8 Flat Bullhead (Ameiurus platycephalus)

9 While populations of this species are thought to be stable in South Carolina, the flat bullhead 

10 has become threatened by land-use practices and species interactions with non-native 

11 freshwater catfish (ictalurids) in other southern regions and is listed as a moderate conservation 

12 priority by SCDNR (Bettinger 2006b). The flat bullhead is distributed in all drainages of South 

13 Carolina, but is more commonly associated with the upper Catawba, Broad, and Savannah 

14 rivers (Rohde et al. 2009; Marcy et al. 2005). The largest populations of flat bullhead in South 

15 Carolina are thought to reside within the Broad River (Bettinger 2006b), yet these fish made up 

16 less than 1 percent of the overall catch during electrofishing efforts within the Broad River 

17 (Bettinger et al. 2003) and 0 to 7 percent of the catch among several Broad River tributary 

18 streams (Bettinger et al. 2006). Flat bullhead have been encountered in Mayo Creek 

19 (0.1 percent of the total abundance) (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b) and Monticello 

20 Reservoir (0.5 percent of the total abundance), but none was captured during recent Parr 

21 Reservoir sampling efforts (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Juvenile 

22 fishes are associated with small, clear streams, while adults tend to reside in the slow-moving, 

23 soft-bottom habitats of rivers. Flat bullhead are omnivorous; food items include aquatic insects, 

24 small fish, mollusks, bryozoans, and vegetation (Rohde et al. 2009; Marcy et al. 2005). 

25 Greenfin Shiner (Cyprinella chloristia)

26 The greenfin shiner is a South Carolina species of moderate conservation priority (SCDNR 

27 2005b). Its distribution is relegated to the Piedmont ecoregion within the Santee and Pee Dee 

28 drainages; it is endemic to the Carolinas (Rohde et al. 2009; Bettinger 2006a). Greenfin shiners 

29 were encountered during sampling efforts in Mayo Creek (2006-2009) where their abundance 

30 represented approximately 1 percent of the total catch (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b). 

31 Current populations appear to be stable in South Carolina, but the ability of this species to 

32 perpetuate within a fairly limited geographic region is unknown (Bettinger 2006a). Greenfin 

33 shiners are typically found in large creeks, medium-sized rivers, and sometimes in reservoirs. 

34 They tend to be associated with pools, slow-moving, cool, clear waters, and substrates that 

35 range from sand to rocks. They are crevice spawners, and as such, require coarse substratum 

36 for egg deposition (Rohde et al. 2009; Bettinger 2006a). Prey items include terrestrial insects, 

37 benthic insect larvae (chironomid, caddisfly, stonefly, and beetle larvae), and dragonfly nymphs 

38 (Rohde et al. 2009). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-76 April 2010 

1 Notchlip Redhorse (Moxostoma collapsum)

2 The notchlip redhorse was formerly described as a race of the silver redhorse (Moxostoma 

3 anisurum), but is currently recognized as a distinct species (Marcy et al. 2005; Jenkins and 

4 Burkhead 1994). Because of this former taxonomic classification, existing knowledge pertaining 

5 to life-history attributes of the notchlip redhorse likely encompasses attributes of the silver 

6 redhorse. Categorized as a South Carolina species of moderate conservation priority, the 

7 notchlip redhorse is documented to occur within the Broad, Pee Dee, Santee, and Savannah 

8 rivers (Sessions et al. 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). The notchlip redhorse has been captured in 

9 aquatic surveys in the Parr and Monticello reservoirs. Data from these surveys indicate that the 

10 notchlip redhorse comprised 2 and 0.8 percent of the total catch in the Parr and Monticello 

11 reservoirs, respectively (Normandeau 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Population declines 

12 of the notchlip redhorse have been noted in several rivers in North Carolina; and the status of 

13 this species is being reviewed in South Carolina, where this species is thought to be affected by 

14 land-use activities that increase siltation in waterways (Sessions et al. 2006). Aquatic habitat for 

15 the notchlip redhorse includes large rivers and tributary channels (Sessions et al. 2006; Rohde 

16 et al. 2009). Adults and juveniles are associated with pool habitats, but adults are found in 

17 pools with greater depths and larger flows, while juveniles reside in pools found in backwaters. 

18 The notchlip redhorse is found in benthic conditions that range from silt to rocky (Rohde et al. 

19 2009). 

20 Snail Bullhead (Ameiurus brunneus)

21 Snail bullheads are found throughout the State of South Carolina and are common in the 

22 Santee and Savannah river watersheds (Rohde et al. 2009). Snail bullheads are thought to 

23 maintain stable populations in South Carolina; however, this species is experiencing declines in 

24 many drainages throughout its range. Furthermore, non-native flathead catfish 

25 (Pylodictis olivaris) and blue catfish pose a threat to the sustainability of snail bullhead 

26 populations. For these reasons, the snail bullhead is a species of moderate conservation 

27 priority in South Carolina (Bettinger 2006b). During 2006-2009 aquatic surveys at the VCSNS 

28 site, one snail bullhead was captured in each of the two reservoirs (Parr and Monticello) 

29 (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Dames and Moore (1985) also 

30 captured this species in Parr (1978, 1982-1984) and Monticello reservoirs (1979-1984). The 

31 Broad River is said to maintain some of the largest populations of snail bullhead (Bettinger 

32 2006b). Snail bullheads occupy moderate-sized rivers and can tolerate warm water 

33 temperatures. These fish are associated with runs and riffle habitat and rock substratum 

34 (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Rohde et al. 2009). Snail bullheads are omnivores. Their diet 

35 includes insect larvae, snails, fish, algae, and aquatic vegetation (Rohde et al. 2009). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-77 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 White Catfish (Ameiurus catus)

2 The white catfish is considered stable throughout much of its range, including South Carolina. 

3 However, the link between introductions of non-native species (flathead and blue catfish) and 

4 localized population declines of white catfish has resulted in this fish being designated as a 

5 species of moderate conservation priority in South Carolina (Sessions et al. 2006). The white 

6 catfish is distributed throughout all watersheds of South Carolina (Rohde et al. 2009; Sessions 

7 et al. 2006). In the Parr Reservoir and Monticello reservoirs, this species accounted for 

8 0.9 percent and 1.6 percent of the respective catches during the 2006-2009 surveys at the 

9 VCSNS site (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). 

10 White catfish reside in rivers of medium-to-large size and are associated with low-velocity, turbid 

11 waters. Their occupation of small streams is reportedly rare; however, white catfish can occur 

12 in reservoirs, warm-water ponds, and brackish waters (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994; Rohde et 

13 al. 2009). Benthic habitat associations include substrates of small grain-size fractions; i.e., sand 

14 or silt. White catfish prey on a diversity of items, including gizzard and threadfin shad, herring, 

15 bream, other catfishes, mayfly nymphs, and vegetation (Rohde et al. 2009). The diet of juvenile 

16 white catfish consists primarily aquatic insects. Adults are omnivorous and their diet includes 

17 aquatic invertebrates, fish, and vegetation (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). 

18 Highfin Carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer)

19 The populations of highfin carpsuckers in the upper Santee River basin are thought to be stable, 

20 but because populations of this species in other river systems are imperiled, conservation of this 

21 species in South Carolina is thought to be integral to the preservation of highfin carpsuckers at 

22 larger spatial scales. Distribution of the highfin carpsucker is limited to the Broad, Congaree, 

23 Santee, and Savannah rivers (Self and Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). There are historical 

24 accounts of this species in the Pee Dee River, but current knowledge suggests that the highfin 

25 carpsucker may have been extirpated from this drainage. Due to the limited distribution of the 

26 highfin carpsucker in South Carolina, this species has been deemed a State species of highest 

27 conservation priority (Self and Bettinger 2006). The highfin carpsucker was encountered during 

28 the 2006-2008 aquatic surveys in Parr Reservoir (0.1 percent of the total catch); however, none 

29 was collected from Monticello Reservoir. Survey efforts during the late 1970s to early 1980s 

30 noted the presence of this species in both reservoirs (Dames and Moore 1985). 

31 The highfin carpsucker resides in river habitats characterized by clean water and moderate 

32 current velocities. Substrate conditions range from sand to gravel (Marcy et al. 2005; Rohde et 

33 al. 2009). Compared to other carpsucker species, the highfin appears less tolerant of siltation 

34 (Pflieger 1997). Food items are derived from the benthos and include algae, insect larvae, and 

35 mollusks (Rohde et al. 2009). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-78 April 2010 

1 Piedmont Darter (Percina crassa)

2 The Piedmont darter is a South Carolina species of high conservation priority (SCDNR 2005b). 

3 Information pertaining to this species is sparse (Rohde et al. 2009). While it is often 

4 encountered during aquatic inventories, knowledge pertaining to the overall abundance of 

5 Piedmont darters in streams is limited. In addition, its conservation status stems from the 

6 limited global distribution, which reportedly identifies South Carolina as making up one-third of 

7 the spatial extent of Piedmont darter habitat (Hayes and Bettinger 2006a). In South Carolina, 

8 Piedmont darters have been documented to occur between the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and 

9 Inner Coastal Plain ecoregions (Rohde et al. 2009). They are associated with riffle habitats 

10 where stream temperatures vary from cool to warm. Known prey items include caddisfly and 

11 dipteran larvae, as well as stonefly and mayfly nymphs. During the 2006-2009 aquatic surveys 

12 only one Piedmont darter was captured and this occurred in Mayo Creek (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 

13 2007, 2009b; Quattlebaum 2008b). 

14 Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus)

15 Populations of quillback are thought to be stable throughout its geographic range. In South 

16 Carolina, quillback are distributed across South Carolina within the Coastal Plain and Piedmont 

17 ecoregions (Rohde et al. 2009). The upper Santee and Savannah watersheds purportedly 

18 sustain ample populations. However, the quillback has been designated as a State species of 

19 high conservation priority because taxonomic data indicate that the quillback found along the 

20 Atlantic slope may be distinct from those found in other regions (Lamprecht and Bettinger 2006). 

21 Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) suggest that while the quillback is a widely distributed species, its 

22 abundance is difficult to assess because this fish is rarely encountered during aquatic survey 

23 efforts due in part to its association with large deep pools, which are difficult to adequately 

24 sample. Few quillback were captured during 2006-2008 sampling efforts in Parr and Monticello 

25 reservoirs, where they accounted for 0.8 and 0.1 percent of the total catches, respectively 

26 (Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a). Quillback were also encountered 

27 during 1978-1984 survey efforts in Parr and Monticello reservoirs (Dames and Moore 1985). 

28 Quillback can occupy a range of aquatic habitats from rivers to reservoirs and lakes. They are 

29 typically found in association with low river velocities and a range of substrate types (Jenkins 

30 and Burkhead 1994; Pflieger 1997). Quillback migrate into smaller, tributary streams to spawn 

31 (Rohde et al. 2009). Their diet includes algae, detritus, insects, and mollusks (Jenkins and 

32 Burkhead 1994; Pflieger 1997). 

33 Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum)

34 The robust redhorse is a large riverine catostomid (sucker) whose taxonomy was in dispute until 

35 1991 when it was collected from the Oconee River, Georgia. Originally thought to have 

36 inhabited the Atlantic slope drainages from the Pee Dee River in North Carolina to the Altamaha 

37 River in Georgia, remnant populations of the robust redhorse are known to exist in the Oconee 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-79 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 and Ocmulgee rivers in Georgia, the Savannah River of Georgia and South Carolina, and the 

2 Pee Dee River of North and South Carolina (Nichols 2003). Once the rediscovery of this lost 

3 species was confirmed, efforts to document the existing robust redhorse indicated the need for 

4 conservation efforts. During 1995, in lieu of designating a Federal listing of this species through 

5 the Endangered Species Act, a Memorandum of Understanding between State and Federal 

6 agencies as well as industrial partners was instituted in the form of the Robust Redhorse 

7 Conservation Committee. While this species is listed as endangered in Georgia, the robust 

8 redhorse does not maintain a legal status for protection in the Carolinas; it is listed as a South 

9 Carolina species of highest conservation priority (Self and Bettinger 2006). The Robust 

10 Redhorse Conservation Committee has implemented efforts to reintroduce this native species to 

11 river basins such as the Broad River by stocking rivers with robust redhorse fingerlings (Self and 

12 Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). In 2008, SCDNR caught two robust redhorse while 

13 electrofishing for smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) in Monticello Reservoir (NRC 2009a). 

14 Aquatic surveys in the vicinity of the VCSNS site resulted in the capture of two robust redhorse 

15 in the Parr Reservoir, representing 0.1 percent of the total catch (Quattlebaum 2008a; 

16 Normandeau 2008). 

17 Robust redhorse have been found in mainstream river habitats that include riffles, runs, and 

18 pools. These fish have been noted to associate with deep water pools and in-stream habitat 

19 structures such as woody debris. Prey items include mollusks, which the species crushes with 

20 pharyngeal teeth that resemble molars (Self and Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). Spawning 

21 reportedly occurs in areas with coarse substrate (Rohde et al. 2009). 

22 Seagreen Darter (Etheostoma thalassinum)

23 In South Carolina, the seagreen darter is found in tributaries of the Santee River and is 

24 commonly encountered within the upper Santee drainage (Rohde et al. 2009). Populations of 

25 the seagreen darter are considered stable in South Carolina, but it has been listed as a State 

26 species of high conservation priority because half of the global distribution of this darter 

27 purportedly occurs within the state. Furthermore, the overall distribution of this species is 

28 constrained to a small geographic region (Hayes and Bettinger 2006a). 

29 The seagreen darter is associated with large creeks and small rivers. Habitat use includes 

30 riffles characterized by moderate to swift currents (Hayes and Bettinger 2006a; Rohde et al. 

31 2009). This species can tolerate a range of thermal and turbid conditions (Rohde et al. 2009). 

32 The seagreen darter was encountered during the 2006-2009 Mayo Creek aquatic surveys 

33 where it accounted for 1 percent of the total catch (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007). 

34 Critical Habitats 

35 No areas designated by FWS as critical habitat exist at the VCSNS site (NRC 2004). However, 

36 critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is present in waterbodies 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-80 April 2010 

1 proposed for transmission-line crossing in Chester and Lancaster Counties. This is discussed 

2 in the following section. 

3 Federally and State-Listed Species 

4 Seven Federally or State-listed threatened or endangered aquatic species are currently listed 

5 for counties relevant to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated transmission-line corridors in 

6 South Carolina. 

7 Carolina Darter (Etheostoma collis)

8 The Carolina darter, a Federal species of concern, is listed as a State threatened species for 

9 Richland County (SCDNR 2009b) and a State species of concern for Fairfield County (SCDNR 

10 2006a;) and is also classified as a species of high conservation priority in South Carolina 

11 (SCDNR 2005b). While there are reported accounts pertaining to the distribution of the Carolina 

12 darter within the Piedmont ecoregion, the overall abundance of this species is unknown (Hayes 

13 and Bettinger 2006b). Bettinger et al. (2006) suggest that the Carolina darter does not exist 

14 within the Broad River drainage, yet Rohde et al. (2009) refer to accounts of this species in the 

15 upper and lower Broad River. This disparate information may be confounded by the taxonomic 

16 status of the Saluda darter (E. saludae) because debate continues regarding the separation of 

17 the two fish at the subspecies level or at the species level (NatureServe 2009b; Rohde et al. 

18 2009; Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). 

19 The Carolina darter was not documented during the SCDNR 2000-2004 Broad River drainage 

20 aquatic surveys, but the Saluda darter was captured at several stream stations during the study 

21 (Bettinger et al. 2003, 2006). Neither of these darters was encountered during the 2006-2009 

22 aquatic surveys within the vicinity of the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b; 

23 Quattlebaum 2008a, 2008b; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a), nor was either captured during 

24 the 1978-1984 survey efforts within Parr and Monticello reservoirs (Dames and Moore 1985). 

25 The Carolina darter resides in small streams within the Piedmont ecoregion characterized by 

26 slow current velocities. Habitat associations include in-stream structure, such as large woody 

27 debris and a range of substrate conditions: mud, sand, and rock. The diet of the Carolina 

28 darter includes chironomid larvae, ostracods, copepods, and amphipods (Rhode et al. 2009). 

29 Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)

30 The Carolina heelsplitter is the sole freshwater mussel within South Carolina that maintains a 

31 designation as a Federally endangered species, and it is designated as a State species of 

32 highest conservation priority. The six known populations of the Carolina heelsplitter within the 

33 state are defined by geographic location: (1) Savannah River tributaries in Edgefield and 

34 McCormick Counties; (2) Cuffeytown Creek in Greenwood and McCormick Counties; (3) 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-81 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Lynches River and Flat Creek in Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties; (4) Gills Creek 

2 in Lancaster County; (5) Fishing Creek in Chester County; and (6) Bull Run Creek in Chester 

3 County (SCDNR 2006b; 67 FR 44502). 

4 Historic distribution of this species in South Carolina included the Pee Dee and Savannah 

5 drainages and possibly the Saluda drainage. Historic associations included freshwater habitats 

6 ranging from small-to-large streams and rivers. The Carolina heelsplitter has been noted to occur 

7 in association with substrate ranging from fine to coarse grain size fractions. Occurrences of the 

8 Carolina heelsplitter have been correlated in stream habitat complexity characterized as shaded, 

9 stable stream banks, and the presence of undercut banks, root wads, and large woody debris. 

10 Designated critical habitat includes 103.2 km of streams and rivers in South Carolina that occur 

11 in conjunction with the known populations. The lateral boundaries of the critical habitats for the 

12 Carolina heelsplitter are denoted by the ordinary high-water mark along channel edges (67 FR 

13 44502). Designated critical habitats for the Carolina heelsplitter do not occur in the vicinity of 

14 the VCSNS site, and the species has never been found in the Parr and Monticello reservoirs or 

15 in onsite creeks and streams. However, the routing of transmission-line corridors for VCSNS 

16 Units 2 and 3 is proposed to occur within two South Carolina counties that contain critical 

17 habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter: Chester and Lancaster Counties. Further discussion of life18 history attributes and potential for impacts on the Carolina heelsplitter is presented in Appendix 

19 F in a biological assessment prepared for FWS. 

20 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

21 The shortnose sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered species in 1967 and is 

22 designated as a species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 2006; NMFS 

23 2009). This amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats to 

24 complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 2009). In South Carolina, 

25 populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers (flowing 

26 to St. Helena Sound), the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing to Winyah Bay), and 

27 the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a small landlocked population of 

28 shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 2003). 

29 In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

30 water. Spawning occurs in freshwaters characterized by low-to-moderate velocities and over 

31 substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006). 

32 Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water with little turbidity 

33 (McCord 2006). 

34 The shortnose sturgeon has not been reported to occur in the vicinity of the VCSNS site, but the 

35 routing of transmission-line corridors for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is proposed to occur within eight 

36 South Carolina counties that are associated with the occurrence of shortnose sturgeon: Aiken, 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-82 April 2010 

1 Calhoun, Colleton, Hampton, Dorchester, Lexington, Orangeburg, and Richland Counties. 

2 Further discussion of life-history attributes and the potential for impacts is presented in 

3 Appendix F in a biological assessment prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service 

4 (NMFS). 

5 Sea Turtles 

6 Four Federally listed species of sea turtles exist in South Carolina. The loggerhead (Caretta 

7 caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), sea turtles are listed as threatened whereas the leatherback

8 (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles are listed as 

9 endangered (see Table 2-20) (FWS 2008). The loggerhead sea turtle is also listed as a State 

10 threatened species for Colleton County (SCDNR 2006a). All sea turtles have certain life-history 

11 similarities in that females swim ashore to sandy beaches and deposit eggs in nesting pits that 

12 are covered to allow incubation. Juveniles hatch, struggle out of the sandy nest, and make their 

13 way to their respective ocean habitats (Carr et al. 1982). Colleton County sandy shoreline on the 

14 Atlantic coast is habitat where it is possible for sea turtle nesting to occur. The siting of the 

15 Varnville transmission line is projected to run to the west of I-95, which is well over 50 mi from the 

16 coastline, and does not cross any marine habitats (SCE&G 2009a, Section 4.1.2). Therefore, 

17 although the four species of sea turtles occur in Colleton County, no activities associated with 

18 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would affect these species, and they are not discussed further. 

19 2.4.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring 

20 The aquatic ecology near the vicinity of the VCSNS site has been described through various 

21 monitoring programs since the 1970s (e.g., Dames and Moore 1985; Christie and Stroud 1998, 

22 1999; Hayes 1999). Recent monitoring efforts were implemented to document the condition of 

23 aquatic ecology in Mayo Creek and Monticello and Parr reservoirs as part of the preparation of 

24 the SCE&G COL application (e.g., Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a, b; Quattlebaum 2008a, b; 

25 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 2009b; CBS 2008a, b, c, d; CBS 2009a, b, c, d). These recent 

26 (2006-2009) efforts summarized fish community composition, benthic resources, and 

27 submerged aquatic vegetation at select locations near the vicinity of the VCSNS. 

28 2.5 Socioeconomics 

29 This section describes the socioeconomic baseline of the proposed VCCNS project site. It also 

30 describes the characteristics of the region surrounding the VCSNS site, including population 

31 demographics and density, and uses the data to form the basis for assessing the potential 

32 social and economic impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 

33 2 and 3. Unless otherwise specified, the information presented in this section is based on the 

34 VCSNS ER (SCE&G 2009a), and has been confirmed by the review team. 

35 Socioeconomic impacts may occur in the region surrounding the proposed site. This discussion 

36 emphasizes the socioeconomic characteristics of Fairfield, Newberry, Lexington, and Richland 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-83 Draft NUREG-1939 

Counties, although it considers the entire region within the 50-mi radius of the site.(a) 1 The scope 

2 of the review of site-specific community characteristics is guided by the magnitude and nature of 

3 the expected impacts of construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed project. 

4 The population data for the region are based on the 2000 U.S. Census or more recent estimates 

5 and population projections from the South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB) as 

6 noted. In addition, the review team analyzed the economic, employment, and population trends 

7 for the region using additional U.S. Census data sets and population projections from the 

8 SCBCB. 

9 The region is a 50-mi circle centered on the proposed powerblock and covers all or a portion of 

10 21 counties in South Carolina, including Aiken, Calhoun, Cherokee, Chester, Edgefield, 

11 Fairfield, Greenwood, Kershaw, Lancaster, Laurens, Lee, Lexington, McCormick, Newberry, 

12 Orangeburg, Richland, Saluda, Spartanburg, Sumter, Union, and York. The region also covers 

13 a portion of Union County, North Carolina. Figure 2-2 shows a map of the region. 

14 2.5.1 Demographics 

15 For the purposes of this analysis, the review team divided the total population within the 

16 analytical area into three major groups: residents who live permanently in the area, transients 

17 who may temporarily live in the area but have a permanent residence elsewhere, and migrant 

18 workers who travel into the area to work and then leave after their job is done. Transients and 

19 migrant workers are not fully characterized by the U.S. Census, which generally captures only 

20 resident populations. 

21 2.5.1.1 Resident Population

22 In its ER (SCE&G 2009a), SCE&G reports that, based on the 2000 U.S. Census, 111 people 

23 live within 2 mi of the center of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 powerblock, about 289 within 3 mi, 

24 12,209 within 10 mi, 151,925 within 20 mi, and 1,028,075 within 50 mi. The population density 

for the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site is approximately 131 persons/mi2 25 . Table 2-23 

26 presents population trends and projections for the region and various subset areas. 

27 The population growth rates shown in Table 2-23 were calculated for each county based on 

28 county projections obtained from the SCBCB. The SCBCB presents annual population 

29 projections by county for the 2010-2035 period using standard population cohort-component 

30 methods. 

 

(a) For the purposes of this EIS, the relevant region is limited to the area necessary to include social 

and economic base data for (1) the county in which the proposed facility would be located and 

(2) the specific portions of surrounding counties and urbanized areas (generally, up to 50 mi from the 

VCSNS site) from which the construction/operations workforce would be principally drawn, or that 

would receive stresses to community services by a change in the residence of 

construction/operations workers. 
Draft NUREG-1939 2-84 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-23. Historical and Projected Populations for Counties in the VCSNS Region 1 County 1970(a) 1980(a) 1990(a) 2000(a) 2007(b) 2010(c) 2020(c) 2030(c) 2040(d) 2050(d) 2060(d) Aiken 91,023 105,625 120,940 142,552 152,307 158,120 177,510 196,500 216,243 237,970 261,880 Calhoun 10,780 12,206 12,753 15,185 14,777 15,210 16,660 17,980 19,272 20,657 22,142 Cherokee 36,791 40,983 44,506 52,537 54,015 55,800 61,760 67,350 72,976 79,072 85,678 Chester 29,811 30,148 32,170 34,068 32,531 33,020 34,620 36,000 37,280 38,605 39,978 Edgefield 15,692 17,528 18,375 24,595 25,435 26,560 30,270 33,520 36,692 40,164 43,964 Fairfield 19,999 20,700 22,295 23,454 23,333 23,760 25,190 26,610 28,058 29,584 31,193 Greenwood 49,686 57,847 59,567 66,271 68,259 69,770 74,840 79,750 84,770 90,106 95,778

Kershaw 34,727 39,015 43,599 52,647 58,168 60,370 67,700 74,810 82,135 90,177 99,006Lancaster 43,328 53,361 54,516 61,351 73,393 74,800 79,480 83,940 88,402 93,101 98,050Laurens 49,713 52,214 58,092 69,567 69,582 72,040 80,220 87,660 95,073 103,113 111,833Lee 18,323 18,929 18,437 20,119 19,988 20,270 21,180 22,060 22,937 23,849 24,797Lexington 89,012 140,353 167,611 216,014 243,270 255,100 294,510 333,180 373,865 419,518 470,746McCormick 7955 7797 8868 9958 10,098 10,450 11,590 12,720 13,880 15,146 16,527Newberry 29,273 31,242 33,172 36,108 37,633 38,390 40,900 43,400 45,942 48,633 51,482Orangeburg 69,789 82,276 84,803 91,582 89,952 91,450 96,400 100,700 104,784 109,033 113,455Richland 233,868 269,735 285,720 320,677 357,734 366,550 395,920 425,960 457,424 491,212 527,496Saluda 14,528 16,150 16,357 19,181 18,748 19,150 20,470 21,570 22,580 23,637 24,744Spartanburg 173,724 201,861 226,800 253,791 275,534 283,530 310,220 336,810 364,459 394,377 426,751Sumter 79,425 88,243 102,637 104,646 103,943 106,180 113,630 121,160 128,954 137,250 146,080Union 29,230 30,751 30,337 29,881 27,770 27,640 27,190 26,570 25,861 25,171 24,499York 85,216 106,720 131,497 164,614 208,827 218,990 252,860 287,970 326,022 369,102 417,875Union, NC(e) 54,714 70,380 84,211 123,677 181,652 210,069 304,688 399,306 493,924 588,542 683,160

50-mi Region 1,266,607 1,494,064 1,657,263 1,932,475 2,146,949 2,237,219 2,537,808 2,835,526 3,141,533 3,468,019 3,817,114Annual Average Growth Rate 

NA 1.8% 1.1% 1.7% 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%

South Carolina 2,590,516 3,121,820 3,486,703 4,012,012 4,407,709 4,549,150 5,020,400 5,488,460 5,975,731 6,506,262 7,083,894Annual Average Growth Rate 

NA 2.1% 1.2% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

North Carolina(e) 5,084,411 5,880,095 6,632,448 8,049,313 9,041,821 9,572,644 11,272,964 12,935,056 14,597,148 16,259,240 17,921,332

Annual Average Growth Rate 

NA 1.6% 1.3% 2.1% 1.4% 2.0% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0%

(a) SCBCB 2009b (b) SCBCB 2009c (c) SCBCB 2009d (d) Extension of the SCBCB 2025-2035 trend (e) North Carolina data from the following sources: USCB 1995; USCB 2009a; NCOSBM (2009a, b, c); 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-85 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Data in Table 2-23 indicate that the region has been growing and is projected to continue to 

2 grow at a slightly faster rate than the State of South Carolina as a whole for the foreseeable 

3 future. The majority of the population distribution is to the east and south of the VCSNS site. 

4 Significant population centers are shown in Table 2-24. The distribution of the 2000 resident 

5 population in the 50-mi region by age and gender is shown in Table 2-25. 

6 Table 2-24. Selected 2007 Population Centers in the VCSNS Region 

City Population 

Columbia 124,818 

Lexington 14,995 

West Columbia 13,907 

Cayce 12,556 

Irmo 11,542 

Newberry 10,893 

Chester 6040 

Winnsboro 3564 

Blythewood 1299 

Source: SCBCB 2009e 

7 Table 2-25. 2000 Age and Gender Distribution Near the VCSNS Site 

Age Group 

Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland South Carolina 

Number 

Percent of 

Population Number 

Percent of 

Population Number

Percent of 

Population Number

Percent of 

Population Number 

Percent of 

Population

Under 18 6128 26.1 56,313 26.1 8701 24.1 77,609 24.2 1,009,641 25.2 

18 to 24 2019 8.6 17,874 8.3 3551 9.8 44,135 13.8 407,851 10.2 

25 to 44 6520 27.8 68,334 31.6 9977 27.6 101,459 31.6 1,185,955 29.6 

45 to 64 5693 24.3 51,504 23.8 8556 23.7 65,999 20.6 923,232 23.0 

65 and over 3094 13.2 21,989 10.2 5323 14.7 31,475 9.8 485,333 12.1 

Totals 24,545 216,014 36,108 320,677 4,012,012 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

8 The combined resident population of the four counties closest to the VCSNS site could be 

9 characterized as being predominately Caucasian (62.8 percent compared to 68.4 percent 

10 Caucasian in the State of South Carolina), although Fairfield County had a higher percentage of 

11 African American residents than the region as a whole (57.7 percent compared to 34.2 percent 

12 state-wide) (SCBCB 2009a). Median family income in the Columbia Metropolitan Statistical 

13 Area (including Richland, Fairfield, Lexington, Calhoun, and Saluda Counties) in 2009 was 

14 $62,100, compared to the State median family income of $55,000 (HUD 2009). Newberry 

15 County’s 2009 median family income was $50,500 and is reported separately because the 

16 county is not part of a metropolitan area. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-86 April 2010 

1 2.5.1.2 Transient Population 

2 Transients include people who work in or visit large workplaces, schools, hospitals and nursing 

3 homes, correctional facilities, hotels and motels, or work at recreational areas or special events 

4 where there may be seasonal and workday variations in population. The VCSNS 50-mi region 

5 includes a number of facilities, venues, and recreational areas that attract transient populations 

6 in substantial numbers. 

7 Outdoor recreation opportunities in the VCSNS 50-mi region include a number of parks and 

8 water-based and forest-based recreational opportunities. Several large lake-based recreation 

9 areas in the four closest counties to the site are accessible to relatively large numbers of annual 

10 visitors. These parks provide locations for a range of activities, including fishing, camping, 

11 biking, horse-riding, picnicking, and hiking. Table 2-26 summarizes the overnight capacity and 

12 recent visitation trends for these resources. 

13 Table 2-26. High-Capacity Recreation Areas in the Region

Recreation Site 

Camp 

Sites(a)

2004-5 

Campers(b)

2004-5 All 

Visitors(b)

2006-7 

Campers(c)

2006-7 All 

Visitors(c)

Chester State Park 31 6411 29,166 6324 36,675 

Dreher Island State Recreation Area 112 30,577 206,948 38,410 154,749 

Lake Greenwood State Recreation Area 145 51,125 139,152 53,840 151,233 

Lake Wateree State Recreation Area 72 32,435 133,008 32,011 156,580 

Sesquicentennial State Park 89 9641 105,672 18,795 105,648 

(a) SCBCB (2007) 

(b) SCBCB (2009f) 

(c) SCBCB (2009g) 

14 The Sumter National Forest is located north of the VCSNS site and offers a wide range of 

15 recreational activities, including camping, fishing, hiking, and hunting. The region features many 

16 other developed recreation sites, including parks, wildlife management areas, historic sites, 

17 forests, and recreation areas, but the sites listed in Table 2-26 represent most of the capacity 

18 among all recreation sites in the region. 

19 The Fort Jackson military base is within the 50-mi analytical region, located about 30 mi east of 

20 the VCSNS site. Fort Jackson employs 4000 civilians and is the largest and most active Initial 

21 Entry Training Center in the Army, training 19,000 new soldiers each year. 

22 The largest and greatest number of hotels and motels in the area are concentrated primarily in 

23 the larger cities, and hence, are at some distance from the VCSNS site. However, there are 

24 several motels in the vicinity of the site. The greater Columbia area has more than 10,334 hotel 

25 rooms spread over 110 separate properties (SCBCB 2008).
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-87 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor 

2 The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) defines a migrant laborer as someone who is working 

3 seasonally or temporarily and moves one or more times from one place to another for seasonal 

4 or temporary employment. During VCSNS scheduled refueling outages, there is an influx of 

5 construction-related migrant laborers to the area who are hired by VCSNS to carry out fuel6 reloading activities, equipment maintenance, and other projects associated with the outage. 

7 VCSNS employs an average of about 655 contract employees during refueling outages, which 

8 occur every 18 months for each unit (NRC 2004), and approximately 90 percent of those 

9 employees come from outside the 50-mi region. 

10 Migrant farm workers are defined as those whose employment requires travel that prevents the 

11 worker from returning to his/her permanent place of residence the same day. Migrants tend to 

12 work short-duration, labor-intensive jobs, such as harvesting fruits and vegetables. The 2007 

13 Census of Agriculture indicates that the reported migrant population in the region is 

14 approximately 200 (USDA 2007a). The number is approximate because of differences between 

15 the county- and State-level reporting requirements (USDA 2007b). 

16 2.5.2 Community Characteristics 

17 The VCSNS site is located in a rural area of western Fairfield County. The site itself is on the 

18 Monticello Reservoir, which is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with sparse residential 

19 development. The site is near metropolitan Columbia, the Richland County Seat and capital of 

20 South Carolina. However, Fairfield County is much more rural than Richland County; and is 

21 governed from the County Seat of Winnsboro. 

22 An unincorporated residential area surrounds the VCSNS site, although it remains sparsely 

23 populated. The land surrounding the site is also zoned for low-density residential development. 

24 To the west, I-26 passes the site, although the site itself is only accessible by State and county 

25 roads, or by a railroad spur. Besides Columbia, the VCSNS site is not near other large 

26 population centers. 

27 The characteristics of the populations of the four most local counties vary widely around the 

28 State averages for minority proportion and the proportion living below the poverty level. Fairfield 

29 County, the host county for the new nuclear units, has nearly double the minority proportion of 

30 the state as a whole and a proportion of individuals living in poverty that is 22 percent higher 

31 than the State average. The other three counties all have poverty proportions that are lower 

32 than the State average and closer to the national average. Lexington County, composed mostly 

33 of suburbs of Columbia, is more than 80 percent Caucasian, which differs significantly from the 

34 rest of the area. The four-county local area is described in terms of racial characteristics and 

35 income level in Table 2-27. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-88 April 2010 

1 Table 2-27. Minority and Low-Income Populations 

Location 

Percentage 

Minority 

Percentage 

Below Poverty 

United States 30.9 13.3 

South Carolina 32.7 15.6 

 Fairfield 60.4 20.0 

 Lexington 18.5 11.8 

 Newberry 37.6 13.4 

 Richland 50.6 13.5 

Source: Adapted from USCB 2005-2007 American 

Community Survey (USCB 2009b, c, d, e, f) 

2 Further discussion of the demographic composition of the local area can be found under 

3 Environmental Justice (see Section 2.6). The remainder of this section addresses community 

4 characteristics, including the regional economy, transportation networks and infrastructure, 

5 taxes, aesthetics and recreation, housing, community infrastructure and public services, and 

6 education. 

7 2.5.2.1 Economy 

8 As the economic hub of the Central Midlands, the City of Columbia is the center of government 

9 and industry for a wide area in central South Carolina. Relatively recently, the I-26 corridor has 

10 seen significant commercial and residential development in the areas of West Columbia and 

11 Irmo. The University of South Carolina and several regional medical facilities have attracted a 

12 well-educated workforce to this area. Fort Jackson, a large military installation in Columbia, is 

13 supported by nearly 4000 civilian employees. 

14 The principal economic centers within the region are found in Columbia (Richland and Lexington 

15 Counties), Newberry (Newberry County), Clinton (Laurens County) and Union (Union County). 

16 However, the economy of the Central Midlands is dominated by Columbia. 

17 The construction of Unit 1 provides context for what the potential impacts of constructing the 

18 new units would be. The NRC was completing its Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the 

19 Operating License (OL) for VCSNS Unit 1 just as final construction of that unit was winding 

20 down over the 1979-1981 period. As such, the OL FES provides a glimpse of the observed 

21 socioeconomic impacts from that construction project. The review team noted that at that time 

22 the construction contractor commissioned a workforce survey to ascertain information such as 

23 the residence pattern of the construction workers. Of the approximately 2400 workers 

24 surveyed, 1913, or about 80 percent came from within the VCSNS region, and 927, or nearly 

25 50 percent came from either Lexington or Richland Counties (NRC 1981). The review team 

26 also observed that more than 70 percent of the workers came from the Central Midlands area, 

27 with the remainder coming from outside the region. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-89 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The VCSNS site currently employs approximately 635 full-time operations employees (SCE&G 

2 2009e), with an average of 740 additional contract workers over two recent maintenance 

3 outages (SCE&G 2009a). About 95 percent of the current operating workforce resides in 

4 Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties (see Table 2-28). Therefore, this four5 county area is considered to be the economic impact area when discussing employment, 

6 income, and output impacts from construction and operations. The review team used the 

7 distribution of VCSNS employees as the basis for several demographic assumptions in its 

8 economic impact assessment, which is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this EIS. 

9 Table 2-29 shows the unemployment rates for all counties in the 50-mi region for the 2005-2008 

10 period. Over the last 4 years, the four-county economic impact area has remained relatively 

11 stable. However, unemployment in Fairfield County has risen significantly as a result of 

12 economic conditions similar to those seen elsewhere in the country associated with the current 

13 economic downturn. The four-county economic impact area’s unemployment rate is 

14 significantly lower than the national unemployment rate. The Central Midlands and Columbia, 

15 specifically, have been able to avoid impacts of the national economic downturn. The increase 

16 in unemployment is largely tied to manufacturing-based industries. 

17 Table 2-30 shows the occupational characteristics of residents of Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, 

18 and Richland Counties. Richland County is the center of retail and health care industries in the 

19 Central Midlands. In addition, because Columbia, the capital of South Carolina, is in Richland 

20 County, government and government enterprises play a large role in the local economy. 

21 Lexington County has become a suburb of Columbia. State government employment accounts 

22 for 16.7 percent of nonfarm employment in Richland County. Nearly 30 percent of employment 

23 in Newberry County is in manufacturing industries. Table 2-31 illustrates the occupational 

24 makeup of construction employment in the Columbia metropolitan area. The metropolitan area 

25 appears to support healthy levels of the construction trades, which could be expected to be 

26 needed for the development of the VCSNS units. 

27 Table 2-28. VCSNS Unit 1 Operations Employment by County and State 

County or Summary Level 2006 Employment Percent 

Fairfield County 58 9.1 

Lexington County 219 34.5 

Newberry County 115 18.1 

Richland County 209 32.9 

Economic Impact Area 601 94.6 

Other Counties 34 5.4 

VCSNS Operations Employment 635 100.0 

Source: After SCE&G 2009e 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-90 April 2010 

1 Table 2-29. Employment Trends in the Region 

County or Summary 

Level 

Labor Force Unemployment Rate

2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aiken 69,850 70,462 70,579 70,640 5.9 6.3 5.3 5.9 

Calhoun 6567 6585 6466 6478 7.3 7.0 6.2 7.7 

Cherokee 22,920 23,234 23,609 23,198 7.9 7.5 6.7 9.3 

Chester 14,425 14,550 13,826 13,383 9.2 10.0 10.8 12.3 

Edgefield 10,358 10,229 10,282 10,291 7.2 7.6 6.2 6.8 

Fairfield 10,424 10,401 10,176 10,195 7.8 8.8 8.4 10.8 

Greenwood 29,562 29,259 28,913 28,014 9.1 7.8 6.8 7.9 

Kershaw 27,075 27,769 28,053 28,103 6.6 6.2 5.3 6.6 

Lancaster 27,219 27,884 27,009 26,016 8.4 8.8 9.5 11.8 

Laurens 30,956 31,203 30,948 31,270 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.4 

Lee 7511 7601 7489 7331 9.5 9.4 8.1 9.6 

Lexington 121,271 124,747 126,165 126,391 4.9 4.6 4.1 4.9 

McCormick 3152 3216 3159 3057 11.2 10.8 9.8 11.1 

Newberry 16,425 16,831 17,060 17,207 7.0 6.3 5.5 7.2 

Orangeburg 36,630 36,590 37,160 36,633 9.6 9.0 8.0 10.5 

Richland 160,746 165,869 170,132 170,437 6.0 5.7 5.2 6.1 

Saluda 8648 8791 8634 8650 6.6 6.1 5.2 5.9 

Spartanburg 121,762 124,974 126,527 128,179 7.5 6.5 5.6 6.9 

Sumter County 42,470 42,218 41,479 39,420 8.5 7.7 7.0 8.6 

Union County 11,293 10,985 10,637 10,455 10.8 10.7 8.9 11.1 

York County 89,815 94,695 99,019 99,076 6.7 6.2 5.3 7.2 

Region 869,079 888,093 897,322 894,424 6.9 6.5 5.9 7.1 

Economic Impact Area 308,866 317,848 323,533 324,230 5.7 5.4 4.9 5.9 

South Carolina 1,927,674 1,976,649 2,006,179 2,004,244 6.7 6.3 5.6 6.9 

Source: Adapted from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 2006-2009 (BLS 2009c). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-91 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-30. 2007 Local Employment by Industry in Four Local Counties 

Industry Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland 

 Total employment 8735 140,579 18,046 273,583 

 Wage and salary employment 6779 105,478 15,302 244,897 

 Proprietors employment 1956 35,101 2744 28,686 

 Farm proprietors employment 209 962 621 398 

 Nonfarm proprietors employment 1747 34,139 2123 28,288 

 Farm employment 229 1213 812 451 

 Nonfarm employment 8506 139,366 17,234 273,132 

 Private employment 6788 120,756 14,563 207,517 

 Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other D 316 400 D 

 Mining D 193 D D 

 Utilities D 560 D 2246 

 Construction 519 13,408 1,258 12,163 

 Manufacturing 865 12,176 5,004 11,560 

 Wholesale trade 604 7328 389 9467 

 Retail trade 827 17,242 1775 26,263 

 Transportation and warehousing D 6670 D 2870 

 Information D 1166 70 D 

 Finance and insurance 95 5265 298 19,970 

 Real estate and rental and leasing 342 9707 326 10,973 

 Professional, scientific, and technical services D 6198 D 16,167 

 Management of companies and enterprises D 711 D 3290 

 Administrative and waste services 434 8435 906 19,787 

 Educational services D 1302 398 4,795 

 Health care and social assistance D 9569 1225 27,148 

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 91 2291 189 3389 

 Accommodation and food services 294 9730 732 18,330 

 Other services, except public administration 575 8489 892 D 

 Government and government enterprises 1718 18,610 2671 65,615 

 Federal, civilian 46 587 112 8547 

 Military 98 1019 158 11,354 

 State and local 1574 17,004 2401 45,714 

 State government 241 1766 245 32,075 

 Local government 1333 15,238 2156 13,639 

Source: After table in BEA 2009 

D = Data not disclosed 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-92 April 2010 

1 Table 2-31. 2006-2008 Construction Industry Occupational Employment in the Columbia 

2 Metropolitan Area

Occupation Title 2006 2007 2008 

Construction and Extraction Occupations 15,780 18,170 16,880 

First-Line Supervisors/Managers of Construction Trades and 

Extraction Workers 

1850 2120 2140 

Brickmasons and Blockmasons 490 450 310 

Carpenters 1810 2450 2180 

Tile and Marble Setters 120 D D 

Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers 410 280 340 

Construction Laborers 1650 1860 1740 

Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment Operators 180 370 370 

Operating Engineers and Other Construction Equipment Operators 1140 1120 1130 

Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers 520 710 670 

Electricians 1470 1830 1670 

Glaziers 100 D D 

Insulation Workers, Mechanical D 130 260 

Painters, Construction and Maintenance 620 700 600 

Pipelayers 220 210 270 

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 1230 1790 1490 

Reinforcing Iron and Rebar Workers 60 60 D 

Roofers 260 290 300 

Sheet Metal Workers 320 320 340 

Structural Iron and Steel Workers 110 40 40 

Helpers – Brickmasons, Blockmasons, Stonemasons, and Tile and 

Marble Setters 

370 250 150 

Helpers – Carpenters 510 470 400 

Helpers – Electricians 550 560 540 

Helpers – Painters, Paperhangers, Plasterers, and Stucco Masons D D 110 

Helpers – Pipelayers, Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 490 490 420 

Helpers, Construction Trades, All Other 170 280 180 

Construction and Building Inspectors 300 280 160 

Hazardous Materials Removal Workers 160 100 130 

Septic Tank Servicers and Sewer Pipe Cleaners 80 70 D 

Helpers – Extraction Workers 50 D D 

Sources: BLS 2008, 2009a, b 

D = Data not revealed by BLS for disclosure reasons 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-93 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-32 shows median family income information covering the four-county economic impact 

2 area based on the 2000 census and 2009 Housing and Urban Development estimates. In 

3 general, family incomes in the four-county region grew faster than the South Carolina pace but 

4 lagged behind the rest of the country. Family incomes in Newberry County appear to be 

5 noticeably below the State and national averages in 2009, while family incomes across the 

6 Columbia metropolitan area appear to be about equal to the national average. The Columbia 

7 metropolitan area family median income is about 13 percent higher than the statewide average. 

8 Table 2-32. Annual Median Family Income (Current Dollars) by County for the Four-County 

9 Economic Impact Area

County 

2000 Median 

Family Income 

2009 Median 

Family Income 

2000 to 2009 

Percent 

Change 

2009 Index 

Versus SC 

2009 Index 

Versus US 

Fairfield 49,269 62,100 26.0 1.129 0.970 

Lexington 49,269 62,100 26.0 1.129 0.970 

Newberry 40,582 50,500 24.4 0.918 0.789 

Richland 49,269 62,100 26.0 1.129 0.970 

South Carolina 44,227 55,000 24.4 1.000 0.859 

United States 50,046 64,000 27.9 1.164 1.000 

Source: HUD 2009 

10 2.5.2.2 Taxes 

11 For tax assessment purposes, the VCSNS site is located in Fairfield County. SCE&G would 

12 pay all of its property taxes to Fairfield County. Table 2-33 illustrates recent trends in property 

13 tax payments SCE&G has made, attributable to the current VCSNS facility and SCE&G lands. 

14 These revenues currently represent about 37 percent of the Fairfield County property tax 

15 collections. This share has declined slightly over time as Fairfield County’s tax base has grown 

16 modestly over the last 10 years – most significantly in the last 3 to 4 years. Property tax 

17 revenues are distributed primarily into education, human services, and capital and debt, with the 

18 rest being distributed among several other categories (sheriff, community services, and general 

19 administration). Santee Cooper also contributes a minor amount of fee-in-lieu-of-taxes to 

20 Fairfield County, but this amount represents only a negligible source of revenue. Of note, 

21 SCE&G is the single largest property tax payer in Fairfield County. 

22 SCE&G also pays sales and use taxes on the in-state purchases of goods and services made in 

23 support of VCSNS Unit 1 operations; however, for Unit 1 operations, these revenues are not 

24 significant revenue sources for the State. Additional sales taxes would be raised by the 

25 additional purchases and consumption from new workers associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

26 (SCE&G 2009a). Tax impacts from construction and operations are discussed in Sections 

27 4.4.3.2 and 5.4.3.2 of this EIS. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-94 April 2010 

1 Table 2-33. 2003-2008 Property Tax Revenue Trends Related to VCSNS Unit 1 (dollars)

Year 

VCSNS-Related 

Property Taxes 

Paid to 

Fairfield 

County 

Other SCE&GRelated 

Property Taxes 

Paid to Fairfield 

County 

Total SCE&GRelated Tax 

Revenue 

Accrued to 

Fairfield County 

Fairfield 

County Total 

Property Tax 

Revenue 

(all sources) 

VCSNS 

Percent of 

Fairfield 

County 

Property Tax 

Revenue 

1999 12,529,680 4,952,021 17,481,701 27,772,061 45.1 

2000 12,272,620 4,984,243 17,256,863 29,604,792 41.5 

2001 12,273,100 4,898,955 17,172,055 28,801,287 37.6 

2002 12,199,280 4,912,241 17,111,521 32,624,790 37.4 

2003 12,903,760 5,157,484 18,061,244 32,225,887 40.0 

2004 12,711,245 5,173,217 17,884,462 32,381,035 39.3 

2005 13,564,310 5,565,492 19,129,802 32,527,833 41.7 

2006 14,209,970 5,065,878 19,275,848 37,733,947 37.7 

2007 14,295,100 5,730,027 20,025,127 37,988,361 37.6 

2008 14,280,560 5,714,524 19,995,084 38,649,841 36.9 

Sources: SCE&G 2009n; SCORS 2009 

2 2.5.2.3 Transportation 

3 The VCSNS 50-mi region has a well-developed transportation network of Federal, State, and 

4 county highways, a primary freight railroad service, a primary commercial airport, and 11 

5 smaller public airports that provide ready access to the population centers of the region. 

6 The major interstate highways near the VCSNS site include I-26, which links the regional 

7 population center of Columbia to the VCSNS site and neighboring counties; I-77, which links 

8 Columbia to Charlotte, North Carolina; and I-20, which links Columbia to Atlanta, Georgia. 

9 Fairfield County is linked to Columbia via US-321 to Winnsboro, while SC-215 connects 

10 Jenkinsville with Columbia and provides primary access to the VCSNS site. 

11 Primary road access to the VCSNS site from the greater Columbia area to the southeast uses 

12 I-20 to US-176, which connects to SC-213. SC-213 connects to SC-215 in Jenkinsville, and 

13 SC-215 runs north to the current site access road. The roads providing primary access from 

14 I-20 to the site are two-lane highways. There are no alternate routes that would provide the 

15 majority of the workforce with efficient access to the site. Hence, the local highways (SC-213 

16 and SC-215) currently exhibit heavy traffic volumes during shift change time periods at existing 

17 VCSNS Unit 1. Table 2-34 provides current traffic volume data for routes in the vicinity of the 

18 VCSNS site compared to the rated capacity of those roadways in terms of “level of service” 

19 (LOS). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-95 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-34. 2008 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Selected Routes in the Vicinity of the 

2 VCSNS Site 

Route Route Location 

2008 

AADT 

LOS “C” 

Capacity 

SC-213 Newberry County Line to SC-215 2400 8600 

SC-213 US-176 to Fairfield County Line 1700 8600 

SC-215 Richland County Line to SC-213 1600 10,800 

SC-34 Newberry County Line to SC-215 1600 16,800 

SC-34 SC-215 to US-321 2300 16,800 

SC-34 I-26 to Fairfield County Line 2200 16,800 

US-176 Newberry County Line to I-26 5900 16,800 

Sources: SCDOT 2009a, b 

3 The review team assessed whether projects funded under the American Recovery and 

4 Reinvestment Act of 2009 might affect transportation routes in the vicinity of the site. Although 

5 many projects are planned within South Carolina, none is in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The 

6 review team did not identify any transportation planning documents that address the routes 

7 listed in Table 2-34. In South Carolina, the accepted standard for two-lane rural roadways is 

8 LOS “C” (SCDOT 2009c). 

9 The only airport in the region with scheduled commercial air service is the Columbia 

10 Metropolitan Airport. Eleven other public general aviation airports are in the region. These 

11 include Lexington County, Columbia Owens (Richland County), Newberry County, Trenton 

12 Younce Field (Edgefield County), Saluda County, Greenwood County, Laurens County, Aiken 

13 Municipal (Aiken County), Chester Catawba Regional (Chester County), Woodward Field 

14 (Kershaw County), and Fairfield County airports. Over the last 10 years, the Columbia 

15 Metropolitan Airport has averaged about 58,000 commercial flight operations per year 

16 (SC Aeronautics 2009). 

17 Railroad service in the vicinity is provided by two freight rail carriers, CSX Transportation and 

18 Norfolk Southern Railway (SCE&G 2009a). Passenger railroad service from Amtrak is only 

19 available from Columbia. The Norfolk Southern Railway serves the northern half of the state with 

20 lines connecting Columbia to the Greenville/Spartanburg area and to Charlotte (SCE&G 2009a). 

21 VCSNS has a railroad spur that connects to the Norfolk Southern line on the east side of the 

22 Broad River that runs through Columbia and Spartanburg (NRC 2004). 

23 A high-speed railroad corridor is being planned along a northeast corridor that would link 

24 Columbia and Raleigh, North Carolina. A second corridor would connect Atlanta, Georgia, to 

25 Greenville/Spartanburg, South Carolina, and then link to Charlotte and Greensboro, North 

26 Carolina (SCE&G 2009a). As currently envisioned, the Raleigh line would run through central 

27 Fairfield County. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-96 April 2010 

1 2.5.2.4 Aesthetics and Recreation 

2 The VCSNS site is on a plateau south of Monticello Reservoir and is surrounded by forests. 

3 When observed from on land, the site is largely concealed by the surrounding forest. From 

4 Monticello Reservoir the view toward VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be somewhat obscured by 

5 Unit 1. The site has already been altered with the construction of original Unit 1, and the 

6 proposed expansion would add two new cooling towers and associated plumes. The multiple 

7 high-voltage transmission lines associated with the VCSNS site at the Unit 1 containment 

8 building are the dominant manufactured visual features in the surrounding landscape. 

9 Fairfield County offers a wide array of outdoor activities around Monticello Reservoir and the 

10 surrounding woodlands ranging from hiking, camping, fishing, boating, horseback riding, and 

11 hunting. The region includes many opportunities for outdoor activities, in addition to those found 

12 at Monticello Reservoir. Other major lakes within the region include Lake Wateree, Lake 

13 Murray, and Lake Greenwood. Outdoor activities in the region include backpacking, climbing, 

14 camping, hunting, hiking, boating, fishing, and swimming, among others. There are a number of 

15 public historic sites and the Congaree Swamp National Monument preserves the largest 

16 remnant of old-growth floodplain forest remaining in North America (NPS 2009). 

17 Within the immediate vicinity of the VCSNS site, hunting, fishing, and pleasure boating are 

18 among the most popular recreational activities. Fairfield County operates a recreation site on 

19 the shore of Monticello Reservoir, in the immediate area of Jenkinsville. SCE&G provides 

20 recreation sites and boat launch facilities around the reservoir, which are managed by SCDNR. 

21 The nearby Sumter National Forest offers opportunities for many forms of outdoor recreation, 

22 including hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking, among others. 

23 2.5.2.5 Housing 

24 Within the region of the VCSNS site are a number of communities ranging from the urban center 

25 of greater Columbia to the smaller cities and towns of Newberry, Winnsboro, Batesburg, 

26 Camden, Clinton, Lancaster, and smaller towns and rural, unincorporated areas such as 

27 Jenkinsville, Peak, Ridgeway, and Chester. The communities in Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, 

28 and Richland Counties, where the majority of in-migrating labor is expected to live, are 

29 connected by an extensive highway, county road, and railroad system that support the area 

30 surrounding the VCSNS site. Many of the residential areas in the immediate vicinity of the 

31 VCSNS site are outside the jurisdictional boundaries of cities and towns. Rental property is 

32 available in the larger communities such as Newberry, Chapin, Irmo, and West Columbia. 

33 There also are several hotels/motels in the vicinity of the site. 

34 The greater Columbia metropolitan area has grown significantly since the 2000 U.S. Census. 

35 The USCB (2009g) estimates showed a total of 10,913 housing units in Fairfield County in 

36 2008. Assuming that the vacancy rate remains relatively constant, 1692 of the units would be 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-97 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 vacant and available when construction begins. Over the 2000-2008 period, the housing stock 

2 in the four-county economic impact area grew by 18.3 percent, with the addition of more than 

3 33,300 new units (USCB 2009g). Housing stock growth in Richland County has significantly 

4 outpaced that of the other three counties – 20.9 percent for Richland County compared to 

5 11.8 percent elsewhere since 2000. 

6 Recent residential development principally has been focused in the adjacent communities of 

7 Irmo, West Columbia, and Lexington, to support population growth in the Columbia metropolitan 

8 area as a whole. While three new housing developments are planned or awaiting construction 

9 in the Jenkinsville area bordering the Monticello Reservoir, the land surrounding the VCSNS site 

10 remains sparsely populated. Table 2-35 provides a snapshot of the real estate market in the 

11 counties closest to the VCSNS site. 

12 Table 2-35. 2000 Census Housing Characteristics in the Vicinity of the VCSNS Site 

 Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland 

FourCounties South 

Carolina 

Total Housing Units 10,383 90,978 16,805 129,793 247,959 1,753,670

Total Occupied Units 8774 83,240 14,026 120,101 226,141 1,533,854

Owner-Occupied 6794 64,265 10,776 73,757 155,592 1,107,617 

Renter-Occupied 1980 18,975 3250 46,344 70,549 426,237 

Total Vacant Units 1609 7738 2779 9692 21,818 219,816 

Percent Total Vacant Units 15.5 8.5 16.5 7.5 8.8 12.5 

Median Value (singlefamily owner occupied) $69,900 $106,300 $78,000 $98,700 $98,880 $94,900 

Percent Change 1990 to 

2000 in Commuter 

18.9 34.7 16.3 18.5 23.8 24.3

Mean Travel Time to 

Work, Minutes 

28.3 26 25.3 21.7 NA 24.3

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

NA = Not applicable 

13 2.5.2.6 Public Services 

14 The political jurisdictions providing public services in the region include State, county, and 

15 municipal agencies and school districts. The review team expects that the public service 

16 impacts from the proposed action would be largely proportional to where the workers would 

17 reside. Therefore, the four-county area would likely bound the extent of such impacts, and the 

18 review team would not expect any significant public service impacts beyond the four-county 

19 economic impact area. The ensuing discussion of baseline conditions is confined to just the 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-98 April 2010 

1 four-county area. As part of its evaluation, the review team visited the region and the economic 

2 impact area to meet with local officials regarding the potentially affected public services and to 

3 validate SCE&G’s assertions in its ER. 

4 Water Supply and Waste Treatment 

5 In the Central Midlands region, water systems draw from surface water (i.e., rivers, lakes, and 

6 streams) or groundwater. The fall line, a line marking the transition between the Piedmont and 

7 the Coastal Plain physiographic ecoregions, approximately follows I-20 and splits the Central 

8 Midlands. VCSNS site is in the Piedmont, north of the fall line. Two of the four counties 

9 (Fairfield and Newberry) of interest lie entirely in the Piedmont. Approximately one-third of 

10 Lexington and Richland Counties lies in the Piedmont, with the remainder in the Coastal Plain. 

11 The Piedmont is characterized by a limited groundwater supply due to the dense, crystalline 

12 rock substrate. Most of the large municipal systems in the Central Midlands north of the fall line 

13 obtain water from the Broad or Saluda rivers or one of their impoundments. However, some 

14 smaller municipalities have wells that can adequately meet water demands. 

15 Currently, water-supply facilities have excess capacity. According to local planning officials, 

16 water supply in the region is not a concern. Communities are adequately served by the current 

17 water supplies and planners estimate that the counties have adequate supply through current 

18 planning periods (SCE&G 2009a). Table 2-36 and Table 2-37 describe water suppliers in the 

19 four-county economic impact area, their current capacities, and their average daily production. 

20 Wastewater treatment in the region is provided by local jurisdictions. Municipalities determine 

21 treatment methods based on needs and available technologies, within budget constraints. 

22 Currently, the municipalities in the four counties are able to meet projected wastewater23 treatment needs (SCE&G 2009a). Table 2-38 provides public wastewater capacities and 

24 average daily production. Rural areas of each county use septic systems. 

25 Police, Fire, and Medical Services 

26 The Fairfield County Emergency Management Office is the lead agency responsible for 

27 emergency management planning in Fairfield County. It coordinates planning with both the 

28 Governor’s Division of Emergency Management and SCE&G when responding to emergencies. 

29 Table 2-39 and Table 2-40 provide police and fire information for the four-county economic 

30 impact area, respectively. Emergency management officials consider current police and fire 

31 protection to be adequate at this time (SCE&G 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-99 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Scoping comments indicated that crime in the vicinity of the VCSNS site is a concern, and the 

2 review team’s visits to the area confirmed that during Unit 1 construction, the presence of a 

3 large number of construction workers in the area contributed to noticeable increases in crime, 

4 such as assaults and drug- and alcohol-related misdemeanors. The review team compiled 

5 baseline crime statistics for the region from 2006 State-reported data (SCLED 2009). 

6 Table 2-41 lists the most recent detailed county-level arrest data reported in the State. Of note, 

7 the rate of violent crime in Lexington and Richland Counties was noticeably lower than the more 

8 rural local counties and the State in the 2007 report. The overall arrest rate in Fairfield County 

9 is about equal to the State arrest rate. 

Table 2-36. Public Groundwater Supply Resources Near the VCSNS Site(a) 10 

Groundwater System Name

System 

Number

Treatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)

Reported 

Annual 

Average 

Withdrawal 

(Mgd)

Population 

Served

Fairfield County 

Jenkinsville Water District 

[9 wells and purchased from Midcounty]

2020001 NA 0.15 1969 

Midcounty Water District #1 

[4 wellsa

 and purchased from Winnsboro] 

2020002 NA 0.083 1487 

Town of Ridgeway 

[1 well and purchased from Winnsboro] 

2010002 NA 0.056 950 

Lexington County 

Gaston Rural Water District 

[7 wells] 

3220002 NA 0.46 6756 

Gilbert Summit 

[7 wells and purchased from Lexington Co. Joint] 

3220001 NA 0.41 4518 

Newberry County 

Town of Prosperity 

[3 wells] 

3610005 NA 0.058 1347 

Source: After SCE&G 2009a 

(a) Includes community water systems of 3 million gallons per month or greater; smaller systems are not required to 

report groundwater withdrawal. 

NA = Not applicable 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-100 April 2010 

1 Table 2-37. Public Surface-Water Supply Resources by County in the Economic Impact Area 

of the VCSNS Site(a) 2 

Surface-Water System Name 

Treatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)

Reported 

Annual 

Average 

Withdrawal 

(Mgd)

Population 

Served

Excess 

Capacity 

(Mgd) 

Fairfield County 

Town of Winnsboro 

[Sand Creek and 192-ac Lake] 

3.1 1.54 8303 1.56 

Lexington County 

Town of Batesburg-Leesville 

[Lightwood Knot Creek, Duncan Creek] 

2.4 1.1 7652 1.3 

City of Cayce 

[Congaree Creek and purchased from 

Lexington Co. Joint, Lexington, and 

Columbia](a)

6.0 3.1 15,250 2.9 

City of West Columbia 

[Saluda River and Lake Murray and 

purchased from Cayce] 

20 9.8 29,763 10.2 

Lexington Co. Joint Municipal Water System 

[Lake Murray and purchased from West 

Columbia] 

4.3 2.3 12,264 2.0 

Town of Lexington 

[purchased from West Columbia and 

Lexington Co. Joint] 

4.5 1.8 7659 2.7 

Newberry County 

City of Newberry 

[Saluda River] 

8.1 5.1 10,145 3.0 

Town of Whitmire 

[Enoree River, Duncan Creek] 

1.0 0.64 2755 0.36 

Richland County 

Fort Jackson (US Army) 

[purchased from Columbia] 

6.6 2.2 32,841 4.4 

City of Columbia 

[Lake Murray and Columbia Canal (Broad 

River)] 

126 65 223,660 61 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(a) Includes community water systems of 3 million gallons per month or greater. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-101 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-38. Public Wastewater-Treatment Systems by County in the Economic Impact Area of 

the VCSNS Site(a) 2 

System Name

Maximum 

Treatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)

Average Daily 

Wastewater 

Processed 

(Mgd)

Estimated 

Excess 

WastewaterTreatment 

Capacity 

(Mgd)(b)

Fairfield County 

Winnsboro/Jackson Creek Plant 1.5 Not Provided Unknown 

Lexington County 

Cayce Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) 9.5 5.5 to 6.0 3.5 to 4.0 

Town of Chapin 5.0 (proposed) 0.58 4.4 (proposed) 

Batesburg-Leesville WWTF 2.5 1.3 to 1.5 1.0 to 1.2 

Lexington-Coventry Woods Wastewater 

Treatment Plant 

1.95 1.0 0.95 

Newberry County 

City of Newberry/Bush River Wastewater 

Treatment Plant 

3.22 2.5 0.7 

Town of Whitmire 1.0 0.5 to 0.6 0.4 to 0.5 

Richland County 

Columbia Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant 60 35 25 

East Richland County Public Service 

District/Gills Creek 

16.0 Not Provided Unknown 

Richland County/Broad River WWTF 6.0 1.2 4.8 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(a) Includes major facilities with a capacity of 1 million gpd or more 

(b) Estimate assumes entire maximum treatment capacity is available to treat wastewater flow that is above 

average. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-102 April 2010 

1 Table 2-39. Law Enforcement Personnel 2005 by County in the Economic Impact Area of the 

2 VCSNS Site 

Political 

Jurisdiction 

Total Law 

Enforcement 

Employees 

Total 

Police 

Officers(a)

Total 

Civilians(b)

Fairfield County 

Fairfield County 47 45 2 

Winnsboro 27 26 1 

Ridgeway 2 2 0 

Total 76 73 3 

Lexington County 

Lexington County 376 214 162 

Cayce 74 61 13 

West Columbia 56 45 11 

Lexington 38 33 5 

Batesburg-Leesville 25 20 5 

Irmo 21 19 2 

Springdale 9 8 1 

Swansea 7 7 0 

Chapin 6 6 0 

Pelion 3 3 0 

Total 615 416 199 

Newberry County 

Newberry County 94 46 48 

Newberry 29 25 4 

Prosperity 4 4 0 

Total 127 75 52 

Richland County 

Richland County 490 453 37 

Columbia 339 301 38 

Eastover 4 4 0 

Total 833 758 75 

Total All Counties 1651 1322 329 

Sources: FBI 2006a, b 

(a) Individuals who ordinarily carry a badge and a firearm and have full 

arrest powers. 

(b) Personnel such as clerks, radio dispatchers, stenographers, jailers, 

and mechanics. 
April 2010 2-103 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment Table 2-40. Fire Protection Personnel by County in the Economic Impact Area of the VCSNS Site(a) 1 Fire Dept Name Number of Stations 

Active 

Firefight

ers 

(Career)

Active 

Firefighters 

(Volunteer)

Active 

Firefighters 

(Paid per 

Call) 

Non 

Firefighting 

(Civilian) 

Non 

Firefighting 

(Volunteer)

Total 

Personnel 

Fairfield County Winnsboro Public Safety 1 22 0 9 2 0 33 

Fairfield Community Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 25 0 0 0 25 

Dutchman Creek Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 16 0 0 2 18 

Jenkinsville Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 9 0 0 6 15 

Greenbrier-Bethel Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 9 0 0 2 11 Lexington County 

Lexington County Fire Service 24 134 380 0 0 0 514 

Voridian Fire & Rescue 1 14 0 70 5 0 89 

Cayce Fire Department 1 48 2 0 12 2 64 

Batesburg-Leesville Fire Department Station 25 2 3 38 0 0 0 41 

Irmo Fire District 2 31 0 6 0 0 37 

Pine Grove Fire Station 1 6 0 25 0 1 32 

Oak Grove Fire Station 1 9 8 8 0 0 25 

West Columbia Fire Department 1 24 0 0 0 0 24 

South Congaree Fire Station 1 8 8 3 0 0 19 

Gaston Fire Station 1 4 12 0 0 2 18 

Sandy Run - Calhoun Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 16 0 0 0 16 

Columbia Metropolitan Airport Fire/Rescue 1 15 0 0 0 0 15 Newberry County 

Consolidated Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 42 0 0 10 52 Fairview Volunteer Fire Department 2 0 27 0 1 15 43 

City of Newberry Fire Department 1 19 18 0 1 1 39 
Draft NUREG-1939 2-104 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-40. (contd) 1 Fire Dept Name Number of Stations Active Firefight ers (Career) Active Firefighters (Volunteer) Active Firefighters (Paid per Call) Non Firefighting (Civilian) Non Firefighting (Volunteer) Total Firefighters Newberry City Fire Department 2 19 18 0 1 1 39 Prosperity Fire Department 2 0 35 0 0 0 35 Silverstreet Volunteer Fire Department 1 0 28 0 0 0 28 

Whitmire Fire Department 1 0 25 0 0 0 25 

Chappells Volunteer Fire Department Station #10 1 0 18 0 0 6 24 

Pomaria Fire Department 1 0 19 0 0 0 19 

Richland County 

Columbia Fire Department 31 385 107 0 23 5 520 McEntire Air National Guard Fire Department 1 52 0 0 0 0 52 

Total All Counties 89 793 860 121 45 53 1872 

Source: USFA 2008 (a) Data are from the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Department Census. Responses are voluntary and the USFA estimates that, as of 2008, 

approximately 85 percent of the nation's fire departments have responded. 

2 3 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-105 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-41. 2007 Arrests per 1000 for Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties 

Offense Category Fairfield Lexington Newberry Richland 

South 

Carolina 

Alcohol-related 9.09 6.27 15.20 6.43 8.08 

Drug-related 9.04 6.82 12.49 8.66 8.56 

Family offenses 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.37 

Fraud and related 1.11 1.99 7.55 7.10 4.92 

Juvenile-related 0.13 0.56 0.11 0.53 0.54 

Nuisance-related 8.40 3.50 11.48 3.88 5.62 

Personal (abductions, 

intimidation, extortion) 

0.39 0.17 0.48 0.20 0.53 

Property destruction 3.90 1.11 4.46 1.86 2.43 

Thefts 4.80 2.96 6.62 4.58 5.87 

Vice (sex, gambling, weapons 

offenses) 

0.56 0.33 0.85 1.38 0.94 

Violent (murder, rape, assault) 8.40 4.51 8.56 5.31 7.40 

All Other (traffic, etc.) 5.23 3.19 67.44 2.46 6.68 

Total arrests per 1000 45.90 28.30 67.92 39.97 45.27 

2006 Population 23,333 243,270 37,633 357,734 4,407,709 

Source: SCLED 2009 

2 Table 2-42 presents hospital use and medical practitioner data by county. Hospitals in Richland 

3 County include five general hospitals (with one under construction) and one military hospital. 

4 More than 8000 people are employed in the medical industry in Richland County. Fairfield, 

5 Lexington, and Newberry Counties each have one general hospital and Lexington County is 

6 adding a second smaller hospital (SCE&G 2009a). 

7 Table 2-42. Hospital Data for Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties 

County 2000 Population

Hospital 

Beds

Hospital Beds 

per 1000 

population Physicians

Physicians 

per 1000 

population

Fairfield 23,454 50 2.1 19 0.81 

Lexington 216,014 376 1.7 337 1.6 

Newberry 36,108 103 2.9 52 1.4 

Richland 320,677 1533 4.8 1330 4.2 

Total 596,253 2062 3.5 1738 2.9 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

8 All four counties have health departments that are available to residents regardless of their 

9 ability to pay. Services offered include child and adolescent health programs, women's health 

10 programs, immunizations, laboratory services, teen pregnancy prevention programs, scoliosis 

11 screening, parasite screening, diabetes screening, health education and counselling, 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-106 April 2010 

1 homemaker services for the elderly, prenatal services, and sexually transmitted disease 

2 prevention and education (SCE&G 2009a). 

3 Social services in the four-county economic impact area are provided by State and local 

4 governmental and nongovernmental organizations. The United Way helps support many 

5 organizations in the four counties. The primary State-level organization that provides social 

6 services is the South Carolina Department of Social Services, which oversees numerous 

7 programs and services, similar to other such departments in other states (SCE&G 2009a). 

8 2.5.2.7 Education 

9 Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland school districts are generally identified by county. 

10 However, there are five districts in Lexington County and two districts in Richland County. 

11 Table 2-43 lists the total 2008 student enrollment, teachers, student-to-teacher ratio, and 

12 number of schools in each county. Of note, the Fairfield School District shows considerably 

13 higher eligibility for free and reduced school lunch programs than the other districts in the four14 county economic impact area. Within the Fairfield district, the closest school to the VCSNS site 

15 is McCrorey Liston Elementary. Table 2-44 presents the school-by-school free and reduced 

16 meal program eligibility in Fairfield County. 

17 All of the school districts that are likely to feel some impact from an influx of students associated 

18 with the development of the VCSNS site have been growing in recent years and making 

19 accommodations to manage that growth. Each district has a facilities plan that provides a 

20 roadmap for addressing enrollment increases. Currently, all of the districts have been 

21 addressing increased enrollments either through new revenue generation or the increased tax 

22 base that is attributable to population growth and property development (SCE&G 2009a). 

23 Table 2-43. School Characteristics in the VCSNS Economic Impact Area 

Public School 

District 2008 Enrollment 

Free and Reduced 

Lunch Participation 

Percent 

Number of 

Schools 

Student/ 

Teacher Ratio 

Fairfield 3719 83.8 8 11.3 

Lexington 01 20,421 30.6 23 13.7 

Lexington 02 9378 55.6 16 13.4 

Lexington 03 2092 61.8 4 13.6 

Lexington 04 3567 68.2 5 14.7 

Lexington 05 16,929 25.1 19 13.5 

Newberry 6146 63.6 11 13.1 

Richland 01 24,600 62.2 49 12.4 

Richland 02 24,008 39.2 27 13.7 

Totals 110,860 46.2 162 13.3 

Source: SCDOE 2009 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-107 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-44. Fairfield County Public School Free and Reduced Meal Eligibility 

Public School 

2008 

Enrollment 

Percent of 

Students 

Eligible for Free 

and Reduced 

Lunch 

Fairfield Central High School 980 73.47 

Fairfield Intermediate 572 82.17 

Fairfield Middle School 510 86.47 

Fairfield Primary 539 92.95 

Geiger Elementary 391 86.96 

Gordon Odyssey Academy 156 89.74 

Kelly Miller Elementary 305 92.79 

McCrorey Liston Elementary 266 83.46 

District Total 3719 83.81 

Source: After SCDOE 2009 

2 Table 2-45 lists the colleges and universities found in the region. The local community colleges 

3 are partnering with the VCSNS site-development team to develop training curricula that would 

4 produce qualified local technicians and construction workers for the jobs at the VCSNS site. 

5 Table 2-45. Colleges and Universities in the VCSNS Region 

Institution City County Highest Degree Offered

Public Senior Institutions 

University of South Carolina 

Lander University 

Winthrop University 

Columbia 

Greenwood 

Rock Hill 

Richland County 

Greenwood County 

York County 

Doctoral Degrees 

Master’s Degrees 

Master’s Degrees 

Other Public Institutions 

University of South Carolina – Lancaster 

University of South Carolina – Union 

Lancaster 

Union 

Lancaster County 

Union County 

Associates Degrees 

Associates Degrees 

Public Technical Colleges 

Midlands Technical College 

York Technical College 

Columbia 

Rock Hill 

Richland County 

York County 

Associates Degrees 

Associates Degrees 

Private Senior Institutions 

Allen University 

Benedict College 

Columbia International University 

Columbia College 

Lutheran Theological Seminary 

Newberry College 

Presbyterian College 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Columbia 

Newberry 

Clinton 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Richland County 

Newberry County 

Laurens County 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Doctoral Degrees 

Master’s Degrees 

Doctoral Degrees 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Baccalaureate Degrees 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-108 April 2010 

1 2.6 Environmental Justice 

2 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy established by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 

3 7629) under which each Federal agency identifies and addresses, as appropriate, 

4 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations.(a) 5 The Council on Environmental 

6 Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice (CEQ 1997). 

Although it is not subject to the Executive Order, the Commission(b) 7 has voluntarily committed to 

8 undertake environmental justice reviews. On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy 

9 statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040). 

10 This section describes the existing demographic and geographic characteristics of the proposed 

11 site and its surrounding communities. It offers a general description of minority and low-income 

12 populations within the region surrounding the site. The characterization in this section forms the 

13 analytical baseline from which potential environmental justice effects would be determined. The 

14 characterization of populations of interest includes an assessment of “populations of particular 

15 interest or unusual circumstances,” such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on 

16 subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations such as American Indian settlements. 

17 The racial population is expressed in terms of the number and/or percentage of people that are 

18 minorities in an area, and, in this discussion, the sum of the racial minority populations is 

19 referred to as the aggregate racial minority population. Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin are 

20 considered an ethnic minority and may be of any race. The review team did not include 

21 Hispanics in its aggregate race estimate because the Federal government considers race and 

22 Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts (USCB 2001). Table 2-46 shows the 

23 overall representation of the populations of interest in the VCSNS 50-mi region and the State of 

24 South Carolina as a whole. 

 

(a) Minority categories are defined as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander; Black races; or Hispanic ethnicity; “other” may be considered a separate 

minority category. Low income refers to individuals living in households meeting the official poverty 

measure. To see the U.S. Census definition and values for 2000, visit the U.S. Census website at 

http://ask.census.gov/. 

(b) The Commission is the body of up to five NRC commissioners that formulates policies, develops 

regulations governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and 

adjudicates legal matters. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-109 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 2-46. Regional Minority and Low-Income Populations by Census Block Analysis Results

Category 

Number of Blocks 

(out of 864 Total) 

Percent of 

Total 

African American 225 26.0 

Aggregate Minority 240 27.8 

Hispanic 0 0.0 

American Indian or Alaskan Native 1 0.1 

Asian 1 0.1 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0 

Persons Reporting Some Other Race 0 0.0 

Aggregate Minority plus Hispanic 0 0.0 

Low-Income Population 54 6.3 

Source: Review team U.S. Census data analysis. 

2 2.6.1 Methodology 

3 The review team first examines the geographic distribution of minority and low-income 

4 populations within 50 mi of the VCSNS site, using a GIS and the 2000 U.S. Census to identify 

5 minority and low-income populations. The review team then verifies its analysis by conducting 

6 field inquiries of numerous agencies and groups (see Appendix B for list of organizations 

7 contacted). 

8 The first step in the review team’s environmental justice methodology is to examine each 

9 census block group that is fully or partially included within the 50-mi region to determine for 

10 each minority or low-income population whether it should be considered a population of interest. 

11 If either of the two criteria discussed below identifies a census block group, that census block 

12 group was considered a population of interest. The two criteria are whether 

13  the population of interest exceeds 50 percent of the total population for the census block 

14 group, or 

15  the population of interest is 20 percentage points (or more) greater than the same 

16 population’s percentage in the census block group’s state or county. 

17 The identification of census block groups that meet the above two-step criterion is not sufficient 

18 for the review team to conclude that a disproportionately high and adverse impact exists. 

19 Likewise, the lack of census block groups meeting the above criteria cannot be construed as 

20 evidence of no disproportionate and adverse impacts. To reach an environmental justice 

21 conclusion, starting with the identified populations of interest, the review team must investigate 

22 all populations in greater detail to determine if there are potentially significant environmental 

23 impacts that may have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-110 April 2010 

1 populations. To determine whether disproportionately high and adverse effects may be present, 

2 the review team considers the following: 

3  Health Considerations 

4 1. Are the radiological or other health effects significant or above generally accepted 

5 norms? 

6 2. Is the risk or rate of hazard significant and appreciably in excess of the general 

7 population? 

8 3. Do the radiological or other health effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or 

9 multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards? 

10  Environmental Considerations 

11 4. Is there an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely 

12 affects a particular group? 

13 5. Are there any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or [are] 

14 likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population? 

15 6. Do the environment effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 

16 exposure from environmental hazard? (NRC 2007b). 

17 If this investigation in greater detail does not yield any potentially high and adverse impacts on 

18 populations of interest, the review team may conclude that there are no disproportionately high 

19 and adverse impacts. If, however, the review team finds any potentially disproportionate and 

20 adverse impacts, the review team would fully characterize the nature and extent of that impact 

21 and consider possible mitigation measures that may be used to lessen that impact. The 

22 remainder of this section discusses the results of the search for potentially affected populations 

23 of interest. 

24 The review team estimated that in the 2000 U.S. Census, 864 census block groups were wholly 

25 or partially within the 50-mi region. Using the individual comparison criteria (comparing the 

26 block group to the state and to the county in which it is located), GIS analysis found 225 block 

27 groups that have African American populations, 1 with American Indian or Alaskan Native 

28 populations, 1 with Asian populations, and none with Hispanic ethnicity that are 20 percent 

29 greater than the State or the County average. There are 240 block groups with aggregate 

30 minority populations that were 20 percent or greater than the State or the County average, with 

31 217 of the blocks groups having a minority population of 50 percent or greater. There were no 

32 blocks with Hispanic ethnicity, minority populations of Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or 

33 multi-racial groups exceeding either the 20-percent or 50-percent criterion. Fifty-four blocks 

34 were identified as having low-income households that are 20 percent or greater than the State 

35 or County average, 14 of which have 50 percent or more low-income households. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-111 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Figure 2-17 and Figure 2-18 illustrate the findings of the analysis of the 2000 U.S. Census data. 

2 None of the identified low-income census block groups with populations of interest are located 

3 within the 6-mi vicinity of the VCSNS site. However, the review team identified three African 

4 American census block groups within the site vicinity. Upon further investigation, local officials 

5 within and near Jenkinsville revealed that not only was the local population comprised almost 

6 exclusively of African Americans, but it also included a high proportion of low-income 

7 populations. The review team also noted that the Fairfield County School District exhibits a 

8 proportion of free and reduced lunch participation that is significantly greater than the other area 

9 districts (see Section 2.5.2.7). Based on the information in the VCSNS ER, public input, and the 

10 review team’s outreach and analysis, the review team determined that because there are 

11 minority and low-income communities within the site vicinity, impacts on these communities 

12 must be considered in greater detail, as discussed in Section 2.6.2. The result of the review 

13 team’s analyses can be found in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of this EIS. 

14 2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach 

15 The review team interviewed local, State, and county officials, business leaders, and key 

16 members of minority communities within the economic impact area to assess the potential for 

17 disproportionately high and adverse socioeconomic effects that may be experienced by minority 

18 and low-income communities during construction and operation of a project with the magnitude 

19 of the proposed new VCSNS units. The NRC staff issued an advanced notice of public 

20 meetings for EIS scoping purposes in accordance with the NRC’s guidance (see Appendix D). 

21 The review team also contacted local Tribal governments to determine historic or cultural uses 

22 in the region (see Section 2.7.4). It was through this scoping and outreach process that the 

23 review team determined that the populations within the vicinity of the VCSNS site included a 

24 percentage of low-income families not captured by the two-step assessment of census block 

25 groups. The review team was also made aware of anecdotal information about local 

26 subsistence fishing by the members of the communities of Jenkinsville, Dawkins, and Blair. 

27 2.6.3 Subsistence and Communities with Unique Characteristics 

28 For each of the identified low-income and minority populations, it is necessary to determine if 

29 any of the populations appears to have a unique characteristic at the population level that would 

30 cause an impact to disproportionately affect them. Examples of unique characteristics might 

31 include lack of vehicles, sensitivity to noise, location within the site vicinity, subsistence 

32 activities, or lack of basic healthcare, but such unique characteristics need to be demonstrably 

33 present in the population and relevant to the potential environmental impacts of the plant. If the 

34 impacts from the proposed action would appear to affect an identified minority or low-income 

35 population more than the general population because of one of these or other unique 

36 characteristics, then a determination would be made about whether the impact is 

37 disproportionate when compared to the general population. Through its review of the 

38 applicant’s ER, its own outreach and research, and through scoping meeting comments, the 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-112 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 2-17. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental 

3 Justice Selection Criteria (SCE&G 2009a)
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-113 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-18. Aggregate Low-Income Populations in Block Groups That Meet the Environmental 

3 Justice Selection Criteria (SCE&G 2009a) 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-114 April 2010 

1 review team identified potentially unique community characteristics for further consideration: 

2 location along access roads that may become congested, subsistence fishing and hunting in the 

3 lands near the VCSNS site, and a common practice of home vegetable gardening to 

4 supplement diets. The review team assesses these unique characteristics and practices of this 

5 population in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of this EIS. 

6 2.6.4 Migrant Populations

7 The USCB defines a migrant worker as an individual employed in the agricultural industry in a 

8 seasonal or temporary nature and who is required to be absent overnight from his/her 

9 permanent place of residence. From an environmental justice perspective, there is a potential 

10 for such groups, such as outdoor workers, to be disproportionately affected by emissions in the 

11 environment. Although Richland County and immediately adjacent counties are urban 

12 population centers, there are a number of farms within the region. Based on agricultural census 

13 data, these farms do not hire an especially large number of migrant workers, and none is 

14 located within the 6-mi vicinity of the VCSNS site (see Section 2.5.1.3). 

15 2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary 

16 The review team found low-income, African American, and aggregated minority populations that 

17 exceed the percentage criteria established for environmental justice analyses within the 50-mi 

18 region. Further, several of these minority census block groups are clustered in the vicinity of the 

19 VCSNS site and displayed a high concentration of low-income populations not evident at the 

20 census block group level. Therefore, the review team performed additional analyses before 

21 making a final environmental justice determination. The results of the analyses can be found in 

22 Sections 4.5 and 5.5. 

23 2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

24 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the staff has elected to use the National Environmental 

25 Policy Act (NEPA) process to comply with the obligations found under Section 106 of the 

26 National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA). The NRC has determined that the 

27 physical and visual Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the COL review is the area at the VCSNS 

28 Units 2 and 3 site and the immediate environs that may be affected by land-disturbing activities 

29 associated with construction and operation of the new VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The USACE also 

30 considers the transmission line corridors to be within the APE for its permit review. 

31 USACE regulations at 33 CFR Part 325, Appendix C, describe the USACE obligation to comply 

32 with the regulations of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800). In addition to any specific conditions 

33 regarding known cultural resources coordinated with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

34 (THPO) or South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), every USACE DA permit 

35 includes a general condition that advises and requires the permittee to immediately notify 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-115 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 USACE if any previously unknown resources are encountered during activities that would 

2 constitute preconstruction and construction. 

3 This section discusses the historic and cultural background in the VCSNS site region. It also 

4 details the efforts that have been taken to identify cultural resources in the APE and the 

5 resources that were identified. A description of the consultation efforts accomplished to date is 

6 also provided. The assessments of effects from the proposed building and operation are found 

7 in Sections 4.6 and 5.6, respectively. 

8 2.7.1 Cultural Background 

9 This section provides an overview and summary of the cultural history of the VCSNS site and 

10 region based on documentation provided in the Supplemental EIS for renewal of the VCSNS 

11 Unit 1 Operating License (NRC 2004, Section 2.2.9), Revision 1 of the ER (SCE&G 2009a), and 

12 the first cultural resources survey report completed by SCE&G’s cultural resources contractor, 

13 New South Associates (NSA 2007a) submitted by SCE&G (2009b). The area in and around the 

14 VCSNS site has a rich cultural history and a substantial record of significant cultural resources 

15 associated with the prehistoric and historic periods. This part of southern South Carolina has a 

16 cultural sequence that extends back to about 12,000 years Before Present (BP). 

17 Prehistoric occupation of the area is generally grouped into four periods: Paleo-Indian (12,000 

18 to 10,000 BP), Archaic (10,000 to 3000 BP), Woodland (3000 BP to 800 BP) and Mississippian 

19 (A.D. 1100–1640) (NSA 2007a). Settlement during the early prehistoric period is characterized 

20 by mobile groups exploiting big game and the presence of the Clovis projectile point. 

21 Subsistence on multiple resources including smaller game and plants as well as more sedentary 

22 settlement patterns particularly along rivers, characterize the Archaic period. Reliance on 

23 shellfish and the development of pottery occurred during the late Archaic period. Ceramic 

24 typology, use, and function evolved and diversified during the Woodland period with an increase 

25 in sedentary settlement patterns and a reliance on agriculture in the Mississippian period. Two 

26 significant Mississippian period archaeological sites are located in the vicinity of the VCSNS 

27 site; the Blair Mound and the McCollum Mound (NSA 2007a). 

28 The contact period is the transitional period between the prehistoric and historic periods when 

29 Euro-American settlers and explorers first visited the area in the mid-16th century (NSA 2007a; 

30 NRC 2004). Several groups of American Indians lived in South Carolina during this time, many 

31 of which became extinct or merged with other groups due to non-American Indian 

32 encroachment by Spanish, French, and British explorers and settlers by the mid-1700s. The 

33 largest groups were the Catawba and the Cherokee who likely used the Broad River region for 

34 resource gathering (SCE&G 2009a). Several Tribal groups and descendants of earlier groups 

35 are present today in South Carolina (descendants of the Cherokee, the Catawba, Pee Dee, 

36 Chicora, Edisto, Santee, and Chicora-Waccamaw Tribes) (NRC 2004). In 1838, the Cherokee 

37 were forced to leave the eastern United States and resettle in Oklahoma (NRC 2004). Today, 

38 the Catawba are the only Federally recognized Tribe in the State of Carolina, but there are 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-116 April 2010 

1 several other non-Federally recognized groups that have an interest in South Carolina and are 

2 officially recognized by the State of South Carolina (SCE&G 2009a). 

3 The historic period overlaps with the contact period and begins with the arrival of Euro-American 

4 settlers. The European colonization of South Carolina began in the early 1600s. South 

5 Carolina was established in 1670 with the founding of Charleston (NSA 2007a) and was divided 

6 into South and North Carolina in 1710 (NRC 2004). Permanent European settlement did not 

7 occur in the Fairfield County area until the early 1740s with settlement occurring along the 

8 Broad River. During the American Revolution, many settlers in the area were divided between 

9 the British and Patriot sides, which resulted in several skirmishes. With the culmination of the 

10 war during the nearby Battle of Cowpens, the British eventually withdrew from Charleston in 

11 1782 (NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a). 

12 Cotton production and plantations were established in the area in the 1800s and increased 

13 during the 1850s. An increase in slave populations accompanied the increase in cotton 

14 plantations in the area (SCE&G 2009a; NSA 2007a). During the late 19th century, the Civil War 

15 and Reconstruction period resulted in major economic social adjustments in the area. Cotton 

16 production ceased in the 1930s as a result of hard economic times, the boll weevil, and 

17 depletion of the area’s topsoil (NRC 2004; NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a). Camp Pearson, a 

18 Civilian Conservation Corps camp was established in 1933 as a soil erosion camp at Parr, 

19 which is located just south and west of the VCSNS site (NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a). 

20 2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the Site 

21 This section describes cultural resources that may be affected by building and operating the 

22 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The direct effects APE, which takes into account physical 

23 impacts on known resources resulting from constructing and operating VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 

24 has been defined by SCE&G (2009c) as “the area where ground disturbing activities could 

25 potentially occur and was selected to encompass SCE&G property lines, all of the water-intake 

26 locations, the northern boundary of the switchyard, rework along Parr Road, the northern edge 

27 of Fairfield Hydro Road and the Norfolk Southern Railroad” (SCE&G 2009f) (see Figure 2-19). 

28 The APE is based on property boundaries and not on areas to be affected by building activities 

29 (SCE&G 2009h). A visual effects APE was not defined because the proposed project activities 

30 would be located in rolling terrain that is forested and not visible from major roads or nearby 

31 public property (SCE&G 2009a, c, g). 

32 Transmission lines leaving the site would be visible in places (SCE&G 2009g). The South 

33 Carolina SHPO has concurred with the APE definitions identified by each of the individual 

34 surveys completed for the COL activities that are summarized below. 

35 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-117 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 2-19. Area of Potential Effect for the VCSNS Site Units 2 and 3
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-118 April 2010 

1 Previous cultural resources investigations occurred in the vicinity of and within the VCSNS site 

2 APE indicating that the region was used during prehistoric times, particularly during the Middle 

3 Archaic period and Mississippian period (Teague 1979; SCDHPT 1984). Six prehistoric sites 

4 were recorded in these areas by the South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology 

5 (SCIAA) in 1972, and reported by Teague in 1979, as part of an archaeological survey 

6 conducted for the Parr Hydroelectric Project, which was constructed in part to supply cooling 

7 water for VCSNS Unit 1 (NRC 2004; SCE&G 2009a; NSA 2007a). Six archaeological sites 

8 consisting of lithic material, but lacking in any intact archaeological deposits as a result of 

9 erosion, transmission-line maintenance activities, and agricultural practices (38FA30, 38FA38, 

10 38FA39, 38FA40, 38FA44, 38FA47), were located on SCE&G property (Teague 1979; SCE&G 

11 2009a; NSA 2007a). None of the sites was formally evaluated for eligibility for listing in the 

12 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or the National Register) (Teague 1979; SCE&G 

13 2009a). Teague’s report indicates that the 38FA30 site was not located again and most of the 

14 archaeological artifacts (lithic tools and debris associated with the Middle Archaic period) at the 

15 remaining five sites were collected (Teague 1979). In Teague’s report, sites 38FA38, 38FA39, 

16 and 38FA40 are depicted as being within SCE&G’s APE, but outside of areas to be disturbed by 

17 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 building activities (NSA 2007a and South Carolina Department of 

18 Archives and History [SCDAH] records). Archaeological site 38FA164 is located outside of the 

19 APE and consists of a prehistoric lithic scatter and one historic artifact; the site was recorded on 

20 SCE&G property in 1984 and was recommended as not eligible for listing in the National 

21 Register (SCDHPT 1984; NSA 2007a; SCE&G 2009a; and SCDAH records). 

22 Between 2006 and 2009, SCE&G contracted with R.S. Webb and Associates (Webb) and New 

23 South Associates (NSA) to conduct archaeological investigations for proposed VCSNS Units 2 

24 and 3; the investigations resulted in extensive archaeological survey of the project APE (Webb 

25 2006; NSA 2007a, b; NSA 2008; NSA 2009a, b). Areas not surveyed include areas previously 

26 disturbed during Unit 1 building activities such as the raw-water intake and pipeline route and 

27 the location of the New Nuclear Deployment Office (SCE&G 2009p). 

28 In 2006, Webb completed an archaeological inventory of the land around the site of the 

29 proposed meteorological tower for SCE&G. Webb identified archaeological site 38FA322, a 

30 multi-component site containing prehistoric archaeological material and domestic debris 

31 associated with the early 19th to mid-20th century. Early 19th century historic maps indicate 

32 that General John Pearson’s house may have been located in the vicinity of site 38FA322. The 

33 presence of early 19th century artifacts and foundation stones discovered by Webb’s 

34 archaeological investigation at 38FA322 resulted in Webb’s conclusion that these materials may 

35 be associated with the location of General Pearson’s house (Webb 2006 submitted by SCE&G 

36 [2009p]). Webb recommended that the site was ineligible for listing in the National Register due 

37 to lack of integrity. On August 16, 2006, the South Carolina SHPO sent a letter concurring that 

38 archaeological site 38FA38 is not eligible for the National Register (SCDAH 2006b). It was later 

39 confirmed that this letter mistakenly referred to site 38FA38, which was corrected by a new 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-119 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 letter sent to the NRC issued on October 20, 2009 further clarifying that it is site 38FA322 that 

2 has been determined to be ineligible for the National Register not site 38FA38 (SCDAH 2009b). 

3 On July 27, 2006, the South Carolina SHPO requested that additional testing be conducted at 

4 site 38FA322 to evaluate it for National Register eligibility (SCDAH 2006a). Webb (2006) 

5 completed 26 shovel tests recovering artifact assemblages associated with the Middle Archaic 

6 period and domestic-related artifacts associated with the 19th to mid-20th century (Webb 2006). 

7 Webb concluded that because historic maps indicate that General Pearson’s house was located 

8 in the area, the foundation remnants at site 38FA322 “may have been General Pearson’s 

9 house” (Webb 2006). However, Webb recommended that 38FA322 was ineligible for listing in 

10 the National Register due to lack of integrity of the multiple components of the site as a result of 

11 heavy disturbance by historic agriculture activities and modern silviculture activities (Webb 

12 2006). The report was revised accordingly. The South Carolina SHPO concurred with this 

13 recommendation and that the proposed meteorological tower would not result in direct or visual 

14 effects on historic properties (SCDAH 2006a). 

15 In 2006, NSA delineated the boundary of and recorded site 38FA330, a cemetery associated 

16 with General John Pearson whose grave is marked by a monument installed by the Daughters 

17 of the American Revolution (DAR) (NSA 2006 submitted by SCE&G (2009p). Also in 2006, 

18 NSA completed an archeological survey of 428 ac of 515 ac of land planned for improvements 

19 associated with the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (NSA 2007a) locating seven new 

20 archaeological sites (38FA323–38FA330) and six isolated finds consisting of lithic and ceramic 

21 material and historic debris (Table 2-47). Eighty-seven acres of land were not surveyed 

22 because the area had been used by SCE&G in the past for fill for Unit 1 and was extensively 

23 disturbed (NSA 2007a). None of the newly recorded sites or isolates was recommended as 

24 eligible by NSA due to the lack of integrity of the sites resulting from soil disturbance from 

25 historic logging activities in the area (NSA 2007a). The 2007 report also evaluated the National 

26 Register eligibility of 38FA330 (the Pearson Cemetery) and the DAR monument recommending 

27 both as being eligible (NSA 2007a). 

28 In 2007, NSA conducted additional field surveys of approximately 1311 ac of SCE&G land also 

29 planned for improvements associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (NSA 2007b), 

30 recording 19 new archaeological sites (38FA331–38FA349) and 24 isolated finds consisting of 

31 prehistoric lithic flakes, ceramics, and historic ceramics, and horseshoes (NSA 2007b)(see 

32 Table 2-47). None of the newly recorded sites or isolates was recommended as eligible by NSA 

33 due to the lack of integrity of the sites resulting from soil disturbance from historic logging 

34 activities in the area (NSA 2007a). However, site 38FA349 (a historic tree carving associated 

35 with the Civilian Conservation Corps camp at Parr), was recommended for preservation. None 

36 of the newly recorded sites or isolates was recommended as eligible by NSA (NSA 2007a). On 

37 April 9, 2007, SCE&G sent a letter to the South Carolina SHPO (SCE&G 2007d) indicating that 

38 three Phase 1 surveys had been completed for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (referring to 

39 Webb 2006 and the two surveys completed by NSA [2007a, b]). In the letter, SCE&G 
Draft NUREG-1939 2-120 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-47. VCSNS Archaeological Sites Identified – Phase I/II Investigations 1 Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA30 Unknown. Unknown Phase 1 Not intact or relocated Outside APE. None 38FA38 Located at base of transmissionline tower. Lithic flakes and tools 

all of which were collected. 

Middle Phase 1 Not intact or 

relocated 

Inside APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Exact location is unknown and was not relocated. 

None 

30FA39 Located along dirt access road. 

Lithic flakes and projectile point. Projectile point was collected. 

Middle Archaic 

Phase 1 Not intact or 

relocated

Inside APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Exact location is unknown and was not relocated. 

None 

30FA40 Located at base of transmissionline tower. 

Lithic flakes and projectile point. Projectile point was collected. 

Middle Archaic 

Phase 1 Not intact or 

relocated

Inside APE but outside areas to be disturbed. 

None 

38FA44 Located on a knoll. 

12 lithic flakes, 9 were collected. 

Unknown Phase 1 Not intact Outside APE. None 

38FA47 Located on a hilltop. 12 lithic 

flakes, 5 were collected. 

Unknown Phase 1 Not intact Outside APE. None 

38FA164 Lithic scatter and one historic 

ceramic fragment 

Unknown Phase 1 Not eligible Outside APE. None 

38FA322 Multicomponent site. Prehistoric 

lithic debris, and historic domestic debris. Former homestead of General Pearson 

Middle Archaic, Mississippian, mid19th/Early 20th Century 

Phase 1 Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE and inside areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 
April 2010 2-121 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment 1 Table 2-47. (contd) Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA323 Prehistoric Scatter/House Site Unknown Prehistoric/ Early to Late 19th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on Historic Properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA324 Prehistoric Scatter/House Site Unknown Prehistoric/ Early to Late 19th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA325 Isolated Prehistoric Find/Historic Scatter Unknown Prehistoric/ Mid-19th to early 20th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA326 Unidentified Historic Structure Unknown Historic Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA327 Prehistoric Scatter/Historic Scatter Late Archaic- Woodland/ Early 20th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 
Draft NUREG-1939 2-122 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-47. (contd) Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA328 House Site Late 19th to Early 20th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No 

further work needed 

38FA329 Lithic Scatter Late ArchaicEarly 

Woodland 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 

38FA330 General Pearson Cemetery Early to Late 

19th Century 

Phase I and delineation of cemetery boundary. 

Eligible Within APE but 

outside areas to be disturbed. Site would be avoided and protected. 

Concur. No adverse effect on historic properties. Recommend protective covenant. 

38FA331 Historic House Site/Prehistoric 

Lithic Scatter 

19th–20th Century/ Late Archaic 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties

Within APE and within areas to be disturbed.

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed

38FA332 Historic Artifact Scatter 19th–20th 

Century/ 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties

Within APE and within areas to be disturbed.

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed
April 2010 2-123 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment Table 2-47. (contd) Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA333 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Unknown Prehistoric Phase I Not eligible. No effect on Historic Properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA334 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter/Historic Isolate Late Archaic to Middle Woodland/ 20th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA335 Prehistoric Artifact Scatter Unknown Prehistoric Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA336 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic House Site Middle Archaic/ 19th–20th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA337 Prehistoric Sherd Scatter Unknown Prehistoric Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA338 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic Isolate Middle Archaic/17th 18th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed
Draft NUREG-1939 2-124 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-47. (contd) Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA339 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic Artifact Scatter Middle Archaic/ 19th–20th 

Century 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties

Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed

38FA340 Prehistoric Artifact 

Scatter/Historic Isolate 

Late PaleoIndian–Late Archaic/19th–20th Century 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 

38FA341 Historic House Site 19th–20th 

Century 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 

38FA342 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter/Historic 

Isolate 

Late Pale-IndianEarly Archaic/20th Century 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on Historic Properties 

Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 

38FA343 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early-Middle 

Archaic 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 

38FA344 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early 

Woodland 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 
April 2010 2-125 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment Table 2-47. (contd) Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA345 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early-Middle Archaic Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA346 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Unknown Prehistoric Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA347 Historic House Site 19th–20th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No Further Work Needed 38FA348 Historic Stone Piles Unknown Historic Phase I Not eligible. No effect on Historic Properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on Historic Properties. No Further Work Needed 38FA349 Historic Tree Carving 20th Century Phase I Not eligible, but recommend preservation. Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed above and beyond the recommended preservation. 
Draft NUREG-1939 2-126 April 2010 

Affected Environment Table 2-47. (contd) Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA359 Historic Home Site Early to Mid- 20th Century Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No 

further work needed 

38FA360 Prehistoric Ceramic Scatter Middle 

Woodland 

Phase I and Phase II 

Eligible. Within APE but 

outside areas to be disturbed. Site would be avoided and protected from road improvements

Concur. No adverse effect to historic properties if the site is avoided. 

38FA361 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Early to 

Middle Archaic 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 

38FA362 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Late Archaic Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 

38FA363 Historic Home Site Late 19th to 

Early 20th Century 

Phase I Not eligible. No 

effect on historic properties 

Within APE and within areas to be disturbed. 

Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 
April 2010 2-127 Draft NUREG-1939 

 Affected Environment Table 2-47. (contd) Site Site Type Age Work Effort SCDHPT/Teague/ Webb/NSA Recommended NRHP Status Location SHPO Concurrence/ comment(a) 38FA364 Historic Home Site Early to Mid Twentieth Century Phase 1 Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA365 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Middle Archaic Phase I Not eligible. No effect on historic properties Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed 38FA366 Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Unknown Phase I Potentially eligible. Site would be avoided. Within APE but outside areas to be disturbed. Would be avoided. Concur. No effect on historic properties. No further work needed (a) See Section 4.6 for a discussion on SHPO consultation APE = Area of Potential Effect NSA = New South Associates NHRP = National Register of Historic Places SCDHPT = South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation 1 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-128 April 2010 

1 expressed concurrence with NSA’s and SCE&G’s recommendation for National Register 

2 eligibility of site 38FA330 (the Pearson Cemetery) and the associated DAR monument, their 

3 decision to protect the Pearson cemetery, and a finding of no adverse effect. On April 27, 2007, 

4 the South Carolina SHPO responded with a request to review the cultural resources survey 

5 reports referenced in SCE&G’s April 9, 2007 letter (SCDAH 2007a). Having received these 

6 reports, the South Carolina SHPO sent another letter to SCE&G concurring with these 

7 recommendations and findings (SCDAH 2007b). The South Carolina SHPO also recommended 

8 that a preservation covenant be recorded to protect site 38FA330 and the DAR monument 

9 (SCDAH 2007b). In addition, the SHPO recommended that a Programmatic Agreement be 

10 developed to last the lifetime of the COLs issued for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCDAH 2007b). 

11 Further discussion is provided in Section 4.6 on the development of this agreement. Sites 

12 38FA38, 38FA39, and 38FA40 are located within NSA’s 2007 survey area, but apparently were 

13 not located again. Having been collected in 1979 and with minimal integrity or presence of 

14 archaeological deposits, the tangible evidence of these sites is no longer present (Teague 1979; 

15 NSA 2007a). 

16 In 2008, NSA conducted a third archaeological survey of 232 ac on the VCSNS site planned for 

17 improvements and 5800 ft of planned road improvements (NSA 2008) submitted by SCE&G 

18 (2009p). Eight new archaeological sites (38FA359–38FA366) and three isolated finds 

19 consisting of prehistoric lithic material were recorded. Two were recommended as potentially 

20 eligible: site 38FA360, a Middle Woodland period prehistoric ceramic scatter, and site 

21 38FA366, a prehistoric lithic scatter (see Table 2-47). Avoidance was recommended at both of 

22 these sites and if avoidance was not possible it was recommended that Phase II testing occur to 

23 officially evaluate their eligibility for listing in the National Register (NSA 2008). The remaining 

24 six archaeological sites and isolated finds were recommended as not being eligible because of 

25 their lack of integrity due to heavy disturbance of these sites (NSA 2008). SCE&G concurred 

26 with NSA’s findings and forwarded these to the South Carolina SHPO (SCE&G 2008a). The 

27 South Carolina SHPO concurred with the recommendations made by NSA (SCDAH 2009a). 

28 While conducting surveys at the VCSNS site, NSA was unable to re-locate sites 38FA38, 

29 38FA39, and 38FA40, despite Teague having reported them to be within the project APE but 

30 outside of the areas to be disturbed. Site files at SCIAA listed the location of the sites as 

31 questionable due to a gap in time between the date of survey (1972) and the date of reporting 

32 (1979) (NSA 2009d). NSA was unable to re-locate archaeological sites 38FA38, 38FA39, and 

33 38FA40 to correlate them with those reported by Teague (1979) due to “significant 

34 discrepancies in location, size, and cultural components.” With concurrence from the SCIAA 

35 site files manager, it was decided to assign new site numbers to all archaeological sites located 

36 by NSA on the VCSNS site (NSA 2009d). 

37 Because site 38FA360 was located in an area that may be affected by road widening, Phase II 

38 archaeological testing was completed by NSA in 2008 (NSA 2009a). Based on the results of 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-129 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the Phase II testing, NSA concluded and recommended that 38FA360 be determined eligible for 

2 listing in the National Register for its potential to yield information regarding Middle to Late 

3 Woodland settlement systems (NSA 2009a). Specifically, the site contained archaeological 

4 material associated with four to five households including ceramics and lithic material. NSA 

5 recommended that the site be preserved in place and if it could not be protected that the site be 

6 mitigated (NSA 2009a). SCE&G concurred with NSA’s findings and forwarded them to the 

7 South Carolina SHPO (SCE&G 2009u). The South Carolina SHPO concurred with the 

8 recommendations made by NSA and recommended that the site be avoided or that a 

9 Memorandum of Agreement be developed with a data-recovery plan if the site could not be 

10 avoided (SCDAH 2009a). 

11 In 2009, NSA inventoried a 5-ac area proposed for road improvements along SC-213 for 

12 archaeological resources (NSA 2009b). One isolated historic ceramic was recorded. NSA 

13 concluded that the proposed improvements would not affect historic properties (NSA 2009b). 

14 SCE&G concurred with NSA’s findings and forwarded them to the South Carolina SHPO 

15 (SCE&G 2009v). SHPO concurred with the identification of APE and historic properties 

16 identified within the APE and the finding that no historic properties would be affected (SCDAH 

17 2009c). 

18 Also in 2009, a 7.7-ac area in the vicinity of the proposed water-treatment plant was inventoried 

19 for cultural resources via surface inspection and shovel testing (SCE&G 2009w; NSA 2009c). 

20 Old car parts were noted, but not formally recorded. No archaeological sites were recorded by 

21 this survey. The South Carolina SHPO concurred with NSA’s assessment that no historic 

22 properties would be affected by this activity (SCDAH 2009d). 

23 In summary, a total of 43 archaeological sites have been recorded by these investigations and 

24 are listed in Table 2-47. Of these, 39 archaeological sites are located within the VCSNS site 

25 APE, most of which have been recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register. 

26 Four archaeological sites have either been recommended as National Register eligible –

27 38FA330 (General Pearson Cemetery) and 38FA360; potentially eligible – 38FA366; or 

28 recommended for preservation – 38FA349. Of the remaining 35 archeological sites recorded 

29 and recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register, 14 would actually be affected 

30 by building activities associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

31 No aboveground structures have been identified within the project APE. Consultations 

32 conducted by SCE&G and NSA with the Fairfield County Museum, Fairfield County Archives, 

33 and the South Carolina SHPO indicate that no knowledge of significant standing structures 

34 within the project APE or within the vicinity of the project APE (SCE&G 2009h, j). The Mayo 

35 family cemetery is located 1.5 mi south of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and is marked on 

36 plant layout maps and protected by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a). There are 20 National Register37 listed standing structures within 10 mi of the APE, 13 of which are located within Fairfield 

38 County (SCE&G 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-130 April 2010 

1 2.7.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Within Transmission-Line Corridors 

2 Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper completed siting studies for the proposed transmission lines 

3 associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). The proposed 

4 transmission lines are described in Section 2.2.2. Although final routes have not been 

5 determined, transmission-line corridors have been identified by both SCE&G and Santee 

6 Cooper in their siting studies (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). It is expected that some of the 

7 transmission-line routes would be co-located next to existing corridors while others would 

8 require new corridors (SEC&G 2009a). Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper completed desktop 

9 assessments using available GIS cultural resources data and literature reviews for areas within 

10 1.2 mi of the proposed transmission-line corridors, using known cultural resources data from the 

11 SCIAA and the SCDAH (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). 

12 Before completing siting studies, SCE&G contracted with NSA to complete a literature search 

13 for all National Register-listed properties within the counties through which SCE&G expected 

14 the transmission-line corridors to pass (NSA 2007c) submitted by SCE&G (2009p). NSA 

15 identified 353 National Register-listed sites (NSA 2007c). As part of the siting-study process, 

16 SCE&G contracted with Brockington and Associates, which summarized known archaeological 

17 sites and aboveground resources recorded after 1989 and their National Register eligibility, all 

18 National Register-listed cultural resources (archaeological, structures, and districts), and all 

19 cultural resource investigations completed since 1989 located within 1.2 mi of Santee Cooper’s 

20 proposed corridors (VC Summer-Killian, VC Summer-St. George, and VC Summer-Lake 

21 Murray) in three separate letter reports (FP&S 2008). Santee Cooper contracted with TRC 

22 Companies Inc. (TRC), which summarized similar data for its proposed corridors (VC Summer 

23 Varnville and VC Summer Flat Creek) (TRC 2008). Both studies indicate that there are National 

24 Register-eligible and -listed aboveground resources and archaeological resources within 1.2 mi 

25 of all five proposed transmission-line corridors. SCE&G and Santee Cooper indicated that they 

26 would work with the South Carolina SHPO to complete cultural resources surveys these corridor 

27 locations (SCE&G 2009h, j). 

28 2.7.4 Consultation 

29 In January 2009, the NRC initiated consultation with the South Carolina SHPO, the Advisory 

30 Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and four American Indian Tribes (see Appendix F for 

31 a complete list of contacts). The letters informed consulting parties that the NRC is coordinating 

32 compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA through NEPA. The ACHP responded, indicating that 

33 NRC must also consult with the South Carolina SHPO and notify the ACHP in consultation with 

34 SHPO if NRC concludes that there is a finding of adverse effect on historic properties resulting 

35 from the issuance of the COLs for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (ACHP 2009). To date, no 

36 response has been received from American Indian Tribes. Consultation with the SHPO is 

37 ongoing. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-131 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The NRC conducted a public scoping meeting in Winnsboro, South Carolina, on January 27, 

2 2009, and one in Blair, South Carolina, on January 28, 2009. No comments or concerns 

3 regarding historic and cultural resources were made at these public scoping meetings. During 

4 the scoping period, the NRC received one written comment from an individual indicating that a 

5 relative is buried at the VCSNS site. The staff responded that locations of known cemeteries 

6 have been identified on the SCE&G property, are marked on SCE&G plant layout maps. No 

7 building or operational activities are planned to occur near these cemeteries. 

8 2.8 Geology 

9 A detailed description of geological, seismological, and geotechnical conditions at the VCSNS 

10 site is provided in Section 2.5 of the VCSNS FSAR (SCE&G 2009i) submitted as part of the 

11 COL application. A description of the hydrogeological setting of the proposed site is addressed 

12 in the ER as well (SCE&G 2009a). In addition to the site characterization conducted originally 

13 for VCSNS Unit 1, results of the SCE&G subsurface investigations performed as part of the 

14 applicant’s safety analysis for this COL application (Section 2.5 of the FSAR) provide further 

15 definition of the site geology. These descriptions are based on published geologic reports of the 

16 region along with site-specific characterization activities conducted during construction of Unit 1 

17 and characterization activities conducted during preapplication activities for proposed VCSNS 

18 Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a, i). The NRC staff’s independent assessment of the site safety 

19 issues related to the proposed VCSNS site will consider the applicant’s detailed analysis and 

20 evaluations of geological, seismic, and geotechnical data. The NRC staff’s detailed description 

21 of the geological features in the VCSNS site vicinity will be addressed in the NRC staff’s SER (in 

22 progress). 

23 The VCSNS site is located on the eastern edge of the Piedmont physiographic province (see 

24 Figure 2-9), approximately 20 mi northwest of the fall line that delineates the boundary with the 

25 Coastal Plain physiographic province (SCE&G 2009i). Regionally, the Piedmont physiographic 

26 province is generally characterized by rolling hills with greater relief than the adjacent Coastal 

27 Plain physiographic province to the southeast and less relief than the Blue Ridge physiographic 

28 province to the northwest (Figure 2-9). According to the FSAR (SCE&G 2009i), “[t]he site 

29 topography is characteristic of the region, consisting of gently to moderately rolling hills and 

30 generally well-drained mature valleys” with topography ranging from 220 to 520 ft above msl 

31 within a 5-mi radius. In addition, the FSAR states that “[t]he local drainage pattern is generally 

32 dendritic, with subtle trellis patterns that are likely the result of regional bedrock structure and 

33 joint systems” (SCE&G 2009i). 

34 “Most of the local terrain is mantled by residual soils and saprolite that overlie igneous and 

35 metamorphic bedrock at depth” (SCE&G 2009i). As described by SCE&G, “[t]he residual soil 

36 and saprolite predominantly consist of red to reddish-brown stiff clayey and silty soils with 

37 varying sand content” with a combined thickness ranging “from about 25 to 70 feet at Units 2 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-132 April 2010 

1 and 3 (SCE&G 2009i). Depths to sound bedrock range “from about 40 to 75 feet in the vicinity 

2 of Units 2 and 3” (SCE&G 2009i). 

3 Based on the borehole characterization at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site, in addition to earlier 

4 subsurface characterization around VCSNS Unit 1 that included extensive excavations, SCE&G 

5 describes the most common rock types at the site as being granitic (granodiorite and quartz 

6 diorite) as part of the Winnsboro plutonic complex (SCE&G 2009i). Less common rock types 

7 found in the area are older amphibolite-grade metamorphic rocks (biotite, hornblende gneiss, 

8 and amphibolite schist), into which the Winnsboro pluton intruded, and migmatites, which form 

9 from the partial melting of rocks from high-temperature metamorphism (SCE&G 2009i, b). 

10 FSAR Section 2.5.1.2.5 (SCE&G 2009i) describes economic geologic resources in the area. 

11 SCE&G stated that “[w]ithin 25 miles of the site, there are numerous active and abandoned 

12 mines and quarries.” SCE&G also stated that “[n]o mining operations (other than borrow of 

13 surficial soils) or excessive extraction and/or injection of groundwater occur or have occurred 

14 within the site area that could affect site area geologic conditions” (SCE&G 2009i). 

15 2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality 

16 The following three sections describe the climate and air quality of the VCSNS site. 

17 Section 2.9.1 describes the local and large-scale climate of the region and area in the 

18 immediate vicinity of the site, Section 2.9.2 describes the air quality of the region, and Section 

19 2.9.3 describes atmospheric dispersion at the site. Section 2.9.4 describes the meteorological 

20 monitoring program at the site. 

21 2.9.1 Climate 

22 The VCSNS site has a humid subtropical climate (Koeppe and De Long 1958) with mild winters 

23 and hot humid summers. Air masses may approach the region from any direction. During the 

24 summer, high pressure off the coast of the eastern continental United States leads to 

25 southwesterly winds over South Carolina leading to large amounts of low-altitude moisture (LCD 

26 2007). This semi-permanent feature also blocks many summer-time cold fronts. During the 

27 winter, the Appalachian Mountains frequently block the cold air associated with winter-time 

28 storm systems. The closest first-order weather station with long periods of record is in 

29 Columbia, South Carolina, about 26 mi southeast of the site. This station provides a good 

30 indication of the general climate at the site because of its proximity and similarities in 

31 topography and vegetation. The closest National Weather Service Cooperative Network Station 

32 is a short distance away on the Parr Reservoir. Other National Weather Service Cooperative 

33 Network Stations include Little Mountain, South Carolina, approximately 9 mi southwest of the 

34 site, and Winnsboro, South Carolina, approximately 15 mi northeast of the site. The VCSNS 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-133 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 site is located near the Monticello and Parr reservoirs in an area of rolling hills (SCE&G 2009a). 

2 The proposed site is on a ridge between these two reservoirs. 

3 The following statistics were derived from local climatological data for Parr, Little Mountain, 

4 Winnsboro, and Columbia. The mean daily maximum temperatures at Columbia range from 

5 92°F in August to 55°F in January, while daily minimum temperatures range from 71°F in 

6 August to 34°F in February (LCD 2007). While not identical to the conditions at Columbia, the 

7 average temperatures at Parr, Winnsboro, and Little Mountain range from 0.5°F larger to -3°F 

8 smaller than the observations at Columbia (NCDC 2004). Monthly average wind speeds at 

9 Columbia range from about 6 mph in the summer to about 7 mph in the winter and early spring. 

10 Approximately 33 percent of the annual precipitation occurs during the months of June, July, 

11 and August. Large amounts of precipitation can occur in the late summer and early fall, due to 

12 tropical storms that move through the region. Snow can occur, but accumulations are small, 

13 and the normal amount of snowfall is only 2 in. 

14 The relative humidity in Columbia varies with both the time of day and the season. The smallest 

15 values of relative humidity occur during the late winter and through the spring. The highest 

16 normal relative humidity is 76 percent and occurs in August. The lowest normal relative 

17 humidity is 62 percent and occurs in April. The daily range of relative humidity is much larger 

18 than the month-to-month changes. On a daily basis, the highest relative humidity occurs in the 

19 early morning hours, ranging from peak values of 92 percent during the summer and fall to 

20 83 percent in the winter; the lowest relative humidity occurs in the early afternoon and is 

21 generally between 60 percent and 30 percent (Columbia, South Carolina, Local Climatological 

22 Data). 

23 On a larger scale, climate change is a subject of national and international interest. The recent 

24 compilation of the state of knowledge in this area by the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

25 [GCRP], a Federal Advisory Committee (Karl et al. 2009), has been considered in preparation of 

26 this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region over the period encompassing the 

27 licensing action (i.e., to the period of 2040 to 2059 in the GCRP report) include an increase in 

28 average temperature of 2 to 3°F; a decrease in precipitation in the winter, spring, and summer; 

29 and a small precipitation increase in the fall. Changes in climate during the life of proposed 

30 Units 2 and 3 could result in either an increase or decrease in the amount of runoff; the 

31 divergence in model projections for the southeastern United States precludes a definitive 

32 estimate (Karl et al. 2009). 

33 Based on the assessments of the GCRP and the National Academy of Sciences’ National 

34 Research Council, the EPA determined that potential changes in climate caused by greenhouse 

35 gas (GHG) emissions endanger public health and welfare (74 FR 66496). The EPA indicated 

36 that, while ambient concentrations of GHGs do not cause direct adverse health effects (such as 

37 respiratory or toxic effects), public health risks and impacts can result indirectly from changes in 

38 climate. As a result of the determination by the EPA and the recognition that mitigative actions 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-134 April 2010 

1 are necessary to reduce impacts, the review team concludes that the effect of GHG on climate 

2 and the environment is already noticeable, but not yet destabilizing. In CLI-09-21, the 

3 Commission provided guidance to the NRC staff to consider carbon dioxide and other GHG 

4 emissions in its NEPA reviews and directed that it should encompass emissions from 

5 constructing and operating a facility as well as from the fuel cycle (NRC 2009b). The review 

6 team characterized the affected environment and the potential GHG impacts of the proposed 

7 action and alternatives in this EIS. Consideration of GHG emissions was treated as an element 

8 of the existing air quality assessment that is essential in a NEPA analysis. In addition, where it 

9 was important to do so, the review team considered the effects of the changing environment 

10 during the period of the proposed action on other resource assessments. 

11 2.9.1.1 Wind 

12 The prevailing wind direction at Columbia is from the west-southwest. At the VCSNS Units 2 

13 and 3 meteorological tower, the prevailing wind direction at 10 m above the ground is also from 

14 the west-southwest, but northwesterly winds occur approximately 20 percent of the time 

15 (SCE&G 2009a). Observations made at the VCSNS Unit 1 meteorological tower are somewhat 

16 different. During the same 1-year period, northwesterly winds are less common and 

17 northeasterly winds are more common than at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower 

18 (SCE&G 2009a). This can be explained by the proximity of the Unit 1 tower to the Monticello 

19 Reservoir, which can lead to lake breezes associated with differences in the relative heating 

20 rate of the land and water (e.g., Ahrens 1988), and also changes in low-altitude wind speed 

21 because of the smoother surface of the water compared to the land. There is also a small ridge 

22 to the northwest of the tower that leads to some channeling of the low-altitude winds. The 

23 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower is located away from the Monticello Reservoir on a 

24 plateau that slopes gently to the west and south. 

25 2.9.1.2 Atmospheric Stability 

26 Atmospheric stability is a calculated meteorological parameter that describes the dispersion 

27 characteristics of the atmosphere. It can be determined by the difference in temperature 

28 between two heights. A seven-category atmospheric stability classification scheme based on 

29 temperature differences is set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1 (NRC 2007a). When 

30 the temperature decreases rapidly with height, the atmosphere is unstable and atmospheric 

31 dispersion is greater. Conversely, when temperature increases with height, the atmosphere is 

32 stable and dispersion is more limited. The stability varies with season as well as time of day, 

33 with stable conditions occurring more frequently at night and unstable conditions occurring more 

34 frequently during the day. 

35 Conditions at the VCSNS site are generally neutral or slightly stable (occurring nearly 

36 63 percent of the year). Unstable or stable conditions occur onsite 16 percent or 21 percent of 

37 the year, respectively. While stable conditions can occur at any time during the year, they are 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-135 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 more common in the winter, spring, and fall. For example, during the winter, stable or very 

2 stable conditions occur more frequently, approximately 23 percent of the time, while during the 

3 summer stable conditions are observed 16 percent of the time (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 The presence of the Monticello and Parr reservoirs has little impact on the stability observed at 

5 the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower because the tower is approximately 1 mi south 

6 of the Monticello Reservoir and 1 mi east of the Parr Reservoir. In contrast, the static stability at 

7 the VCSNS Unit 1 meteorological tower is influenced by its close proximity to the Monticello 

8 Reservoir and associated differences in the reservoir and land temperatures. When the water in 

9 the reservoir is warmer than the surrounding land, and the winds are blowing from the water 

10 towards the Unit 1 tower, then conditions at the meteorological tower are less stable than they 

11 would otherwise have been. This condition is most common in the fall. At the Unit 1 tower, 

12 moderately to extremely stable conditions were observed 16 percent of the time during the fall, 

13 while at the Units 2 and 3 tower, stable conditions were observed 26 percent of the time. If the 

14 winds are blowing in the opposite direction, then conditions at the tower are more stable than 

15 the conditions over the reservoir. In fact, conditions over the reservoir could even be unstable 

16 while conditions at the tower would be stable. When the water is cooler than the land, the 

17 conditions are reversed; in situations when the wind is blowing from the water to the land then 

18 conditions at the tower could be more stable than they would have otherwise been.

19 2.9.1.3 Temperature 

20 The temperature measured at the 33-ft level of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower 

21 is considered to be representative of the VCSNS site. Temperature data from the tower for the 

22 January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 time period show the daily average temperature 

23 ranges from a low of 30.4°F in January to a high of 90.4°F in August. During this 12-month 

24 period, the absolute minimum temperature was 20.5°F and the absolute maximum temperature 

25 was 99.7°F. These temperatures are consistent with long-term values for Columbia.

26 2.9.1.4 Atmospheric Moisture 

27 The moisture content of the atmosphere can be represented in a variety of ways, the most 

28 common being relative humidity and dewpoint. Both the dew-point temperature and relative 

29 humidity are reported at the VCSNS site. For the period from January 1, 2007 through 

30 December 31, 2007, the daily average relative humidity ranged from a low of 23 percent in June 

31 to a high of 98 percent in January. These values are more extreme than those reported at 

32 Columbia, South Carolina, but this is likely due to the short period of record at the VCSNS Units 

33 2 and 3 tower. South Carolina has suffered a severe drought from 1998 through 2002 (Crouch 

34 2006) and during 2007–2008 (NCDC 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-136 April 2010 

1 2.9.1.5 Severe Weather 

2 The site can experience severe weather in the form of thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes, 

3 hurricanes, and snow and ice. While thunderstorms can occur during any month of the year at 

4 the VCSNS site, they are much more common in the late spring and summer. On average 

5 there are 52 days per year during which thunder is heard at the First Order Station in Columbia, 

6 South Carolina; of these 52 days, 37 of them occur during the period from May through August. 

7 Tornadoes occur with some frequency. A total of 79 tornadoes were reported in a 1° latitude by 

8 1° longitude box that includes the VCSNS site during the period from January 1, 1950 through 

9 August 2003 (Ramsdell Jr. and Rishel 2007). The total probability of a tornado strike at the site 

is 0.00768 yr-1 10 (Ramsdell Jr. and Rishel 2007). The strongest tornado reported in Fairfield 

11 County was an F4 (wind speeds of 207–260 mph) tornado on March 28, 1984. This tornado led 

12 to 5 deaths and 49 injuries. All other tornadoes reported in Fairfield County were F2 (wind 

13 speeds of 113–157 mph) or smaller (NCDC 2009b). 

14 Snow can occur during the months of December, January, February, and March. The average 

15 snowfall at Columbia, South Carolina, is 2.1 in. The maximum monthly snowfall was 16 in., 

16 which was observed in February of 1973 (LCD 2007). Ice storms can occur when rain falls 

17 through cold air that is trapped against the Appalachian Mountains. Freezing precipitation is 

18 observed to occur on approximately 4 days per year (NCDC 2000). 

19 Because of its location on the Atlantic Coast of the United States, South Carolina is susceptible 

20 to hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions. The VCSNS site is sufficiently far 

21 inland that the majority of hurricanes weaken before reaching the site. Only hurricanes Hugo in 

22 1989, Able in 1952, and an unnamed storm in 1893 were of hurricane strength when they 

23 passed within 50 nautical mi of the site (NOAA 2009). Focusing on the period from 1952 to 

24 2006, a total of 17 hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions have passed within 50 

25 nautical mi of the site (NOAA 2009). Before 1952, storms were not named, which may have led 

26 to double counting when a storm moved slowly through the area or changed strength. 

27 2.9.2 Air Quality 

28 The discussion on air quality includes the six common “criteria pollutants” for which the EPA has 

29 set national ambient air quality standards (ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

30 oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead). The air quality discussion also includes heat-trapping GHGs 

31 (primarily carbon dioxide), which have been the principal factor causing climate change over the 

32 last 50 years (Karl et al. 2009). 

33 The VCSNS site is located in Fairfield County, South Carolina, which is in the Columbia 

34 Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) (40 CFR 81.108). In addition to Fairfield County, 

35 this AQCR consists of Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties. The Columbia Intrastate 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-137 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 AQCR is bordered by the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate AQCR to the north, the Camden2 Sumter Intrastate AQCR to the east, the Augusta (Georgia)-Aiken (South Carolina) Interstate 

3 AQCR to the south, and the Greenwood Intrastate AQCR to the west. All of the counties in the 

4 Columbia Intrastate AQCR are in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

5 (NAAQSs) for all criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.341). Part of York County, which is located in 

6 the Metropolitan Charlotte Interstate AQCR, has been designated as nonattainment for ozone 

7 (8-hour standard). This area is located approximately 35 mi north of the VCSNS site. 

8 There are no mandatory Class 1 Federal Areas where visibility is an important value within 

9 100 mi of the VCSNS site. 

10 The EPA revised the 8-hour ozone standard in 2008, decreasing it from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm 

11 (73 FR 16436). This change will result in changes in the definition of nonattainment areas for 

12 ozone. On September 16, 2009, the EPA indicated that the new standards would be 

13 reconsidered and final designation would be made in August 2011 (EPA 2009b). Because the 

14 VCSNS site is within an attainment area for ozone, a conformity analysis, which is used to 

15 determine if a Federal action conforms to any applicable State implementation plans, is not 

16 required. If the attainment status of Fairfield County changes, the need for a conformity 

17 analysis will be revisited. Carbon dioxide concentration has been building up in the earth’s 

18 atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial era in the mid-1700s, primarily due to the 

19 burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of forests. Human activities 

20 have also increased the emissions of other GHGs such as methane, nitrous oxide, and 

21 halocarbons. These emissions are thickening the blanket of heat-trapping gases in the earth’s 

22 atmosphere, causing global surface temperatures to rise (Karl et al. 2009)

23 2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion 

24 Atmospheric dispersion factors (/Q values) are used to evaluate the potential consequences of 

25 routine and accidental releases at the VCSNS site. SCE&G used meteorological data from the 

26 period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008 to develop the atmospheric dispersion 

27 factors. 

28 The long- and short-term atmospheric dispersion estimates were made using the meteorological 

29 data that were collected onsite at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower. Short-term 

30 estimates are made using the PAVAN model (Bander 1982). PAVAN implements the guidance 

31 set forth in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1982) and uses joint frequency 

32 distributions of the wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability to provide relative air 

33 concentrations of an atmospheric contaminant. Long-term dispersion estimates are made using 

34 the XOQDOQ model (Sagendorf et al. 1982), which was designed for evaluating routine 

35 releases of radionuclides from commercial nuclear power stations in accordance with Revision 1 

36 of Regulatory Guide 1.111 (NRC 1977). The XOQDOQ model uses meteorological data 

37 collected at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 meteorological tower and computes the annual average 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-138 April 2010 

1 relative air concentrations at a number of receptors of interest, including the highest 

2 concentration at Unit 3 (when Unit 2 is operational and Unit 3 is under construction) (SCE&G 

3 2009a), along the dose evaluation periphery, at the nearest residence, at the nearest meat 

4 animal, at the nearest milk animal, and at the nearest vegetable garden. The maximum annual 

5 average atmospheric dispersion and deposition factors are reported in Table 2-48. 

6 Table 2-48. Maximum Annual Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for the Dose 

7 Evaluation Periphery, Nearest Residence, Nearest Meat Animal, Nearest Milk 

8 Animal, and Nearest Vegetable Garden 

Type of Location 

Direction 

from Site 

Distance 

(mi) 

/Q 

(sec/m3

; 

No Decay) 

/Q 

(sec/m3

; 2.26-

Day Decay) 

/Q 

(sec/m3; 8-

Day Decay) 

D/Q 

(1/m2

) 

Dose Evaluation 

Periphery 

ENE 0.50 — — — 1.6 × 10-8

SE 0.50 5.8 × 10-6 5.8 × 10-6 5.3 × 10-6 — 

Residence ENE 1.30 — — — 3.3 × 10-9

SE 1.68 8.7 × 10-7

 8.6 × 10-7 7.3 × 10-7 — 

Meat Animal WNW 1.74 4.6 × 10-7

 4.5 × 10-7 3.8 × 10-7 — 

NE 2.14 — — — 1.4 × 10-9

Milk Animal W 4.74 1.7 × 10-7

 1.7 × 10-7 1.3 × 10-7 2.7 × 10-10

Vegetable Garden E 1.23 — — — 3.1 × 10-9

SE 1.68 8.7 × 10-7

 8.6 × 10-7 7.3 × 10-7 — 

Source: SCE&G 2009a, Table 2.7-16; updated by SCE&G (2009t). 

9 SCE&G provided the staff with meteorological data for the 2-year period from January 1, 2007 

10 through December 31, 2008 (SCE&G 2009t). The staff used these data to independently 

11 estimate atmospheric dispersion factors for the site. The staff viewed the meteorological site 

12 and instrumentation, reviewed the available information on the meteorological measurement 

13 program, and evaluated data collected by the program. Based on this information, the staff 

14 concludes that the program provides data that represent the affected environment onsite 

15 meteorological conditions as required by 10 CFR 100.20. The data also provide an acceptable 

16 basis for making estimates of atmospheric dispersion for the evaluation of the consequences of 

17 routine and accidental releases required by 10 CFR 50.34 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. 

18 2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring 

19 A meteorological monitoring program has existed at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site since 

20 January 2007. The initial instrumentation was installed to provide the onsite meteorological 

21 information required for licensing Units 2 and 3. The instrumentation is described in SCE&G’s 

22 ER (SCE&G 2009a). The tower location was selected to be representative of the conditions at 

23 the proposed location for Units 2 and 3, and is located approximately 3500 ft south-southeast of 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-139 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the site of the proposed two units. Measurements made at the tower include wind speed, wind 

2 direction, relative humidity, and temperature at three levels (10, 30, and 60 m). The 

3 measurements are made in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.23 (NRC 2007a). In addition 

4 to the meteorological tower associated with Units 2 and 3, a separate meteorological tower has 

5 been operated in support of Unit 1 for the entire period of record of the Units 2 and 3 tower. 

6 Differences in the wind speed, wind direction, and stability measured with the two towers are 

7 discussed in Sections 2.9.1.1 and 2.9.1.2. 

8 2.10 Nonradiological Environment 

9 This section describes aspects of the environment at the VCSNS site and within the vicinity of 

10 the site associated with nonradiological human health impacts. It provides the basis for 

11 evaluation of impacts on human health from building and operation of the proposed Units 2 

12 and 3. Building activities have the potential to affect public and occupational health, create 

13 impacts from noise, and affect the health of the public and workers by transportation of 

14 construction materials and personnel to the VCSNS site. Operation of the proposed Units 2 and 

15 3 has the potential to affect the public and workers at the VCSNS site from operation of the 

16 cooling system, noise generated by operations, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by 

17 transmission systems, and transportation of operations and outage workers to and from the 

18 VCSNS site. 

19 2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health 

20 This section describes public and occupational health at the VCSNS site and vicinity associated 

21 with air quality, occupational injuries, and etiological agents (i.e., disease-causing 

22 microorganisms) 

23 2.10.1.1 Air Quality 

24 Public and occupational health can be affected by changes in air quality from activities that 

25 contribute to fugitive dust, vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions, and automobile exhaust 

26 from commuter traffic (NRC 1996). Air quality for Fairfield County is discussed in Section 2.9.2. 

27 Fugitive dust and other particulate matter (including particulate matter smaller than 10 μm and 

28 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 μm) can be released into the atmosphere during any site 

29 excavations and while grading is being conducted. Most of these activities that generate 

30 fugitive dust are short in duration, over a small area, and can be controlled by watering unpaved 

31 roads, stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and other BMPs described in Section 

32 4.4.1.3 (SCE&G 2009a). Mitigation measures to minimize and control fugitive dust are required 

33 for compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations that govern such activities (NRC 

34 1996; SCE&G 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-140 April 2010 

1 Exhaust emissions during normal plant operations associated with onsite vehicles and 

2 equipment as well as from commuter traffic can affect air quality and human health. 

3 Nonradiological supporting equipment (e.g., diesel generators, fire-prevention pump engines), 

4 and other nonradiological emission-generating sources (e.g., storage tanks) or activities are not 

5 expected to be a significant source of criteria pollutant emissions. Diesel generators and 

6 supporting equipment would be in place for emergency use only but would be started regularly 

7 to confirm that the systems are operational. Emissions from nonradiological sources of air 

8 pollution are permitted by SCDHEC, as described in the South Carolina Code of Laws 48, 

9 Chapter 1, (SC Code Ann. 48-1 2008) and any applicable Federal regulatory requirements. 

10 Based on estimates provided by SCE&G, the annual releases of criteria pollutants at the 

11 VCSNS site related to the operation of the onsite generators would be minimal based on the 

12 infrequent use (approximately 4 hours per month) of the four standby generators and the four 

13 ancillary diesel generators; the projected emissions are discussed in Section 5.7.2. These 

14 emission sources are not expected to significantly affect ambient air quality levels at the VCSNS 

15 site or in the vicinity of the site. 

16 2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries 

17 In general, occupational health risks to workers and onsite personnel engaged in activities such 

18 as building, maintenance, testing, excavation, and modifications are expected to be dominated 

19 by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) or occupational illnesses. 

20 Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the 

21 average U.S. industrial rates (BLS 2008). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides reports 

22 that account for occupational injuries and illnesses as total recordable cases, which includes 

23 cases that result in death, loss of consciousness, days away from work, restricted work activity 

24 or job transfer, or medical treatment beyond first aid. The State of South Carolina also tracks 

25 the annual incidence rates of injuries and illnesses for utility system construction. These 

26 records of statistics are used to estimate the likely number of occupational injuries and illnesses 

27 for the proposed new units. Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict 

28 adherence to NRC and Occupational Safety and Health Administration safety standards, 

29 practices, and procedures to minimize worker exposures. Appropriate State and local statures 

30 also must be considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks associated 

31 with the VCSNS site. SCE&G has developed and implemented a worker health and safety 

32 program with a goal of zero accidents. SCE&G will require all contractors and subcontractors to 

33 have and implement a health and safety program that, at a minimum, meets the same 

34 requirements as SCE&G’s health and safety program. SCE&G will require construction 

35 contractors and subcontractors to develop and implement safety procedures with the intent of 

36 preventing injuries, occupational illnesses, and deaths (SCE&G 2009a). 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-141 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 2.10.1.3 Etiological Agents 

2 Public and occupational health can be compromised by activities at the VCSNS site that 

3 encourage the growth of disease causing microorganisms (etiological agents). Thermal 

4 discharges from Units 2 and 3 into the circulating-water system and the Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 

5 2009a) have the potential to increase the growth of thermophilic microorganisms. The types of 

6 organisms of concern for public and occupational health include enteric pathogens (such as 

7 Legionella spp.), and free-living amoeba (such as Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.). 

8 These microorganisms could result in potentially serious human health concerns, particularly at 

9 high exposure levels. 

10 A review of the outbreaks of human waterborne diseases in South Carolina indicates that the 

11 incidence of most of these diseases is not common. Available data assembled by the U.S. 

12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the years 1996 to 2007 (CDC 1997, 

13 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) report only two occurrences of 

14 waterborne outbreaks of disease from recreational water in the State of South Carolina. From 

15 1989 to 2000, the CDC surveillance system for waterborne-disease outbreaks documented 24 

16 fatal cases of primary amebic meningoencephalitis (a disease caused by Naegleria fowleri) in 

17 the United States, most occurring in southern states during the months of July and September 

18 (CDC 2008). Outbreaks of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis that occurred in South 

19 Carolina were within the range of national trends (CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

20 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) in terms of cases per 100,000 population or total cases per year, and 

21 the outbreaks were associated with pools, spas, or lakes. 

22 Epidemiological reports from the State of South Carolina indicate a very low risk of outbreaks 

23 from thermophilic microorganisms associated with recreational water (CDC 2006). Two 

24 SCDHEC water-quality monitoring stations along Parr Reservoir located in or near recreation 

25 areas monitor for species that are indicators for the presence of other pathogens that may be 

26 present in the water. The main recreational activities associated with Parr Reservoir are fishing 

27 and hunting (SCE&G 2009a). There are no public swimming beaches along Parr Reservoir. No 

28 reported cases of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis occurred in Fairfield County in 

29 2006 (CDC 2006). 

30 Naegleria fowleri is common in freshwater ponds, lakes, and reservoirs throughout the southern 

31 states. While it is possible that the thermal discharge from Units 2 and 3 could have an impact 

32 on the abundance of this organism, the affected area of Parr Reservoir would be relatively small 

33 under normal operating conditions at most times of the year. In addition, because there are no 

34 swimming beaches on Parr Reservoir and limited public access to the outfall area, the likelihood 

35 for recreational exposure is expected to be minimal. Based on the historically low risk of 

36 diseases from etiological agents in South Carolina, the limited extent of thermal impacts in Parr 

37 Reservoir, and the limited opportunities for public exposure, the review team concludes that the 

38 impacts on human health would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-142 April 2010 

1 2.10.2 Noise 

2 Sources of noise at the VCSNS site are those associated with operation of Unit 1, including 

3 transformers and other electrical equipment, circulating-water pumps, and the public address 

4 system. Additional sources for background noise at the site include railroad operations (~1 mi 

5 to the west) and from the Parr combustion turbines (~1.4 mi to the south-southeast) (SCE&G 

6 2009a). The nearest residence to the site is 5800 ft away (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G states in 

7 its ER that it has never received a complaint about the noise produced by Unit 1 (SCE&G 

8 2009a). 

9 Activities associated with building the new units at the VCSNS site would have peak noise 

10 levels that may exceed 100 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) on the site. Noise levels 

11 would be attenuated by distance and obstacles such as buildings, vegetation, and topography. 

12 Noise from traffic along the access routes to the sites may intermittently exceed levels 

13 acceptable for residential areas. These impacts would be highly concentrated in the area 

14 immediately proximate to the site or the site access roads. However, sensitive noise receptors 

15 closest to the site are likely to experience intermittent and irritating, but temporary, noise 

16 pollution during the peak of construction and preconstruction activities. A decrease of 10 dBA in 

17 noise level is generally perceived as cutting the loudness in half. At a distance of 50 ft from the 

18 source these peak noise levels would generally decrease to the 8- to 95-dBA range and at 

19 distance of 400 ft; the peak noise levels would generally be in the 60- to 80-dBA range. For 

20 context, the sound intensity of a quiet office is 50 dBA, normal conversation is 60 dBA, busy 

21 traffic is 70 dBA, and a noisy office with machines or an average factory is 80 dBA (Tipler 1982). 

22 Regulations governing noise associated with the activities at the VCSNS site are generally 

23 limited to worker health. Federal regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR 

24 Part 1910, Occupational Health and Safety Standards, and 40 CFR Part 204, Noise Emission 

25 Standards from Construction Equipment. The regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 deal with noise 

26 exposure in the construction environment, and the regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally 

27 govern the noise levels of compressors. 

28 2.10.3 Transportation 

29 According to the ER (SCE&G 2009a) current primary road access to the VCSNS site is via 

30 CR-311 (Ollie Bradham Boulevard), a two-lane paved road. CR-311 intersects SC-215 

31 approximately 1.5 mi east of Unit 1. Parr Road and South Lake Access Road would be 

32 upgraded to accommodate increased traffic when the project is built, and approximately 3/4 mi 

33 of the South Lake Access Road would be relocated to run parallel to and east of the existing 

34 railroad spur into the site, terminating at the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 discharge structure. SC-215 

35 has a north-south orientation and is used by employees traveling from Richland and Fairfield 

36 Counties. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-143 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Employees traveling from Richland and Lexington Counties may use U.S. Highway 176 

2 (US-176) north to SC-213, which intersects SC-215 2 to 3 mi south of the VCSNS site. The site 

3 is also accessed by a railroad spur connected to the Norfolk Southern line. The existing railroad 

4 line would be rerouted through a fabrication and laydown area between the new units and the 

5 cooling towers, and would be supplemented with an additional railroad spur. A new spur also 

6 may be routed into the unloading areas at the concrete batch plant. Norfolk Southern Railway’s 

7 existing railroad line also may require upgrades to support the heaviest loads. Upgrades may 

8 include installing new ballast or rail sections on the existing railroad bed. There is no direct 

9 access to the site via the Broad River. 

10 2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields 

11 Transmission lines generate both electric and magnetic fields, referred to collectively as EMFs. 

12 Public and worker health can be compromised by acute and chronic exposure to EMFs from 

13 power transmission systems, including switching stations (or substations) onsite and 

14 transmission lines connecting the plant to the regional electrical distribution grid. Transmission 

15 lines operate at a frequency of 60 MHz (60 cycles per second), which is considered to be 

16 extremely low frequency. In comparison, television transmitters have frequencies of 55 to 

17 890 MHz and microwaves have frequencies of 1000 MHz and greater (NRC 1996). 

18 Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 

19 metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMFs associated with transmission 

20 lines (NRC 1996). Objects near transmission lines can become electrically charged by close 

21 proximity to the electric field of the line. An induced current can be generated in such cases, 

22 where the current can flow from the line through the object into the ground. Capacitive charges 

23 can occur in objects that are in the electric field of a line, storing the electric charge, but isolated 

24 from the ground. A person standing on the ground can receive an electric shock from coming 

25 into contact with such an object because of the sudden discharge of the capacitive charge 

26 through the person’s body to the ground. Such acute effects are controlled and minimized by 

27 conformance with National Electrical Safety Code criteria that limit the induced current due to 

28 electrostatic effects of 5 mA (SCE&G 2009a) 

29 Long-term or chronic exposure to power transmission lines has been studied for a number of 

30 years. These health effects were evaluated in NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact 

31 Statement for License Renewal for Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996) for nuclear power in the 

32 United States, and are discussed in the ER (SCE&G 2009a). The GEIS (NRC 1996) reviewed 

33 human health and EMFs and concluded the following: 

34 The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with nuclear 

35 plants and associated transmission lines are uncertain. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs 

36 have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field 

37 exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-144 April 2010 

1 chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced 

2 and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is 

3 currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. 

4 2.11 Radiological Environment 

5 A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around the 

6 VCSNS site since 1982, when VCSNS Unit 1 began operation. This program measures 

7 radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, including the existing unit at the VCSNS 

8 site. The REMP includes the following pathways: direct radiation, atmospheric, aquatic and 

9 terrestrial environments; and groundwater and surface water. A pre-operational environmental 

10 monitoring program was conducted beginning in 1979 to establish a baseline to observe 

11 fluctuations of radiation levels and radioactivity in the environment after operations began. After 

12 routine operation of Unit 1 started in 1982, the monitoring program continued to assess the 

13 radiological impacts on workers, the public, and the environment. The results of this monitoring 

14 are documented in annual reports titled “Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report” 

15 (SCE&G 2006a, 2007a, 2008c, 2009l) and “Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report” 

16 (SCE&G 2006b, 2007b, 2008b, 2009m) for the VCSNS site. These reports show that 

17 exposures or concentrations in air, water, and vegetation are comparable to, if not statistically 

18 indiscernible from, pre-operational levels, with minor exceptions. The VCSNS REMP has 

19 consistently observed the presence of fission product activity attributed to residual fallout from 

20 atmospheric weapons testing and the Chernobyl accident in environmental media, including 

21 sediment, fish, and grass (SCE&G 2009l). No detectable fission or activation product activity 

22 attributed to VCSNS operations was observed in environmental media except for tritium in two 

23 surface-water sampling sites. The tritium concentrations were far below the EPA drinking water 

24 standard, and at levels that produce a small fraction of VCSNS effluent dose limits (SCE&G 

25 2009l; SCE&G 2007c). 

26 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Lessons Learned Task Force Report (NRC 2006) 

27 made recommendations regarding potential unmonitored groundwater contamination at U.S. 

28 nuclear plants. In response to that report, SCE&G began additional groundwater sampling in 

29 various locations that may be a source of groundwater contamination around Unit 1. The 

30 results of this additional groundwater sampling are summarized in the Annual Radioactive 

31 Effluent Release Reports (SCE&G 2008c, 2009). Tritium at concentrations well below the EPA 

32 drinking water standards (40 CFR Part 141) was detected in six samples at two locations during 

33 2008. 

34 2.12 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations 

35 The NRC staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might affect the 

36 granting of a COL permit for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Any such activities could result in 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-145 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 cumulative environmental impacts and the possible need for another Federal agency to become 

2 a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS (10 CFR 51.10(b)(2)). After reviewing the 

3 Federal activities in the region surrounding the VCSNS site, the NRC staff determined that it 

4 would be advantageous for the USACE to become a cooperating agency for preparation of the 

5 EIS. As discussed in Chapter 1, the USACE is a cooperating agency for preparation of this EIS. 

6 The Federal Power Commission (FPC, which became FERC) issued a license (Project Number 

7 1894) to SCE&G on June 30, 1974, for the Parr Hydroelectric Project, which consisted of a set 

8 of related actions (elevation of Parr Shoals Dam, enlargement of Parr Reservoir, construction of 

9 the FPSF, impoundment of Frees Creek for Monticello Reservoir). The Federal Power 

10 Commission prepared an EIS for this major Federal licensing action that evaluated potential 

11 environmental impacts, including the inundation of 9350 ac of land (eliminating farmland, timber, 

12 wildlife habitat, and 25 homes) and enhanced recreational opportunities provided by the public 

13 recreational facilities at the expanded Parr Reservoir and new Monticello Reservoir. The FPC 

14 concluded that the loss of 9350 ac of farmland and wildlife habitat was significant (FPC 1974), 

15 but that, with prudent evaluation and selection of construction methods and project operation, 

16 no serious cumulative adverse environmental impacts were foreseen. The FPSF began 

17 commercial operation in 1978, four years before VCSNS Unit 1. The FERC license for the Parr 

18 Hydroelectric Project, including FPSF, expires on June 30, 2020. Under current rules, SCE&G 

19 will be required to file a Notice of Intent with FERC by the year 2015 declaring whether or not it 

20 intends to renew the license for the hydroelectric project. At least 2 years before the current 

21 FERC license expires (i.e., before June 30, 2018), SCE&G will be required to file an application 

22 for a license renewal. 

23 Federal activities within the 50-mi radius of VCSNS include the Sumter National Forest 

24 managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Congaree Swamp National Monument 

25 managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, and the United States Army’s 52,000-ac Fort 

26 Jackson southeast of Columbia. Fort Jackson employs 4000 civilians and is the largest and 

27 most active Initial Entry Training Center in the Army, training 19,000 each year. Fort Jackson 

28 has added several new schools and training institutions, including the Soldier Support Institute, 

29 the Chaplains Center and School, and the U.S. Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. 

30 Shaw Air Force Base is located in Sumter, South Carolina, outside of the Central Midlands 

31 region but within the 50-mi radius of VCSNS site. 

32 The NRC is required under NEPA Section 102(c) (NEPA 1969) to consult with and obtain the 

33 comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to 

34 any environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the EIS. The NRC is consulting with 

35 the FWS and NMFS. Consultation correspondence is listed in Appendix F. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-146 April 2010 

1 2.13 References 

2 7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Prime and Unique 

3 Farmlands." 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

9 Criteria.” 

10 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

11 Safety and Health Standards.” 

12 33 CFR Part 325. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

13 Part 325, “Processing of Department of the Army Permits.” 

14 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

15 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

16 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

17 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

18 40 CFR Part 131. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 131, 

19 "Water Quality Standards.” 

20 40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 141, 

21 “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.” 

22 40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204, 

23 “Noise Emission Standards from Construction Equipment.” 

24 50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, 

25 “Commodity and Securities Exchange.” 

26 67 FR 44502. July 02, 2002. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

27 Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-147 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

2 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

3 Commission. 

4 73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.” Federal 

5 Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

6 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). 2009. Letter from Charlene Dwin Vaughn 

7 (Assistant Director Federal Permitting, Licensing and Assistance Section) to Gregory P. 

8 Hatchett (Acting Branch Chief, Environmental Projects Branch 2, Division of Site and 

9 Environmental Reviews, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated 

10 February 17, 2009, “Ref: Notification and request for consultation and participation in the 

11 scoping process for Units 2 and 3, combined license application review for the Virgil C. Summer 

12 Nuclear Station near Fairfield County, South Carolina.” Accession No. ML090840377. 

13 Ahrens, C.D. 1988. Meteorology Today. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

14 Badr, A.W., A. Wachob, and J.A. Gellici. 2004. South Carolina Water Plan, Second Edition. 

15 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), Land, Water, and Conservation 

16 Division. Columbia, South Carolina. 

17 Bander T.J. 1982. PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion program for Evaluating Design Basis 

18 Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations. NUREG/CR-2858, 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

20 Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2003. Broad River Aquatic Resources Inventory 

21 Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

22 Carolina. Accessed September 30 2009 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadriver2001-

23 2002.pdf. 

24 Bettinger, J. 2006a. Moderate Conservation Priority – Carolina Endemics. Comprehensive 

25 Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, 

26 South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

27 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/ModCarolinaEndemics.pdf. Accession No. ML100110219. 

28 Bettinger, J. 2006b. Moderate Conservation Priority – Other Species. Comprehensive Wildlife 

29 Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

30 Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/ModOther.pdf. 

31 Accession No. ML100110234. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-148 April 2010 

1 Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2006. Piedmont Stream Survey – Broad River Basin 

2 Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

3 Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadrivertributaries2003-2005.pdf. 

4 Accession No. ML090650713. 

5 Bulak, J. and J. Crane. 2009. Largemouth Bass in South Carolina. South Carolina Department 

6 of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 3, 2009 at 

7 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/pdf/LargemouthBassBookletsmall.pdf. Accession No. ML100110235. 

8 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2009. CA25N Total Full Time and Part-Time Employment 

9 by NAICS Industry 1/ – Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, South Carolina. 

10 Accession No. ML093280960. 

11 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008. May 2006 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 

12 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction and 

13 Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

14 http://www.bls.gov/oes/2006/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360686. 

15 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009a. May 2007 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 

16 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction and 

17 Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

18 http://www.bls.gov/oes/2007/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360687. 

19 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009b. May 2008 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 

20 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction and 

21 Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

22 http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360688. 

23 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2009c. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Washington 

24 D.C. Accession No. ML093280965. 

25 Butler, A., D. Wilson, C. Gorman, and R. Devlin. 2007. South Carolina Water Use Report 2006 

26 Annual Summary. Technical Document Number: 004-07, July 2007, South Carolina 

27 Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. 

28 ML093270551. 

29 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008a. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

30 and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

31 and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. June 2008. Submitted To: South 

32 Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, 

33 Lexington, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082760696. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-149 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008b. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

2 Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

3 Fairfield County, South Carolina. July 2008. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and Gas 

4 Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

5 Accession No. ML082760695. 

6 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008c. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

7 and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

8 and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. September 2008. Submitted To: South 

9 Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, 

10 Lexington, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091891011. 

11 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2008d. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

12 Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

13 Fairfield County, South Carolina. October 2008. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and 

14 Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

15 Accession No. ML092930127. 

16 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009a. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

17 Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

18 Fairfield County, South Carolina. January 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and 

19 Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

20 Accession No. ML092050188. 

21 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009b. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

22 Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

23 Fairfield County, South Carolina. April 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and Gas 

24 Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

25 Accession No. ML092230228. 

26 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009c. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

27 and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

28 and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. January 2009. Submitted To: South 

29 Carolina Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, 

30 Lexington, South Carolina. Accession No. ML092050186. 

31 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009d. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

32 and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

33 and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. April 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina 

34 Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, 

35 South Carolina. Accession No. ML092230226. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-150 April 2010 

1 Carr, A., A. Meylan, J. Mortimer, K. Bjorndal, and T. Carr. 1982. Surveys of Sea Turtle 

2 Populations and Habitats in the Western Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC3 91, U.S. Department of Commerce, Panama City, Florida. Accession No. ML100110242. 

4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

5 United States 1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45 (53):1-88. October 31, 1997. 

6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998. “Surveillance for Waterborne7 Disease Outbreaks – United States, 1995–1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC 

8 Surveillance Summaries, 47(SS-5):1-34. December 11, 1998. 

9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases. 

10 United States. 1998.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(53):1-94. December 31, 1999. 

11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

12 United States 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(53):1-16. April 6, 2001. 

13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002. “Surveillance for Waterborne14 Disease Outbreaks – United States, 1999-2000.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

15 51(SS-8):1-48. November 22, 2002. 

16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

17 United States, 2001.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(53):1-22. May 2, 2003. 

18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

19 United States, 2002.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (53):1:77. April 30, 2004. 

20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

21 United States, 2003.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(54):1-85. April 22, 2005. 

22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

23 United States, 2004.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53(53):1-79. June 16, 2006. 

24 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

25 United States, 2005.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(53):2-92. March 30, 2007. 

26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008. “Primary Amebic 

27 Meningoencephalitis – Arizona, Florida, and Texas, 2007.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

28 Report, 57( 21):573-577. May 30, 2008. 

29 Childress, J.M. and A. Butler. 2006. South Carolina Water Use Report, 2005 Annual Summary. 

30 Technical Document Number 006-06, South Carolina Bureau of Water, South Carolina 

31 Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, South Carolina. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-151 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1996. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

2 IV July 1, 1995 – June 30, 1996. Annual Progress Report F-63-1-4. South Carolina 

3 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300698. 

4 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1997. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

5 IV July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1997. Annual Progress Report F-63-3-4. South Carolina 

6 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300700. 

7 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1998. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

8 IV. Annual Progress Report F-63, July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. South Carolina 

9 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300704. 

10 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1999. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

11 IV July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63-4-4. South Carolina 

12 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300706. 

13 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

14 Act [FWPCA]). 

15 Collins, M.R., D.W. Cooke, B. Post, J. Crane, J. Bulak, T.I.J. Smith, T.W. Greig, and J.M. 

16 Quattro. 2003. “Shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Reservoir system, South Carolina.” 

17 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132(6):1244–1250. 

18 Cooney, T.W., P.A. Drewes, S.W. Ellisor, T.H. Lanier, and F. Melendez. 2006. Water 

19 Resources Data, South Carolina, Water Year 2005. Water-Data Report SC-05-1. U.S. 

20 Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

21 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/recentpubs.jsp?reportYear=2006&reportMonth=4. 

22 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

23 National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the 

24 President, Washington, D.C. Available at http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 

25 Crouch, G.H. 2006. “Droughts: Less Dramatic, No Less Damaging.” Business & Economic 

26 Review 53(1). 

27 Dahl, T.E. 1999. South Carolina’s Wetlands – Status and Trends 1982 – 1989. U.S. 

28 Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 

29 Dames and Moore. 1974. “Report on the Baseline Biotic Survey Broad River Study Area Parr, 

30 South Carolina March 1971 to May 1973 for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.” 

31 Appendix 2A in Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Operating License Environmental Report, 

32 Vol. 2. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Columbia, South Carolina. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-152 April 2010 

1 Dames and Moore. 1985. Environmental Monitoring Report January 1983 through December 

2 1984 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the South Carolina Department of Health and 

3 Environmental Control and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Accession No. 

4 ML090630369. 

5 Edwards, N.T. and D.L. Otis. 1999. “Avian Communities and Habitat Relationships in South 

6 Carolina Piedmont Beaver Ponds.” The American Midland Naturalist 141:158-171. 

7 Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

8 Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

9 (SCE&G). Accession Nos. ML082680276, ML082680277, ML082680279, ML082680280. 

10 Fairfield County. 2005. Zoning Ordinance; Fairfield County. Ordinance No. 498. Fairfield 

11 County Council. Accession No. ML093360669. 

12 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2006a. Crime in the United States 2005: Police 

13 Employees Data – Table 80. Accessed September 23, 2009 at 

14 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_78_sc.html. Accession No. ML09350064. 

15 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2006b. Crime in the United States 2005: Police 

16 Employees Data – Table 78. Accessed September 23, 2009 at 

17 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_80_sc.html. Accession No. ML09350064. 

18 Federal Power Commission (FPC). 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Parr 

19 Hydroelectric Project, No. 1894 – South Carolina. No. PPC-PWR-1894, Washington, D.C. 

20 Accession No. ML090640919. 

21 Fuiman, L.A. 2002. “Special Considerations of Fish Eggs and Larvae.” In: L.A. Fuiman and 

22 R.G. Werner, Editors, Fishery Science. The Unique Contributions of Early Life Stages. 

23 Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 1-32. 

24 Godfrey, M.A. 1980. Field Guide to the Piedmont: The Natural Habitats of America’s Most 

25 Lived-in Region, from New York City to Montgomery, Alabama. The University of North 

26 Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

27 Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Shafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, 

28 J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. 

29 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, Virginia. 

30 Hayes, W.E. 1999. Parr Shoals Reservoir Fishery Management Plan. South Carolina 

31 Department of Natural Resources, Freshwater Fisheries District III. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-153 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 2006a. High Conservation Priority – Other Species: Turquoise 

2 Darter, Etheostoma inscriptum, Seagreen Darter, Etheostoma thalassium, Piedmont Darter 

3 Percinas crassa. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia S.C. Accessed 

4 August 30 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#P. 

5 Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 2006b. High Conservation Priority – Piedmont Species: Greenhead 

6 Shiner Notropis chlorocephalus, Santee Chub, Cyprinella zanema, Carolina Darter, Etheostoma 

7 collis. Accessed August 30 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#P. 

8 Houde, E.D. 2002. “Mortality.” In: L.A. Fuiman and R.G. Werner, Editors, Fishery Science. 

9 The Unique Contributions of Early Life Stages. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 

10 64-87. 

11 Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries 

12 Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

13 Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

14 United States. Cambridge University Press, New York. 

15 Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native Trees of the Southeast: An 

16 Identification Guide. Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon. 

17 Koeppe, C.E. and G.C. De Long, 1958: “Weather and Climate”, McGraw-Hill, NY, 341 pp. 

18 Kovacik, C.F. and J.J. Winberry. 1987. South Carolina: The Making of a Landscape. 

19 University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. 

20 Lamprecht, S.D. and J. Bettinger. 2006. High Conservation Priority – Big River Species. 

21 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

22 Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

23 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/BigRiver.pdf. Accession No. ML070800414. 

24 Local Climatological Data (LCD). 2007. Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Columbia, 

25 South Carolina (KCAE). National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Administration (NOAA), U.S. 

26 Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

27 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

28 Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

29 Santee, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275. 

30 Maps of the World. 2009. South Carolina Airports. Accessed July 24, 2009 at 

31 http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/states/south-carolina/south-carolina-airports.html. Accession 

32 No. ML100200796. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-154 April 2010 

1 Marcy, B.C., D.E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller, and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the 

2 Middle Savannah River Basin with Emphasis on the Savannah River Site. University of Georgia 

3 Press, Athens, Georgia. 

4 McCord, J.W. 2006. Species Description – Sturgeons. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

5 Strategy Species Description. Accessed March 4, 2009 at 

6 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Sturgeon.pdf. 

7 Murphy, T. 2006. Wood Stork; Mycteria americana. South Carolina Department of Natural 

8 Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Woodstork.pdf. 

9 Accession No. ML100290474. 

10 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2000. Climate Atlas of the Contiguous United States, 

11 Version 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

12 National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

13 Asheville, North Carolina. 

14 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004. Climatography of the United States, No. 20, 

15 1971-2000. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

16 National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

17 Asheville, North Carolina. 

18 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2009a. State of the climate drought annual 2008. U.S. 

19 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National 

20 Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

21 Asheville, North Carolina. 

22 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2009b. Tornado statistics for Fairfield County, South 

23 Carolina. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, 

24 National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

25 Asheville, North Carolina. 

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

27 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq. 

28 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser 

29 brevirostrum). Accessed October 25, 2009 at 

30 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm#distribution. 

31 National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. Historical Hurricane Tracks. 

32 Coastal Services Center, Charleston, South Carolina. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-155 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 National Park Service (NPS). 2009. Congaree National Park, South Carolina. Accessed 

2 September 23, 2009 at http://www.nps.gov/cosw/index.htm. Accession No. ML100210503. 

3 NatureServe. 2009a. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Accessed September 1, 2009 at 

4 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accession No. ML100211111. 

5 NatureServe. 2009b. An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Accessed November 10, 2009 at 

6 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accession No. ML093280958. 

7 Nelson, J.B. 2006. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Survey: V.C. Summer Nuclear 

8 Station. Submitted by J.B. Nelson to Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. 

9 Accession No. ML082670675. 

10 Nelson, J.B. 2007. Survey for Three Threatened and Endangered Plants: V.C. Summer 

11 Nuclear Station. October 2007. Submitted to Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. 

12 Accession No. ML082830398. 

13 New South Associates (NSA). 2006. General Pearson Cemetery Boundary Delineation. V.C. 

14 Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinsville, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Report prepared by 

15 Principal Investigator N. Adams and J.H.N. Loubser, archaeologist and author. Stone Mountain, 

16 Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation 

17 Act). 

18 New South Associates (NSA). 2007a. Archaeological Survey of Planned Improvements at V.C. 

19 Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

20 (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act). 

21 New South Associates (NSA). 2007b. An Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of Planned 

22 Improvements at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Stone 

23 Mountain, Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic 

24 Preservation Act). 

25 New South Associates (NSA). 2007c. Summary of All National Register Listed Properties in 

26 Ten Counties to be Affected by Transmission Line Rights of Way Associated with Improvements 

27 at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain 

28 per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act). 

29 New South Associates (NSA). 2008. Second Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of 

30 Planned Improvements at the VC Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

31 (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act). 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-156 April 2010 

1 New South Associates (NSA). 2009a. Phase II Examination of 38FA360: Middle to Late 

2 Woodland Period Site Along Mayo Creek, V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, 

3 Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation 

4 Act). 

5 New South Associates (NSA). 2009b. Letter Report: Archaeological Survey of Proposed Road 

6 Improvements at South Carolina Hwy. SC 213, Jenkinsville Road and Parr Road Intersection – 

7 V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

8 New South Associates (NSA). 2009c. Letter Report to Mr. Steve Connor: Archaeological 

9 Survey of Approximately 7.7 Acres in the Vicinity of the Proposed Water Treatment Plant, V.C. 

10 Summer Nuclear Station. Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

11 New South Associates (NSA). 2009d. Email from Natalie Adams (NSA) to Lisa Matis 

12 (TetraTech) dated September 29, 2009, “Subject: 38FA38, 38FA39, and 38FA40.” Accession 

13 No. ML100840201. 

14 Nichols, M. 2003. Conservation Strategy for Robust Redhorse (Moxostoma robustum). 

15 Prepared by Environmental Laboratory, Georgia Power Company for Robust Redhorse 

16 Conservation Committee, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at 

17 http://www.robustredhorse.com/f/ConservStrategyMay62003.pdf. 

18 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

19 Surveys: Draft Final Report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

20 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2008. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

21 Surveys: Summer Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

22 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009a. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

23 Surveys: Winter Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

24 Accession No. ML092050189. 

25 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009b. Monticello Reservoir Icthyoplankton 

26 Studies, September 2008 Through August 2009. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, 

27 South Carolina. Accession No. ML092750409. 

28 North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 1998. Broad River Basinwide Water 

29 Quality Management Plan. July 1998. Available at 

30 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Broad/broad_wq_management_plan.htm. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-157 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). 2009a. Annual County 

2 Population Totals, 2000-2009. Accessed August 27, 2009 at 

3 http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimat

4 es/demog/countytotals_2000_2009.html. Accession No. ML093510742. 

5 North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). 2009b. Projected Annual 

6 County Population Totals, 2010-2019. Accessed August 27, 2009 at 

7 http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimat

8 es/demog/countytotals_2010_2019.html. Accession No. ML093510747. 

9 North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NCOSBM). 2009c. Projected Annual 

10 County Population Totals, 2020-2029. Accessed August 27, 2009 at 

11 http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimat

12 es/demog/countytotals_2020_2029.html. Accession No. ML093510748. 

13 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United 

14 States. OTA-F-565, Washington, D.C. 

15 Parker, I.M., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, K. Goodell, M. Wonham, P.M. Kareiva, 

16 M.H. Williamson, B. Von Holle, P.B. Moyle, J.E. Byers, and L. Goldwasser. 1999. “Impact: 

17 Toward a Framework for Understanding the Ecological Effects of Invaders.” Biological 

18 Invasions 1(1):3-19. 

19 Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PDCNR). 2007. Eastern 

20 Floater Pyganodon cataracta. Available at 

21 http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/Pyganodon%20cataracta.pdf. Accession No. 

22 ML100110459. 

23 Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of the Missouri Revised Edition. Missouri Department of 

24 Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 

25 Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. “Update on the Environmental and Economic 

26 Costs Associated with Alien-Invasive Species in the United States.” Ecological Economics

27 52(3):273-288. 

28 Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid 

29 Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 

30 EPA 440-4-89-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water Regulations 

31 and Standards, Washington, D.C. 

32 Porcher, R.D. and D.A. Rayner. 2001. A Guide to the Wildflowers of South Carolina. 

33 University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-158 April 2010 

1 Quattlebaum, M. 2008a. Fish Community Assessment of Parr Reservoir 2007-2008. SCANA 

2 Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830397. 

3 Quattlebaum, M. 2008b. Limited Fish Community Assessment of Mayo Creek 2007-2008. 

4 SCANA Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830319. 

5 Quattlebaum, M. 2008c. Limited Aquatic Plant Survey of Monticello and Parr Reservoirs. 

6 SCANA Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML091050701. 

7 Ramsdell, Jr. J.V. and J.P. Rishel. 2007. Tornado Climatography of the Contiguous United 

8 States. NUREG/CR-4461, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

9 Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fisher of South 

10 Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. 

11 R.S. Webb Associates (Webb). 2006. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SCE&G 

12 Meteorological Tower Site, Fairfield County, South Carolina. R.S. Webb Associates for Tower 

13 Engineering Professionals, Holly Springs, Georgia. (Withheld from the public domain per 

14 Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act). 

15 Sagendorf, J.F., J.T. Goll, and W.F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the 

16 Routine Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases on Nuclear Power Stations. 

17 NUREG/CR-2919, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

18 SC Code Ann. 48-1. 2009. "Pollution Control Act." South Carolina Code Annotated. 

19 SC Code Ann. 48-5. 2009. “South Carolina Water Quality Revolving Fund Authority Act.” 

20 South Carolina Code Annotated. 

21 S C Code Ann. 49-4. 2009. “Waters, Water Resources and Drainage.” South Carolina Code 

22 Annotated. 

23 Self, R.L. and J. Bettinger. 2006. Highest Conservation Priority – Big River Species. 

24 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

25 Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

26 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/BigRiverSpecies.pdf. Accession No. ML100110572. 

27 Sessions, F., S. Lamprecht, and J. Bettinger. 2006. Moderate Conservation Priority – Big River 

28 Species. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of 

29 Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

30 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/ModBigRiver.pdf. Accession No. ML100110571. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-159 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Aeronautics Commission (SC Aeronautics). 2009. South Carolina Aeronautical 

2 Operation Counts for Towered Airports – Columbia Metropolitan Airport. Accessed September 

3 23, 2009 at 

4 http://www.scaeronautics.com/Operations.asp?cboAirport=CAE&cboOpsYr=0&btnSubmit=Add+

5 Filter. Accession No. ML093490917. 

6 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2007. Accommodation and Recreation 

7 Facilities Available at South Carolina State Parks (2007). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

8 http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation1.php. Accession No. 

9 ML093421252.pdf. 

10 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2008. Lodging Outlook Survey Calendar 

11 Year 2007 Compared With Calendar Year 2006. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

12 http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation5.php. Accession No. ML093421187. 

13 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009a. S.C. Population by Race and 

14 Hispanic Origin (July 1, 2005 Estimates). Available at 

15 http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop13.php. 

16 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009b. Population of South Carolina 

17 Counties (1940-2000 Censuses). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

18 http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop4.php. Accession No. ML093430430. 

19 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009c. South Carolina Population 

20 Estimates (2000-2007). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

21 http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop7.php. Accession No. ML093430487. 

22 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009d. South Carolina Population and 

23 Population Projections (2000-2035). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

24 http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop5.php. Accession No. ML093430657.pdf. 

25 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009e. Annual Estimates of the 

26 Population for Incorporated Places in South Carolina (2000-2007). Accessed September 21, 

27 2009 at http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/abstract/chapter14/pop10.php. Accession No. 

28 ML093430502.pdf. 

29 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009f. State Parks Visitation (Fiscal Year 

30 2004-05). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

31 http://www.ors2.stafte.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation8_06.php. Accession No. 

32 ML093421421. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-160 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2009g. State Parks Visitation (Fiscal Year 

2 2006-07). Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

3 http://www.ors2.stafte.sc.us/abstract/chapter15/recreation8.php. Accession No. ML100210517. 

4 South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2006a. Letter from Rebekah 

5 Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to Mr. 

6 George Swearingen (Tower Engineering Professionals) dated September 14, 2006, “Re: 

7 Proposed 197-Foot Guyed Lattice Tower, SCE&G V.C. Summer Nuclear Power Plant Fairfield 

8 County, South Carolina SCANA Nuclear Meteorological Tower.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. 

9 ML091480622. 

10 South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH). 2006b. Letter from Chad C. 

11 Long (Staff Archaeologist) to Mr. Jonathon A. Bloom (R.S. Webb Associates) dated August 16, 

12 2006,“REL Final Report, Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed SCE&G 

13 Meteorological Tower Site, Fairfield County, South Carolina.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. 

14 ML091480622. 

15 South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2007a. Letter from Rebekah 

16 Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to Mr. Al 

17 Paglia (SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated April 27, 2007, “Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear 

18 Station Fairfield County, South Carolina.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622. 

19 South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2007b. Letter from Rebekah 

20 Dobrasko (State Historic Preservation Office, Review and Compliance Coordinator) to Mr. Al 

21 Paglia (SCE&G New Nuclear Deployment) dated August 16, 2007, “Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear 

22 Station Two New Generating Units Fairfield County, South Carolina.” NND-09-0136. Accession 

23 No. ML091480622. 

24 South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH). 2009a. Letter from C. Cantley, 

25 (Archaeologist/GIS Coordinator) dated January 28, 2009, to Mr. Al Paglia (SCE&G, New 

26 Nuclear Deployment), regarding “Second Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of Planned 

27 Improvements at V.C. Summer Nuclear Station.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. 

28 ML091480622. 

29 South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2009b. Letter from Caroline 

30 Wilson (Review and Compliance Coordinator, State Historic Preservation Office) to Tamsen 

31 Dozier, NRO/DSER/RAP1, (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) dated October 20, 2009, 

32 “Re: V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant Archaeological Site.” Accession No. ML093080369. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-161 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2009c. Letter from C. Cantley 

2 (Archaeologist/GIS Coordinator) to Mr. Al Paglia (SCE&G, New Nuclear Deployment) dated 

3 October 7, 2009, “Re: Summer Nuclear Station, Proposed Road Improvements, Letter Report.” 

4 Accession No. ML100710307. 

5 South Carolina Department of Archives & History (SCDAH). 2009d. Letter from C. Cantley 

6 (Archaeologist/GIS Coordinator) to Mr. Al Paglia (SCE&G, New Nuclear Deployment) dated 

7 November 10, 2009, “Re: Summer Nuclear Station, Proposed Water Treatment Plant, Letter 

8 Report.” Accession No. ML100750559. 

9 South Carolina Department of Education (SCDOE). 2009. Reports. Accessed September 23, 

10 2009 at http://ed.sc.gov/topics/researchandstats/reports. Accession No. ML093490969. 

11 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. Water 

12 Classification and Standards Regulation 61-68. June 25, 2004. Bureau of Water, Columbia, 

13 South Carolina. Accession No. ML090640972. 

14 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005. South 

15 Carolina Water Use Report 2004 Summary. Bureau of Water, Technical Document Number: 

16 004-05. Available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/docs/wtruse2004.pdf. 

17 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. Watershed 

18 Water Quality Assessment: Broad River Basin. Technical Report No.006-07, Bureau of Water, 

19 Columbia, South Carolina. 

20 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008a. R.61-68, 

21 Water Classifications & Standards. Effective April 25, 2008. Available at 

22 http://www.dhec.sc.gov/environment/water/reg.htm. Accession No. ML100200687. 

23 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008b. 2008 

24 State of South Carolina Integrated Report, Part I: Listing of Impaired Waters and Part II: 

25 Section 305(b) Assessment and Reporting. Available at 

26 http://www.dhec.sc.gov/environment/water/tmdl/docs/tmdl_08-305b.pdf. 

27 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009a. 

28 Environmental Quality Control (EQC) – Environmental Permitting – Water. Available at 

29 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/admin/htm/permtype.htm#Water. 

30 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009b. Water – 

31 Groundwater – Water Use and Reporting Program (Capacity Use). Available at 

32 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/capuse.htm. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-162 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009c. Fish 

2 Consumption Advisories. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

3 http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/library/ML-004042.pdf. 

4 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009d. Common 

5 Water Quality Indicators. Available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/surface.htm. 

6 South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SCDHPT). 1984. Letter 

7 from Michael Trinkley (Staff Archaeologist, South Carolina Department of Highways and Public 

8 Transportation) to Robert B. Ferrell (Environmental Program Administrator), dated August 23, 

9 1984. “Re: Archaeological Survey of the S.C 213 Extension, Fairfield County, State File No. 

10 20.431, F.A. No. RS-1154 (71).” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622. 

11 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2002. South Carolina Boating 

12 Facilities Guide. Accessed November 10, 2009 at www.dnr.sc.gov/pubs/boatfacilities.pdf. 

13 Accession No. ML100110480. 

14 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005a. Piedmont Ecoregion 

15 Terrestrial Habitats. Accessed December 18, 2009 at 

16 www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/habitat/PiedmontHabitat.pdf. Accession No. ML100211054. 

17 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005b. 2005 Comprehensive 

18 Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed August 30, 2009 at 

19 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html. Accession No. ML100110509. 

20 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006a. South Carolina Rare, 

21 Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory County Selection from List. Accessed 

22 September 8, 2009 at https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map. 

23 Accession No. ML093280967. 

24 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006b. Species Description -- 

25 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at 

26 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html. 

27 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2007. Broad River Waterfowl 

28 Management Area. Accessed September 10, 2009 at 

29 https://www.dnr.sc.gov/mlands/managedland?p_id=68. Accession No. ML093280966. 

30 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2008. South Carolina Aquatic 

31 Invasive Species Management Plan. Prepared in coordination with the South Carolina Aquatic 

32 Invasive Species Task Force. Available at 

33 www.dnr.sc.gov/invasiveweeds/aisfiles/SC_SMP_Draft.pdf. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-163 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009a. Freshwater Fishing 

2 Regulations. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regs/pdf/fishing.pdf. 

3 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009b. Rare, Threatened, and 

4 Endangered Species and Communities Known to Occur in Richland County. August 24, 2009 

5 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/species/index.html. Accession No. ML100110575. 

6 South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009a. Average Annual Daily Traffic. 

7 Accessed September 23, 2009 at http://www.dot.state.sc.us/getting/aadt.shtml. Accession No. 

8 ML093500259. 

9 South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009b. Email from Ron Patton 

10 (SCDOT) to Scott Flickinger (NUS) dated December 4, 2006, “Subject: SCDOT Road Level of 

11 Service.” Accession No. ML090630371. 

12 South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009c. South Carolina Strategic 

13 Corridor System Plan. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

14 http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/StrategicCorridorPlan.pdf. Accession No. 

15 ML093421433. 

16 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2002a. Appendix E. Applicant’s Environmental 

17 Report, Operating License Renewal Stage Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. South Carolina 

18 Electric & Gas Company, Docket 50-395, License No NPF-12. Accession No. ML090641089. 

19 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2002b. Threatened and Endangered Species Field 

20 Survey V. C. Summer Nuclear Station. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. 

21 ML030310162. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006a. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

23 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Dr. William D. Travers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

24 Commission Region II, dated April 28, 2006, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

25 Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

26 Report.” Accession No. ML062770462. 

27 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006b Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

28 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

29 April 28, 2006, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

30 License No. NPF-12, Annual Effluent and Waste Disposal Report.” Accession No. 

31 ML061220346. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-164 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007a. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Dr. William D. Travers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

3 Commission Region II, dated April 17, 2007, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

4 Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

5 Report.” Accession No. ML083020046. 

6 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007b. Annual Effluent Radioactive Release 

7 Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, for the Operating Period January 1, 2006 - 

8 December 31, 2006. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML071100299. 

9 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007c. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

10 Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Revision 26. 

11 Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML081280582 and ML072910571. 

12 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007d. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

13 Licensing) to Elizabeth Johnson (South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office 

14 Representative) dated April 9, 2007, “SUBJECT: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, New 

15 Nuclear Deployment Project, Request for Cultural Resources Information.” NND-09-0136. 

16 Accession No. ML091480622. 

17 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008a. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

18 Licensing, South Carolina Electric and Gas) to Rebekah Dobrasko (Review and Compliance 

19 Coordinator, of the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office) dated December 18, 

20 2008, “Second Addendum to the Archaeological Survey of Planned Improvements at V.C. 

21 Summer Nuclear Station.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008b. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

23 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

24 April 24, 2008, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

25 License No. NPF-12, Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report and Offsite Dose Calculation 

26 Manual.” Accession No. ML081280581. 

27 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008c. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

28 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Mr. Victor M. McCree, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

29 Commission Region II, dated April 23, 2008, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

30 Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

31 Report.” Accession No. ML092960482. 

32 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

33 3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

34 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-165 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 May 18, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

4 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

5 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

6 Information Needs: G-10.” NND-09-0135. Accession No. ML091460171. 

7 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

8 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

9 May 5, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

10 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

11 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

12 Information Needs: ALT-1/NP-1, AQ-1, AQ-15, G-5, G-6, G-8, and NRHH-2.” NND-09-0110. 

13 Accession No. ML091890155. 

14 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

15 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

16 May 1, 2009 in response to letters from Manny Comar (NRC) dated March 1, 2009, “Subject: 

17 Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application 

18 (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Response to NRC Request for Additional 

19 Information (RAI) Letter No. 041.” NND-09-0109. Accession No. ML091270890. 

20 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

21 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

22 June 9, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

23 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

24 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

25 Information Needs: ACC-5 (Item 1), AQ-9, BC-1, GW-7 (Item 3) and SE-S1.” NND-09-0158. 

26 Accession No. ML091630212. 

27 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

28 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

29 July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

30 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3. Docket 

31 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

32 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

33 GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2.” NND-09-0184. Accession No. ML092010266. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-166 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

2 President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 

3 24, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. 

4 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

5 License Application – Additional Information to Support the Environmental Report Review.” 

6 NND-09-0276. Accession No. ML092930042. 

7 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G), 

8 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

9 June 8, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

10 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

11 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

12 Information Needs: CR-6, 8, and 11.” NND-09-0153. Accession No. ML091660292. 

13 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009i. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

14 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

15 Accession No. ML092170463. 

16 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

17 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

18 May 11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

19 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

20 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

21 Information Needs.”: CR-2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22. NND-09-0125. Accession 

22 No. ML091350104. 

23 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

24 President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated December 

25 2, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia J. 

26 Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

27 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

28 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): GW-3 Revision 1.” 

29 NND-09-0333. Accession No. ML093380302. 

30 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009l. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

31 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to Mr. Luis A. Reyes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

32 Commission Region II, dated April 29, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

33 Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. NPF-12, Radiological Environmental Operating 

34 Report.” Accession No. ML092860167. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-167 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009m. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 April 29, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

4 License No. NPF-12, Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report.” Accession No. 

5 ML091260302. 

6 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009n. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

7 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

8 June 15, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

9 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

10 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

11 Information Needs: BC-3. SE-3, 8, and 9.” NND-09-0164. Accession No. ML091690069. 

12 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009o. Letter from Stephen A. Byrne (SCE&G, 

13 Executive Vice President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

14 Commission dated October 8, 2009 in response to letter from Chandu P. Patel dated 

15 September 9, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 

16 Combined License Application (COLA) – Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Response to 

17 NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI) Letter No. 063.” NND-09-0272. Accession No. 

18 ML092860140. 

19 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009p. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

20 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

21 May 18, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

22 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

23 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

24 Information Needs: CR-5 and CR-9.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622. 

25 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009q. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

26 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

27 May 7, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

28 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

29 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

30 Information Needs: CR-17, 23, 24, 25, 26, GW-7 (Parts 1 and 5), SW-2, 4, 6, 10, SW-3 (Part 1), 

31 and T-3.” NND-09-0121. Accession No. ML091310563. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-168 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009r. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 July 20, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

4 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

5 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

6 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): GW-1, 2, 3, and 9 and 

7 HP-1 and 2, Met-2, TerEco-1, and SEcon-3.” NND-09-0203. Accession No. ML100660021. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009s. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

9 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

10 June 15, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

11 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

12 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

13 Information Needs: G-9 Part 2.” NND-09-0163. Accession No. ML091740347. 

14 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009t. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

15 President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated September 

16 16, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. 

17 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

18 License Application – Revision to ER Section 2.7 to Incorporate Two Years of Meteorological 

19 Data.” NND-09-0270. Accession No. ML092670578. 

20 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009u. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

21 Licensing) to Mr. Chuck Cantley (Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina State 

22 Historic Preservation Office) dated March 17, 2009, “Phase II Examination of 38FA360: A 

23 Woodland Period Site along Mayo Creek, V.C. Summer Station.” NND-09-0136. Accession 

24 No. ML091480622. 

25 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009v. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

26 Licensing) to Mr. Chuck Cantley (Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina State 

27 Historic Preservation Office) dated September 2, 2009, regarding “Letter Report: Archaeological 

28 Survey of Proposed Road Improvements at South Carolina Hwy. SC 213, Jenkinsville Road and 

29 Parr Road Intersection – V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Manager, Nuclear Licensing, South 

30 Carolina Electric and Gas.” Accession No. ML100710117. 

31 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009w. Letter from Al Paglia (Manager, Nuclear 

32 Licensing) to Mr. Chuck Cantley (Review and Compliance Coordinator, South Carolina State 

33 Historic Preservation Office) dated October 22, 2009, “Archaeological Survey of Approximately 

34 7.7 Acres in the Vicinity of the Proposed Water Treatment Plant – V.C. Summer Nuclear 

35 Station.” NND-09-0294. Accession No. ML100660022. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-169 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC). 1994. South Carolina’s BMP: Best 

2 Management Practices for Forestry. Columbia, South Carolina. 

3 South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SCLED). 2009. 2007 – Crime in South Carolina 

4 Book – Arrests by County. Accessed December 8, 2009 at 

5 http://www.sled.sc.gov/Documents/CrimeReporting/SCCrimeBooks/2007/Arrests%20by%20Cou

6 nty%202007.pdf. 

7 South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics (SCORS). 2009. Economics. Accessed 

8 October 28, 2009 at http://www.ors.state.sc.us/economics/economics.asp. Accession No. 

9 ML093360685.pdf. 

10 South Carolina Information Highway (SCIway). 2009. South Carolina State Stone – Blue 

11 Granite. Accessed October 28, 2009 at http://www.sciway.net/facts/sc-state-stone-blue12 granite.html. Accession No. ML100050082. 

13 South Carolina State Climatology Office (SCSCO). 2009. South Carolina Climate – 

14 Precipitation. Available at 

15 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sco/ClimateData/cli_sc_climate.php#precipitation. 

16 Strayer, D.L., V.T. Eviner, J.M. Jeschke, and M.L. Pace. 2006. “Understanding the Long-Term 

17 Effects of Species Invasions.” Ecology and Evolution 21(11):645-651. 

18 Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs, 

19 H.W. Robinson, C.E. Skelton and R.F. Thoma. 2007. “A Reassessment of the Conservation 

20 Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ Years of Increased Awareness.” 

21 Fisheries 32(8):372-389. 

22 Teague, George A. 1979. An Assessment of Archaeological Resources in the Parr Project 

23 Area, South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series, Institute of Archeology and Anthropology. 

24 University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. 

25 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007. Mayo Creek Aquatic Survey. Prepared for South Carolina Electric 

26 & Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession No. 

27 ML082830320. 

28 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2008. Summary of Small Mammal Trapping at V.C. Summer Nuclear 

29 Station, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

30 Accession No. ML091050712. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-170 April 2010 

1 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009a. Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report. Prepared for South 

2 Carolina Electric & Gas Company, by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession 

3 No. ML090270990. 

4 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b. Mayo Creek Quarterly Fish Surveys: Winter and Spring 2009 

5 V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 Combined Construction/Operating License Project. Prepared for 

6 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

7 Accession No. ML092160245. 

8 TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC). 2008. Letter from Sean Norris (Program Manager, Archeology) to 

9 Karl Rains (MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.) dated July 28.2008, Subject: “Cultural 

10 Resources Literature Review for VC Summer Varnville and VC Summer Flat Creek 

11 Transmission Line Corridors.” (Withheld from the public domain per Section 304 of the National 

12 Historic Preservation Act). 

13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Letter from Richard Darden (USACE 

14 Regulatory Division) to Mr. F. David Haddon (SCANA Corporation) dated June 29, 2009 

15 regarding request for wetland determination SAC 2007-1852. Accession No. ML100750573. 

16 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1995. North Carolina, Population by Counties by Decennial 

17 Census: 1900-1990. Accessed 8/28/2009 at 

18 http:www.census.gov/population/cencounts/nc190090.txt. Accession No. ML100290506. 

19 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin 2000. Accessed 

20 on February 3, 2010 at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf. Accession No. 

21 ML100890583. 

22 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009a. “Total Population, North Carolina.” American Fact 

23 Finder. Accessed August 29, 2009 at 

24 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DownloadDatasetServlet?_lang=eng. Accession No. 

25 ML100290499. 

26 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009b. Fact Sheet – Fairfield County, South Carolina – 2005-

27 2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523. 

28 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009c. Fact Sheet – Lexington County, South Carolina – 2005-

29 2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523. 

30 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009d. Fact Sheet – Newberry County, South Carolina – 2005-

31 2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-171 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009e. Fact Sheet – Richland County, South Carolina – 2005-

2 2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523. 

3 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009f. Fact Sheet – South Carolina – 2005-2007 American 

4 Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Accession No. ML093430523. 

5 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2009g. Populations Estimates – Housing Unit Estimates – 

6 Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. Accessed 

7 September 21, 2009 at http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU-EST2008-4.html. Accession 

8 No. ML093431057. 

9 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007a. National Agricultural Statistics Service – Quick 

10 Stats – By County for South Carolina – Migrant, on Operations with Hired Labor – Operations 

11 with Workers. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

12 http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/B64F2429-0737-351C-9406-D1E4CAB61549. 

13 Accession No. ML093431019. 

14 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007b. National Agricultural Statistics Service – Quick 

15 Stats – South Carolina – Migrant, on Operations with Hired Labor – Operations with Workers. 

16 Accessed September 21, 2009 at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/3C267470-9AC9-

17 3025-8D69-35ABA2785986. Accession No. ML093431019. 

18 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009. (Virgil C.) 

19 Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina – Summer Nuclear Power Stations. Available at 

20 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/summer.html. 

21 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009. FY 2009 Median Family 

22 Income Limits Documentation. Accessed June 13, 2009 at 

23 http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il09/Medians2009.pdf. Accession No. ML093500650. 

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006a. EPA STORET Data Warehouse, South 

25 Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Water Quality Data for Parr Reservoir 

26 and Monticello Reservoir, last updated 3//9/2006. Accessed December 7, 2009 at 

27 http://www.epa.gov/storet/dw_home.html. Accession No. ML090630368. 

28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Region 4: Ground Water Protection – 

29 Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

30 http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html. Accession No. ML100290526. 

31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Ground-level Ozone – Ozone Standards. 

32 Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#stand. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-172 April 2010 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1986. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding 

2 Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed November 25, 2008 at 

3 http://www.fws.gov/charleston/. Accession No. ML100210568. 

4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. South Carolina Distribution Records of 

5 Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern. Accessed September 13, 2009 

6 at www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/etcountylist_3_08.pdf. Accession No. ML093270525. 

7 U.S. Fire Administration (USFA). 2008. National Fire Department Census Database. 

8 Emmitsburg, Maryland. Accessed December 4, 2009 at 

9 http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/applications/census-download/main/download. Accession No. 

10 ML093500269. 

11 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States – Alabama, 

12 Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina – HA 730-G. Reston, Virginia. Accessed at 

13 http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/index.html. Accession No. ML100290484. 

14 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. South Carolina 27-Class Land Cover. [GRID raster]. 

15 South Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS Biological Resources 

16 Division, Clemson, South Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/GIS/gap/mapping.html. 

17 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. The Mineral Industry of South Carolina 2003. Available 

18 at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/scstmyb03.pdf. 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.111 - Methods for 

20 Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases 

21 from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors. Washington, D.C. 

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

23 the Operation of Fermi, Unit 2. NUREG-0769, Washington, D.C. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1982. Regulatory Guide 1.145 - Atmospheric 

25 Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. 

26 Revision 1, Washington, D.C. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

28 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan 

30 (ESRP) — Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

31 NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 
Affected Environment 

April 2010 2-173 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Biological Assessment Virgil C. Summer 

2 Nuclear Station License Renewal review Jenkinsville, South Carolina June 2003. Rockville 

3 Maryland. Accession No. ML031770358. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

5 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

6 Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

8 Learned Task Force Final Report. Accessed at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops9 experience/tritium/lr-release-lessons-learned.pdf. Accession No. ML083220312. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Regulatory Guide 1.23 - Meteorological 

11 Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants. Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 

12 ML070350028. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. Memorandum and Order (CLI-07-27) in 

14 the Matter of Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP Site), 

15 November 20, 2007. Docket No. 52-008-ESP. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc16 collections/commission/orders/2007/2007-27cli.html. Accession No. ML082521051. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Notes taken at Robust Redhorse 

18 Conservation Committee Meeting, September 16, 2009, Garnett, South Carolina. Accession 

19 No. ML100600774. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Memorandum and Order (CLI-09-21) in 

21 the Matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined License Application for Williams States 

22 Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) and Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear 

23 Power Plant, Units 3 and 4), November 3, 2009. Docket Nos. 52-018-COL, 52-019-COL, 52-

24 014-COL, and 52-015-COL. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc25 collections/commission/orders/2009/2009-21cli.pdf. Accession No. ML093070690. 

26 Vismor & Associates, Inc. (Vismor). 1997. Comprehensive Plan Update, 1997, Fairfield 

27 County. Accession No. ML090630407. 

28 Vitousek, P.M., C.M. D’Antonio, L.L. Loope, and R. Westbrooks. 1996. “Biological Invasions as 

29 Global Environmental Change.” American Scientist 84(5):468-478. 

30 Wallin, J. E. 1992. “The Symbiotic Nest Association of Yellowfin Shiners, Notropis lutipinnis, 

31 and Bluehead Chubs, Nocomis leptocephalus.” Environmental Biology of Fishes 33(3):287–

32 292. 
Affected Environment 

Draft NUREG-1939 2-174 April 2010 

1 Wilcove, D.S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. “Quantifying threats to 

2 imperiled species in the United States.” Bioscience 48(8):607-615. 
April 2010 3-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 3.0 Site Layout and Plant Description 

2 The site of proposed Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 (referred to as 

3 the proposed Units 2 and 3) is located in Fairfield County in central South Carolina. South 

4 Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), acting for itself and as an agent for Santee Cooper (the 

5 State-owned electric and water utility, formally called South Carolina Public Service Company), 

6 applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for combined construction permits 

7 and operating licenses (COLs) for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. In addition to the COL application, 

8 SCE&G also applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

9 Engineers (USACE) to conduct activities that result in alteration of waters of the United States, 

10 including wetlands. The proposed new units would be situated wholly within the existing 

11 VCSNS site and located approximately 1 mi to the south-southwest of existing Unit 1. The site 

12 is situated approximately 26 mi northwest of the State capital Columbia, South Carolina. 

13 This chapter describes the key plant characteristics that are used to assess the environmental 

14 impacts of the proposed action. The information is drawn from SCE&G’s Environmental Report 

15 (ER) (SCE&G 2009a), its Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (SCE&G 2009b), and 

16 supplemental documentation from SCE&G (SCE&G 2009c, d, e). 

17 Whereas Chapter 2 of this environmental impact statement (EIS) describes the existing 

18 environment of the proposed site and its vicinity, this chapter describes the physical layout of 

19 the proposed plant. This chapter also describes the physical activities involved in building and 

20 operating the plant. The environmental impacts of building and operating the plant are 

21 discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. This chapter is divided into four sections. 

22 Section 3.1 describes the external appearance and layout of the proposed plant. Section 3.2 

23 describes the major plant structures and distinguishes structures that routinely interface with the 

24 environment from those that minimally or temporarily interface with the environment. 

25 Section 3.3 describes the activities involved in building or installing each of the plant structures. 

26 Section 3.4 describes the operational activities of the plant that interface with the environment. 

27 References cited are listed in Section 3.5. 

28 3.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 

29 The VCSNS site currently contains one pressurized light water reactor and associated facilities 

30 (VCSNS Unit 1) located on the southern shore of Monticello Reservoir (NRC 2004). Proposed 

31 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be located approximately 1 mi south of Unit 1 (Figure 3-1). All 

32 systems and structures directly supporting power generation by Units 2 and 3 would be built with 

33 new independent facilities; none would be shared with Unit 1. However, SCE&G noted that 

34 existing infrastructure such as administrative buildings, warehouses, and the training center, 

35 would be modified to accommodate Units 2 and 3 and the existing unit (SCE&G 2009a). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-2 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-1. VCSNS Site Layout 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The proposed location of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would have a design site grade of 400 ft 

2 North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). SCE&G (2009a) states that the “center point 

3 of Unit 2 containment would be approximately 1600 ft west and 4300 ft south of the center point 

4 of Unit 1 containment” and the “center point of Unit 3 containment would be approximately 900 ft 

5 south-southwest of the center point of Unit 2.” The containment vessel, shield building, and 

6 auxiliary building make up the “nuclear island,” which is one of five principal structures of the 

7 standard Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 

8 (AP1000) pressurized water nuclear power reactor proposed for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The 

9 other four principal structures of an AP1000 unit are the turbine, diesel generator, radwaste, and 

10 annex buildings. 

11 The footprint area of each new unit is adjacent to, but separate from, the other. The area 

12 required for the proposed two power-generating units is approximately 47 ac. Each new 

13 VCSNS reactor unit would be supported by two mechanical draft cooling towers, each 

14 approximately 70 ft high and 275 ft in diameter. The total area required for four cooling towers 

15 and associated structures for the circulating-water system (CWS) would be approximately 38 ac 

16 (SCE&G 2009a). A conceptualization of proposed Units 2 and 3 superimposed on the site is 

17 shown in Figure 3-2. 

18 

19 Figure 3-2. Conceptualization of Proposed Units 2 and 3 Superimposed on the VCSNS Site 

20 (SCE&G 2009a)
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-4 April 2010 

1 3.2 Proposed Plant Structures 

2 This section describes each of the major plant structures: the reactor power system, structures 

3 that would have a significant interface with the environment during operation, and the balance of 

4 plant structures. All of these structures are relevant in the discussion of the impacts of building 

5 proposed Units 2 and 3 in Chapter 4. Only the structures that interface with the environment 

6 are relevant to the operational impacts discussed in Chapter 5. 

7 3.2.1 Reactor Power Conversion System 

8 SCE&G has proposed building and operating two Westinghouse AP1000 reactor steam electric 

9 generating systems at the VCSNS site. On January 27, 2006, the NRC issued the final design 

10 certification rule for the AP1000 in the Federal Register (71 FR 4464) based on Revision 15 of 

11 the AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD). Each applicant or licensee intending to construct 

12 and operate a plant based on the AP1000 design may do so by referencing its design 

13 certification rule, as set forth in Appendix D to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

14 (CFR) Part 52. 

15 Westinghouse is requesting to amend the AP1000 DCD. As mentioned in Section 1.1.4, the 

16 reactor design referenced in the application is Revision 17 of the certified design (Westinghouse 

17 2008). The amended application is currently undergoing review. The status of the amended 

18 DCD review is available at www.nrc.gov. Figure 3-3 is an illustration of the reactor power19 conversion system. Each AP1000 reactor is connected to two steam generators that transfer 

20 heat from the reactor core, converting feed water to steam that drives high-pressure and low21 pressure turbines, thereby creating electricity. Steam that has passed through the turbines is 

22 condensed back to water that is heated and pumped back to the steam generators, repeating 

23 the cycle. The AP1000 design has a thermal power rating of 3400 MW(t), with a design gross24 electrical output of approximately 1200 MW(e). The estimated station and auxiliary service load 

25 is 93 MW(e) for each proposed new unit at the VCSNS site, for a net electrical output of 

26 1107 MW(e) per unit (SCE&G 2009a). 

27 3.2.2 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface 

28 The review team divided the plant structures into two primary groups: those that interface with 

29 the environment and those that are internal to the reactor and associated facilities but without 

30 direct interaction with the environment. Examples of interfaces with the environment are 

31 withdrawal of water from the environment at the intake structures, release of water to the 

32 environment at the discharge structure, and release of excess heat to the atmosphere. The 

33 structures or locations with environmental interfaces are considered in the review team’s 

34 assessment of the environmental impacts of facility construction and preconstruction, and 

35 facility operation in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. The power-production processes that would 

36 occur within the plant itself and that do not affect the environment are not relevant to a National 

37 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) review and are not discussed further in 
April 2010 3-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

Site Layout and Plant Description 1 Figure 3-3. AP1000 Power Conversion Diagram (SCE&G 2009a) 2 3 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-6 April 2010 

1 this EIS. However, such internal processes are considered by the NRC staff in the 

2 Westinghouse AP1000 design certification documentation and in NRC safety reviews of the 

3 SCE&G COL application. This section (3.2.2) describes the structures with significant plant4 environment interfaces. The remaining structures are discussed in Section 3.2.3, inasmuch as 

5 they may be relevant in the review team’s consideration of impacts discussed in Chapter 4 of 

6 this EIS. Figure 3-4 illustrates the VCSNS site layout with a grid overlay to reference the 

7 locations of various plant structures and activity areas as they are described in the following 

8 sections. Existing Unit 1 is located primarily in the C2 quadrant. Proposed Units 2 and 3 

9 structures are located primarily in the C3 and C4 quadrants. 

10 3.2.2.1 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage 

11 Landscaping and the stormwater-drainage system affect both the recharge to the subsurface 

12 and the rate and location at which precipitation drains into adjacent creeks and streams. 

13 Impervious areas eliminate recharge to aquifers beneath the site. Pervious areas managed to 

14 reduce runoff and maintained free of vegetation would experience considerably higher recharge 

15 rates than adjacent areas with local vegetation. The stormwater-management system, including 

16 site grading, drainage ditches, and swales, provides a safety function to keep locally intense 

17 precipitation from flooding safety-related structures. 

18 The stormwater-retention basins in the immediate vicinity of the location of proposed Units 2 

19 and 3 are shown in Figure 3-5. The proposed site is on top of a hill and stormwater would drain 

20 away from the site in several directions and into several unnamed creeks to the west and into 

21 Mayo Creek to the east. Once drainage enters Mayo Creek it would flow south, then west 

22 around the southern base of the powerblock area. 

23 3.2.2.2 Cooling System 

24 The cooling system represents the largest interface between the plant and the environment. 

25 Makeup water would be provided to the plant through an intake structure on Monticello 

26 Reservoir. A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the environment via the 

27 discharge structure on Parr Reservoir. The remaining portion of the water would be released to 

28 the atmosphere via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. 

29 These components represent interfaces between the plant and the environment. This section 

30 describes the components of the proposed cooling system based on the information provided by 

31 SCE&G in its ER (SCE&G 2009a) and FSAR (SCE&G 2009b). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 3-4. VCSNS Site Layout Showing Major Structure and Activity Areas for Proposed 

3 Units 2 and 3 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-8 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 3-5. Site Layout Closeup 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Cooling-Water Intake Structures 

2 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would obtain water for the cooling-water systems from Monticello 

3 Reservoir. Two new intake structures are proposed: one for makeup water for the CWS cooling 

4 towers and one for makeup water for the service-water system (SWS) cooling tower and for the 

5 potable, fire-protection, and demineralized water systems. The CWS intake would be the larger 

6 of the two and would be located on the shore of Monticello Reservoir approximately 1250 ft west 

7 of the Unit 1 intake (Figure 3-4, grid reference C2). This intake would be constructed of 

8 concrete; it would be approximately 60 ft long and 75 ft wide. It would house six raw-water 

9 pumps (three per AP1000 unit), each in an individual pump bay with a dedicated trash rack for 

10 coarse-debris removal and a traveling screen for fine-debris removal. A plan view of the CWS 

11 intake system’s six pump bays is shown in Figure 3-6. A cross-sectional view of one pump bay 

12 is shown in Figure 3-7. 

13 The intake structure for the water-treatment plant proposed for providing SWS makeup water, 

14 and other miscellaneous treated-water systems (potable, fire protection, demineralized water 

15 systems) would be located in Monticello Reservoir approximately 5500 ft east of the Unit 1 intake 

16 (Figure 3-4, grid reference E2). This proposed intake structure consists of a 255-ft-long, 17-ft17 wide access pier extending approximately 200 ft into the reservoir, a 14-in.-diameter intake pipe 

18 suspended from the pier, and a cylindrical concrete wet well approximately 10 ft in diameter 

19 (SCE&G 2009f). The wet well is a chamber set in the reservoir to collect the water to be pumped 

20 to the water-treatment plant; the end of the intake pipe extends into the wet well. Screens in the 

21 side of the wet well allow water to pass through but exclude debris. 

22 Discharge Structure 

23 Water released from proposed Units 2 and 3 would flow through a pipeline to a discharge 

24 structure (outfall) on the eastern shore of Parr Reservoir, approximately 5000 ft west-southwest 

25 of Units 2 and 3. The pipeline would be routed along the rail corridor between VCSNS Units 2 

26 and 3 and Parr Reservoir (Figure 3-4, grid references A4, B4, C4). The proposed discharge 

27 structure consists of a valve box and weir chamber housed in a structure 20 ft wide, 60 ft long, 

28 and approximately 23 ft deep, situated mostly below grade on the shoreline (Figure 3-8). 

29 Effluent would exit the weir chamber through a 36-in.-diameter discharge pipe to a diffuser line 

30 containing multiple ports that discharge approximately 3 ft above the bottom of Parr Reservoir. 

31 The proposed diffuser design has 20 ports, each with an inside diameter of 7 in., spaced 3.67 ft 

32 apart (on center), and alternately opening upstream and downstream. The diffuser line would 

33 be approximately 70 ft long; the main pipe and bottom part of each diffuser would be sunk into 

34 the bottom of the reservoir and stabilized with riprap (Figure 3-9) (SCE&G 2009a). 
Draft NUREG-1939 3-10 April 2010 

Site Layout and Plant Description 

1 

Figure 3-6. Plan View of the Circulating-Water System Intake Structure (SCE&G 2009a) 2 
April 2010 3-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

Site Layout and Plant Description 1 Figure 3-7. Cross-Section View of the Circulating-Water System Intake Structure (SCE&G 2009a) 2 
Draft NUREG-1939 3-12 April 2010 

Site Layout and Plant Description 

1 

Figure 3-8. Plan and Cross-Section Views of the Outfall Discharge System (SCE&G 2009a) 2 
April 2010 3-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

Site Layout and Plant Description 1 Figure 3-9. Plan and Cross-Section Views of the Outfall Discharge Ports (SCE&G 2009a) 2 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-14 April 2010 

1 Cooling Towers 

2 Proposed Units 2 and 3 would use closed-cycle cooling towers to dissipate heat from both the 

3 CWS and the SWS. As described in Section 3.1, each unit requires two cooling towers for the 

4 CWS; these are mechanical draft towers with circular concrete shells, approximately 275 ft in 

5 diameter at the base and 70 ft high, including the fans on top. In each tower, fans blow air 

6 across water sprayed through fine nozzles, removing heat from the water and rejecting that heat 

7 to the atmosphere. The four towers would be aligned north-south, located to the east, and 

8 extending slightly farther south of Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-5). Each new unit would also have 

9 one cooling tower for the SWS, rectangular in shape, located adjacent to the AP1000 turbine 

10 building. These would also be mechanical draft cooling towers, each divided into two cells. 

11 3.2.2.3 Other Structures with a Permanent Environmental Interface 

12 Roads, railroad lines, and buildings are the additional structures with a permanent 

13 environmental interface that would be built on the proposed site. Proposed new buildings 

14 associated with proposed Units 2 and 3 include the water-treatment plant, sanitary waste15 treatment plant, and power transmission system. 

16 Roads 

17 An existing road network on the VCSNS site would provide access to and between the existing 

18 facilities. To support proposed Units 2 and 3, existing roads would be improved, and 

19 approximately 6 mi of new road would be constructed. New roadways would include an 

20 approximately 1.5-mi main access road from State Highway 213 (SC-213) near SCE&G’s New 

21 Nuclear Deployment Office to Units 2 and 3, a 0.33-mi heavy-haul road between the laydown 

22 and fabrication areas, a 1.5-mi access road between the Units 2 and 3 cooling towers and the 

23 raw-water intake structure on Monticello Reservoir, and a perimeter road around the new units. 

24 Parr Road and much of the existing access road between Parr Road and VCSNS Unit 1 would 

25 be upgraded for use as the main access for Units 2 and 3 building materials and worker traffic. 

26 In the vicinity of the new units, this access road would be rerouted to the east side of the rail line 

27 into the site (SCE&G 2009a). 

28 Railroad Lines 

29 SCE&G owns a spur railroad line connecting the VCSNS site to the Norfolk Southern Railroad’s 

30 main line along the Broad River. The VCSNS railroad line, which terminates at Unit 1, would be 

31 rerouted and another spur added between the new units and their cooling towers (Figure 3-4, 

32 grid reference C4). SCE&G indicated that another spur might be added to serve the concrete 

33 batch plant, which would be located south of the site of the proposed cooling towers along the 

34 new main access road (Figure 3-5). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Water-Treatment Plant 

2 A new water-treatment plant would be built near the proposed treatment plant intake on 

3 Monticello Reservoir approximately 1.5 mi northeast of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-4, grid 

4 reference E2) (SCE&G 2009a). Water would be pretreated as necessary at this treatment plant 

5 prior to supplying the plant service, potable, fire protection, and demineralized water systems. 

6 Diesel-Generator Building 

7 Diesel generators would be installed on the site to provide a backup source of power when the 

8 normal power source is disrupted. Combustion emissions would be released to the atmosphere 

9 from the generators only during emergency operations and periodic testing. Two diesel 

10 generators would be located in the AP1000 diesel-generator building; ancillary diesel generators 

11 would be located in the AP1000 annex building (SCE&G 2009a). 

12 Turbine Building 

13 The AP1000 turbine building would be a metal-sided rectangular structure rising 146 ft above 

14 grade, oriented with its long axis radiating from the containment structure (Figure 3-5). The 

15 turbine building would have a drain system that discharges to a wastewater retention basin 

16 connected to the blowdown sump, and a vent system for the condenser and turbine. 

17 Radioactive Waste Facility 

18 The AP1000 radioactive waste facility would be a steel-framed structure with a height of 

19 approximately 36 ft above grade. It would house the holding and processing systems for low20 level liquid radioactive waste and solid radioactive waste. It also would house the collection and 

21 processing system for gaseous radioactive waste. Radioactive waste management is described 

22 in more detail in Section 3.4.3. Packaged solid wastes and liquid mixed wastes would be stored 

23 in the radioactive waste facility until shipment offsite for further processing or disposal. The 

24 environmental interfaces for the radioactive waste-treatment facility would be liquid effluent 

25 discharges to the blowdown discharge line, gaseous effluent venting, and solid waste handling 

26 for offsite shipment. 

27 Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant 

28 SCE&G plans to build a new sanitary waste-treatment plant to support proposed VCSNS Units 

29 2 and 3. It would be sized to serve the operational workforce of both units (approximately 800 

30 workers) and would likely be built in the vicinity of Units 2 and 3. Effluent from the sanitary 

31 waste-treatment plant would be discharged to the blowdown sump where it would be mixed with 

32 cooling-tower blowdown before being discharged to Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-16 April 2010 

1 Power Transmission System 

2 In Sections 2.2.2 and 3.7 of its ER (SCE&G 2009a), SCE&G described the power transmission 

3 system that would connect proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to the power grid. A new 230-kV 

4 switchyard occupying about 28 ac would be constructed approximately 1000 ft northwest of 

5 Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-4, grid reference B3). Once the switchyard is completed, it would be 

6 fenced off to limit access; the switchyard is considered to minimally interface with the 

7 environment during normal operation. Table 3-1 lists the proposed new 230-kV transmission 

8 lines for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

9 Table 3-1. Summary of New 230-kV Transmission Lines for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3

Transmission-Line Route Owner 

Total 

Length 

(mi) 

Length in 

Existing 

Rights-ofWay (mi) 

Length to 

Parallel 

Existing 

Corridor (mi) 

Length of New 

Rights-of-Way 

(mi) 

VCSNS-Killian SCE&G 37 19 0 18 

VCSNS-Flat Creek Santee Cooper 72 70 2 0 

VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 

(second line added to 

existing single line) 

SCE&G 19 19 0 0 

VCSNS-St. George 

(double line) 

SCE&G 134 66 0 68 

VCSNS-Varnville Santee Cooper 163 162 1 0 

Sources: FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; SCE&G 2009a 

10 Transmission lines and corridors are considered to interface with the environment during 

11 operation because there are potential continuing impacts from electric fields, noise, and corridor 

12 maintenance. Each new unit would be connected to the new switchyard by two overhead lines. 

13 Three overhead lines would connect the new switchyard with the existing Unit 1 switchyard. 

14 Ten 230-kV transmission lines (eight owned by SCE&G, two owned by Santee Cooper) and one 

15 115-kV line presently connect the Unit 1 switchyard with the regional transmission system. 

16 However, the existing transmission system at VCSNS does not have the capacity to support 

17 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. As noted in Section 2.2.2, six new 230-kV lines (three for each 

18 unit) would be required to connect the new units to the regional power grid. All of the new lines 

19 for Unit 2 would be single-circuit lines. Two of the three new lines for Unit 3 would be double20 circuit lines and one would be a single-circuit line. The proposed routes of the new transmission 

21 lines are described in Section 2.2.2. Where possible, the new lines would occupy, expand, or 

22 parallel existing transmission-line corridors; however, routes for several of the proposed lines 

23 have yet to be determined. Most of the new lines would connect to existing substations or 

24 switchyards, but SCE&G proposes to build a new substation on SCE&G-owned property near 

25 St. George, South Carolina, to connect the new double-circuit VCSNS-St. George line. As with 

26 the onsite switchyard, the new substation is not considered to interface with the environment 

27 once it is built. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Structures associated with the transmission-line corridors are support towers and access roads. 

2 Where a new line would be sited alongside an existing corridor, that corridor might require 

3 widening and/or moving of existing structures (widths of the existing corridors vary from 50 ft to 

4 240 ft). While the specific structure design depends on the terrain and engineering properties of 

5 the soil along the route, all tower structures would be designed so that span clearances meet or 

6 exceed National Electrical Safety Code standards, and all structures would be properly grounded 

7 (SCE&G 2009a). Towers on the two Santee Cooper lines would be either H-frame or single-pole 

8 design (MACTEC 2008). SCE&G expects to use single steel or concrete poles, which are 

9 standard for its 230-kV lines. These poles are typically 85 ft to 105 ft tall, and spaced 500 ft to 

10 800 ft apart depending on the topography and land cover (FP&S 2008). 

11 3.2.2.4 Other Structures with a Temporary Environmental Interface 

12 Some temporary plant-environment interfacing structures would need to be removed before 

13 proposed Unit 3 operation commences. These include a concrete batch plant, a temporary 

14 sewage treatment plant, and dewatering systems. The impacts from the operation and 

15 installation of these structures are discussed in Chapter 4. 

16 Concrete Batch Plant 

17 A concrete batch plant would occupy 17 ac located south of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling 

18 towers, adjacent to the new main access road and a 20.5-ac laydown area (Figure 3-4, grid 

19 references C4, C5). This area would house the equipment and facilities needed for delivery, 

20 materials handling and storage, and preparation of concrete. Water for the concrete batch plant 

21 would come from the Jenkinsville Water District until the planned water-treatment facility for 

22 Units 2 and 3 is completed and operational (SCE&G 2009a).

23 Temporary Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant 

24 A temporary sanitary waste-treatment plant would be placed near the main building-support 

25 area (Figure 3-4, grid reference D6). This treatment plant would serve approximately 350 

26 workers in the support area (onsite workers would be served by portable toilet facilities and by 

27 the proposed permanent sanitary waste-treatment system when that system becomes 

28 operational) (SCE&G 2009a). The discharge location for the temporary sanitary waste29 treatment plant would be finalized as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

30 System (NPDES) permitting process; proposed locations are Mayo Creek, Parr Reservoir, or 

31 the Broad River (SCE&G 2009a). 

32 Dewatering Systems 

33 Dewatering is expected to be a localized activity associated with dredging or excavation 

34 (SCE&G 2009a). Submersible pumps would be used to dewater the shoreline areas at the 

35 intake and discharge structure locations; these pumps would discharge to the adjacent surface 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-18 April 2010 

1 water. Deep excavation in the powerblock region might require temporary installation of 

2 dewatering sumps and pumps, which would discharge to the stormwater-management system. 

3 3.2.3 Structures with a Minor Environmental Interface 

4 The structures described in the following sections would have minimal environmental interface 

5 during plant operation. 

6 3.2.3.1 Nuclear Island and Annex Building 

7 Each AP1000 nuclear island would consist of a containment building, a shield building, and an 

8 auxiliary building (Figure 3-5). The foundation for the nuclear island would be an integral base 

9 mat that supports these buildings. The steel containment vessel would be completely 

10 surrounded by the shield building and the auxiliary building. The containment foundations 

11 would be approximately 40 ft below grade. The construction materials would be “architecturally 

12 similar to Unit 1” (SCE&G 2009a), i.e., generally concrete or steel, for a similar external 

13 appearance. The tallest building would be the shield building at approximately 229 ft above 

14 grade; the auxiliary building would be approximately 80 ft above grade. The annex building 

15 would be a concrete-and-steel structure that would rise to a height of approximately 81 ft above 

16 grade and provide personnel access to the plant and house plant-support systems and 

17 equipment. 

18 3.2.3.2 Cranes and Footings 

19 A 250-ft tall crane on a concrete footing would be used to erect Units 2 and 3. Other cranes 

20 may be used for materials handling and erection. 

21 3.2.3.3 Pipelines 

22 New pipelines would be constructed to convey water from the raw-water intake to the proposed 

23 Units 2 and 3 cooling towers, from the water-treatment plant intake to the water-treatment plant, 

24 from the water-treatment plant to the Units 2 and 3 SWS, from the various water systems to the 

25 blowdown sump, and from the blowdown sump to the discharge structure on Parr Reservoir. 

26 The locations of these structures and the pipeline routes are shown in Figure 3-4 and 

27 Figure 3-5. The blowdown discharge pipe would be 36-in. in diameter and would be buried in a 

28 trench parallel to the railroad line. 

29 3.2.3.4 Support, Laydown, and Spoils Areas 

30 Multiple construction support and laydown areas would be established to support fabrication 

31 and erection activities and might be maintained as laydown areas for future maintenance and 

32 refurbishment of the plant (Figure 3-4). A 48-ac construction support area located at the facility 

33 entrance on the new main access road, just north of the existing New Nuclear Deployment 

34 Office, would contain temporary offices, warehouses, and sanitary, craft, and training facilities. 

35 Other laydown, fabrication, parking, and support areas would range in size from 6 ac to 37 ac. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Two proposed earthwork spoils areas are identified: a 54-ac area, approximately 4500 ft south 

2 of Units 2 and 3, and a 23-ac area, approximately 1500 ft southeast of the cooling towers 

3 (Figure 3-4). Dredge spoils from the intake and discharge structure areas would be placed in a 

4 5.5-ac spoils area approximately 3000 ft south of Units 2 and 3 near the discharge-structure 

5 access road (Figure 3-4). 

6 3.2.3.5 Parking 

7 Parking areas would be created to support the construction workforce and some parking would 

8 be retained for the operating workforce once plant installation is completed. Temporary parking 

9 areas would be in the vicinity of the plant, support, and laydown areas identified in Figure 3-4. 

10 The permanent parking area for the operating workforce would be approximately 800 spaces, 

11 located west of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Figure 3-4). 

12 3.2.3.6 Miscellaneous Buildings 

13 A variety of small miscellaneous buildings would exist throughout the site to support worker, 

14 fabrication, building, and operational needs (e.g., shop buildings, support offices, warehouses, 

15 and guard houses). Some buildings may be temporary and would be removed after the plant 

16 begins operation. 

17 3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities 

18 The NRC’s authority is limited to construction activities that have “a reasonable nexus to 

19 radiological health and safety or common defense and security” (72 FR 57416), and the NRC 

20 has defined “construction” within the context of its regulatory authority. Examples of 

21 construction (defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a)) activities for safety-related structures, systems, or 

22 components include driving of piles; subsurface preparation; placement of backfill, concrete, or 

23 permanent retaining walls within an excavation; installation of foundations; or in-place assembly, 

24 erection, fabrication or testing. 

25 Other activities related to building the plant that do not require NRC approval (but may require a 

26 DA permit) may occur before, during, or after NRC-authorized construction activities. These 

27 activities are termed “preconstruction” in 10 CFR 51.45(c) and may be regulated by other local, 

28 State, Tribal, or Federal agencies. Preconstruction includes activities such as site preparation 

29 (e.g., clearing, grading, erosion control and other environmental mitigation measures); erection 

30 of fences; excavation; erection of support buildings or facilities; building service facilities (e.g., 

31 roads, parking lots, railroad lines, sanitary treatment systems, potable water system, 

32 transmission lines); and procurement or fabrication of components occurring somewhere other 

33 than the final, in-place location at the proposed site. Further information about the delineation of 

34 construction and preconstruction activities is presented in Chapter 4 of this EIS. 

35 This section describes the structures and activities associated with building proposed Units 2 

36 and 3. Table 3-2 provides general definitions and examples of activities that would be 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-20 April 2010 

1 performed when building the new units. This section characterizes the activities for the principal 

2 structures to provide the requisite background for the assessment of environmental impacts; it is 

3 not intended to be a complete discussion of every activity or a detailed engineering plan. 

4 Table 3-2. Descriptions and Examples of Activities Associated with Building Proposed Units 2 

5 and 3 

Activity Description Examples 

Clearing Removing vegetation or existing structures from 

the land surface. 

Cutting planted pines from an area to be 

used for construction laydown. 

Grubbing Removing roots and stumps by digging. Removing stumps and roots of pines logged 

from the construction laydown area. 

Grading Reforming the elevation of the land surface to 

facilitate operation of the plant and drainage of 

precipitation. 

Leveling the site of the reactors and cooling 

towers. 

Hauling Transport of material and workforce along 

established roadways. 

Driving on new access road by construction 

workforce. 

Paving Laying impervious surfaces, such as asphalt 

and concrete, to provide roadways, walkways, 

parking areas, and site drainage. 

Paving the parking area. 

Shallow excavation Digging a hole or trench to a depth reachable 

with a backhoe. Shallow excavation may not 

require dewatering. 

Placing pipelines; setting foundations for 

small buildings. 

Deep excavation Digging an open hole in the ground. Deep 

excavation requires equipment with greater 

vertical reach than a backhoe. Deep excavation 

generally requires dewatering systems to keep 

the hole from flooding. 

Excavating the base mat for the reactor. 

Excavation 

dewatering 

Pumping water from wells or pumping water 

directly to keep excavations from flooding with 

groundwater or surface runoff. 

Pumping water from reactor building deep 

excavation. 

Dredging Removal of substrates and sediment in 

navigable waters, including wetlands. 

Preparing the location of the outfall diffuser 

in Parr Reservoir. 

Spoils placement Placement of construction (earthwork) or 

dredged material in an upland location. 

Relocating dredge spoils from Parr 

Reservoir discharge area to an upland 

dredge disposal area. 

Erection Assembly of all modules into their final 

positions, including all connections between 

modules. 

Using a crane to assemble reactor modules.

Fabrication Creating an engineered material from the 

assembly of a variety of standardized parts. 

Fabrication can include conforming native soils 

to some engineered specification (e.g., 

compacting soil to meet some engineered fill 

specification). 

Preparing concrete for pours; laying rebar 

for base mat. 

Vegetation 

management 

Thinning, planting, trimming, and clearing 

vegetation. 

Maintaining the switchyard free of 

vegetation. 

Filling a wetland or 

waterbody 

Discharge of dredge and/or fill material into 

waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

Placing fill material into wetlands to bring it 

to grade with the adjacent land surface. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 3.3.1 Major Affected Areas 

2 SCE&G has stated (SCE&G 2009a) that building activities for proposed Units 2 and 3 would 

3 occur within the boundaries of SCE&G’s property (Figure 3-4), except for the new transmission 

4 lines described in Sections 2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3. Access roads for Units 2 and 3 would enter the 

5 property from the south; the railroad spur enters from the west. The blowdown discharge 

6 pipeline would share the railroad corridor between Units 2 and 3 and the discharge structure on 

7 Parr Reservoir. The intake structures would be on Monticello Reservoir at the north end of the 

8 property. The following sections briefly describe the construction and preconstruction activities 

9 associated with the structures described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. 

10 Landscape and Stormwater Drainage 

11 Preparing to build and operate proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require land to be cleared 

12 and graded for the main reactor buildings and support facilities and additional space for material 

13 and equipment laydown areas. The details of the alterations are discussed in the following 

14 sections. After the site is graded, a stormwater-drainage system would be created around the 

15 facilities to direct stormwater away from the operational areas. Drainage ditches and pipes 

16 would route surface water to three water-retention and/or infiltration ponds. The locations of 

17 these ponds are shown in Figure 3-5. 

18 Powerblock and Cooling Towers 

19 Preparing the locations for the powerblock and cooling towers would be the largest and most 

20 complex activity on the site (Figure 3-5). Deep excavation and extensive fill placement and 

21 large-scale fabrication and erection activities would be involved in building the AP1000 units. 

22 The cooling towers would require extensive grading, filling (including a portion of a wetland), 

23 shallow excavation, and fabrication and erection activities. Building the diesel-generator facility 

24 would involve limited fabrication and erection. Various components would be hauled to the site 

25 by railroad and road. Railroads and roads would be built or upgraded on the VCSNS site, 

26 particularly in the immediate vicinity of Units 2 and 3 and their cooling towers. 

27 Excavation Dewatering 

28 Setting the reactor-shield building foundation would require excavation to about 40 ft to 50 ft 

29 below grade level. The water table in this area is about 27 ft to 34 ft below grade level (SEC&G 

30 2009a). Dewatering systems would be installed if required. At a minimum, SCE&G expects to 

31 install drainage sumps at the bottom of the excavation to facilitate the removal of surface 

32 drainage. Water from the excavations would be pumped to the stormwater-management 

33 system (SCE&G 2009a). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-22 April 2010 

1 Shallow excavation for foundations for other buildings and trenching for pipelines are not 

2 expected to require dewatering. 

3 Intake Structures 

4 Installing the intake structure for the CWS would require excavation or dredging below the water 

level of Monticello Reservoir. Approximately 10,000 yd3 5 of material would be removed from an 

approximately 25,000-ft2 6 area (SCE&G 2009c, d). The dredged material would be relocated to 

7 the onsite dredge spoils disposal area (Figure 3-4, grid reference B4). SCE&G has proposed 

8 the placement of a temporary cofferdam that would enclose an area to be excavated and 

9 dewatered to facilitate building the proposed intake structure, which would extend out into the 

10 Monticello Reservoir. The cofferdam would be surrounded by a turbidity curtain, which is a 

11 floating geotextile material designed to deflect and contain sediment within a limited area and 

12 provide sufficient residence time to settle soil particles, thereby minimizing sediment transport 

13 from a disturbed area adjacent to or within a body of water. Water removed from within the 

14 cofferdam would be discharged outside the cofferdam and inside the turbidity curtain (SCE&G 

15 2009a). 

16 Fabrication of the CWS intake structure would occur after excavation and dredging to reach the 

17 necessary elevation for the bottom of the structure. After excavation and dredging, the pump 

18 house would be erected and the necessary electrical systems and piping would be installed to 

19 create an operational intake structure. 

20 Similar activities would be required to prepare for and fabricate the intake structure for the 

21 water-treatment plant intake on Monticello Reservoir. A cofferdam would be installed to allow 

22 dewatering of the work area; a turbidity curtain would be used to control suspended sediment 

23 during dewatering. Options considered by SCE&G include a rock-filled cofferdam enclosing the 

24 entire access pier and wet well structure, or a localized sheet-pile cofferdam enclosing only the 

25 wet well (SCE&G 2009f). This intake structure would also require installation of pilings to 

26 support the access pier. Piling installation would be done from within or from the top of the 

27 rock-filled cofferdam if that option was implemented, or from a barge platform if the localized 

28 cofferdam option was implemented. All wet well installation activities would occur within the 

29 cofferdam: a concrete foundation would be poured on compacted base material and the 

30 precast concrete wet well sections would be attached to the base. 

31 Discharge Structure 

32 Installation of the blowdown-discharge diffuser in Parr Reservoir would require the creation of 

33 an enclosure that can be dewatered and excavated or dredged. Sheet pile would be driven into 

34 the bottom of Parr Reservoir approximately 1.25 mi above Parr Shoals Dam to create the 

35 enclosure; it would extend 100 ft offshore to allow excavation of the reservoir bottom and 

emplacement of the diffuser pipe. Approximately 11,000 yd3 36 of material would be removed from 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

an approximately 24,000-ft2 1 area (SCE&G 2009c, d). The dredged material would be relocated 

2 to the onsite dredge spoils disposal area (Figure 3-4, grid reference B4). 

3 Roadways 

4 Building the heavy-haul road and the site-access roads would require clearing and grading of land 

5 along the proposed routes shown in Figure 3-4 (SCE&G 2009a). The new main access road 

6 would cross Mayo Creek just north of the construction-support area near the SCE&G New 

7 Nuclear Deployment office and approximately 1 mi southeast of proposed Units 2 and 3. 

8 Railroad Lines 

9 Relocating the existing rail line and adding any new rail spurs would require clearing, grading, 

10 and fill placement in the locations of the new rail lines. 

11 Water-Treatment Plant 

12 Building the water-treatment plant would involve shallow excavation, fabrication, and erection on 

13 a cleared, graded area. 

14 Sanitary Waste-Treatment Plant 

15 Building the sanitary waste-treatment plant would involve shallow excavation and limited 

16 fabrication and erection. The facility would be designed in accordance with industry standards 

17 and in compliance with the Clean Water Act and NPDES-permit requirements. 

18 Pipelines 

19 Laying pipelines would occur in several areas on the site. The pipelines connecting the water20 intake structure to the cooling-tower basins would run south from the intake structure along 

21 currently existing roads. The pipelines connecting the water-treatment plant to Units 2 and 3 

22 would run west from the water-treatment plant along existing roads. The blowdown lines would 

23 run west from the cooling-tower basins along the rail corridor to Parr Reservoir and along the 

24 shoreline to the diffuser location approximately 1.25 mi above Parr Shoals Dam. The intake, 

25 treated-water, and discharge pipelines would generally be buried in trenches. Pipeline 

26 installation would require the clearing of land along the pipeline corridor and shallow excavation 

27 (trenching). 

28 Concrete Batch Plant 

29 Erecting the temporary concrete batch plant would occur on a cleared, graded area. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-24 April 2010 

1 Construction Support and Laydown Areas 

2 Establishing and preparing laydown areas would be necessary to stage activities. Prior to and 

3 during construction and preconstruction, materials would be brought to the site and stored in 

4 laydown areas. SCE&G expects to clear and grade laydown areas in various locations on the 

5 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 sites. Support and laydown areas would be graded relatively 

6 level and covered with crushed stone or gravel. Normally only limited vegetation is allowed in 

7 laydown areas. 

8 Parking 

9 Parking areas would be graded and paved. 

10 Miscellaneous Buildings 

11 Excavating for shallow foundations would be required prior to fabrication and erection of 

12 miscellaneous buildings. 

13 Switchyard 

14 Clearing and grading 28 ac of land would be required for the proposed 230-kV switchyard. 

15 Electrical switching structures would be erected and the switchyard would be fenced 

16 (SCE&G 2009a). 

17 Transmission Lines 

18 Installation of transmission lines would require the removal of trees and shrubs along portions of 

19 the transmission-line corridor, movement of construction equipment, and shallow excavation for 

20 the foundations of the transmission-line towers. 

21 Cranes and Crane Footings 

22 Fabrication of footings and erection of cranes would be necessary to build the larger plant 

23 structures. 

24 3.3.2 Summary of Resource Commitments During Construction and 

25 Preconstruction 

26 Table 3-3 provides a list of the significant resource commitments of construction and 

27 preconstruction. The values in the table combined with the affected environment described in 

28 Chapter 2 provide the basis for the impacts assessed in Chapter 4. These values were stated 

29 in the ER and the review team has confirmed that the values are not unreasonable. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 3-3. Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Proposed Units 2 and 3 

2 Construction and Preconstruction 

Resource Areas Value Parameter Description 

All Resource Areas 123 mo 

(10.25 yr) 

Duration of construction and preconstruction 

activities for two AP1000 units 

Land Use, Terrestrial Ecology, 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

(Site and Vicinity) 

505 ac Disturbed area footprint: 

255 ac permanently disturbed; 

180 ac temporarily disturbed 

Land Use, Terrestrial Ecology, 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

(Offsite, Transmission Lines) 

86 mi 

50 ft to 250 ft 

Length of new transmission-line corridors: 18 mi 

on Killian line; 68 mi on St. George line 

Final width of new and expanded corridors 

(assuming these would be similar to existing 

corridors) 

Hydrology – Groundwater 40 ft to 50 ft 

below grade 

Excavation depth to which dewatering would be 

required 

Hydrology – Surface Water, 

Aquatic Ecology 

420 gpm 

(1 cfs) 

Water supply (maximum) obtained from 

Monticello Reservoir and Jenkinsville Water 

District 

 12.1 gpm 

(17,500 gpd) 

Effluent discharge to surface water, temporary 

sanitary water-treatment plant 

Socioeconomics, 

Transportation, Air Quality 

2170 workers Average workforce over 10-year period: first 

quarter of year 2 through fourth quarter of year 

11; number of workers is above average for 5.5 

years from the first quarter of year 5 through the 

second quarter of year 10 

 3600 workers Maximum workforce: peak occurs in year 6; 

more than 3000 workers would be onsite from 

the third quarter of year 5 to the second quarter 

of year 9 

Terrestrial Ecology, 

Nonradiological Health, 

Socioeconomics 

108 dBA 

60-80 dBA 

Peak noise level 

Noise level 400 ft from activity 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-26 April 2010 

1 3.4 Operational Activities 

2 The operational activities considered in the review team’s environmental review are those 

3 associated with structures that interface with the environment, as described in Section 3.2.2. 

4 Examples of operational activities are withdrawing water for the cooling system, discharging 

5 blowdown water and sanitary effluent, and discharging waste heat to the atmosphere. Safety 

6 activities within the plant are discussed by the applicant in the FSAR portion of its application 

7 (SCE&G 2008). The results of NRC’s safety review will be documented in its Safety Evaluation 

8 Report. 

9 The following sections describe the operational activities, including operational modes 

10 (Section 3.4.1), plant-environment interfaces during operations (Section 3.4.2), and the 

11 radioactive and nonradioactive waste-management systems (Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4), and 

12 summarize the values of resource parameters likely to be experienced during operations in 

13 Section 3.4.5. 

14 3.4.1 Description of Operational Modes 

15 The operational modes for proposed Units 2 and 3 considered in the assessment of operational 

16 impacts on the environment (Chapter 5 of this EIS) are normal operating conditions and 

17 emergency shutdown conditions. These are considered the conditions under which maximum 

18 water withdrawal, heat dissipation, and effluent discharges occur. Cooldown, refueling, and 

19 accidents are alternate modes to normal plant operation during which water intake, cooling20 tower evaporation, water discharge, and radioactive releases may change from nominal 

21 conditions. 

22 3.4.2 Plant-Environment Interfaces During Operation 

23 This section describes the operational activities related to structures with an interface to the 

24 environment. 

25 3.4.2.1 Intake Structures 

26 Monticello Reservoir would be the source of water involved in the operation of proposed Units 2 

27 and 3. Water would be pumped from Monticello Reservoir to supply cooling water to Units 2 

28 and 3 at the CWS intake and to supply other plant water systems at the water-treatment plant 

29 intake structures described in Section 3.2.2.2. Under normal operating conditions for both units, 

30 the CWS withdrawal rate would be approximately 36,000 gpm; the maximum combined 

31 pumping rate to supply both units with raw makeup water would be approximately 59,000 gpm. 

32 The water withdrawal rate for the water-treatment plant would be approximately 1000 gpm 

33 under normal conditions and 3000 gpm maximum. The normal case assumes the cooling 

34 towers are operating at four cycles of concentration; the maximum assumes the cooling towers 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 are operating at two cycles of concentration. The systems would be operated at four cycles of 

2 concentration unless high suspended solids concentrations in Monticello Reservoir occurred. 

3 Under elevated suspended solids conditions, two cycles of concentration would be used to 

4 prevent scale formation or deposition from degrading tower performance (SCE&G 2009a). 

5 Each CWS intake pump would be protected by a debris-exclusion system consisting of a bar 

6 screen to trap large debris and a dual-flow traveling screen to filter out fine debris. The intake7 approach channel and pump-bay structures are designed so that the maximum through-screen 

8 velocity would be 0.5 fps at the minimum water elevation in Monticello Reservoir. At the water9 treatment plant intake, the end of the intake pipe would be inside a concrete wet well (a 

10 chamber used to collect liquid) in Monticello Reservoir. Screens in the side of the wet well allow 

11 water to pass into the wet well while excluding debris. The maximum through-screen velocity at 

12 the water-treatment plant intake would also be 0.5 fps at the minimum water elevation in 

13 Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a; SCE&G 2009f). 

14 3.4.2.2 Cooling Towers 

15 Waste heat is a byproduct of normal power generation at a nuclear power plant. VCSNS Units 

16 2 and 3 would each have two closed-cycle wet-cooling towers to dissipate heat from the CWS 

17 to the atmosphere. Two CWS cooling towers are designed to dissipate a heat load of 

7.63 x 109

 Btu/hr (1.53 x 1010 18 Btu/hr for both units) (SCE&G 2009a). Each unit would also have 

19 one SWS cooling tower, which, during normal operation, is expected to dissipate a heat load of 

103 x 106 20 Btu/hr through one of its two cells. If increased cooling capacity were needed, such 

21 as during plant cooldown, both cells would be used to dissipate a maximum heat load of 

346 x 106

 Btu/hr (692 x 106 22 Btu/hr maximum for both units) (SCE&G 2009a). 

23 Excess heat in the cooling water would be transferred to the atmosphere by evaporative and 

24 conductive cooling in the cooling tower. In addition to evaporative losses, a small percentage of 

25 water would be lost in the form of droplets (drift) from the cooling towers, potentially causing 

26 visible plumes. Water lost to evaporation and drift is considered consumptive use because the 

27 water is not available for reuse. As with water withdrawal, the normal case assumes the cooling 

28 towers are operating at four cycles of operation and the maximum case assumes two cycles of 

29 concentration. SCE&G provided the following consumptive use rates in the ER (SCE&G 

30 2009a). The CWS normal and maximum evaporation rates would be 27,160 and 29,400 gpm, 

31 respectively. The SWS normal and maximum evaporation rates would be 480 and 1380 gpm, 

32 respectively. The drift rates of 13 gpm for the CWS and 1 gpm for the SWS would not change 

33 with the number of cycles of concentration (SCE&G 2009a). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-28 April 2010 

1 3.4.2.3 Discharge Structure 

2 CWS and SWS Cooling-Tower Blowdown 

3 The cooling water that does not evaporate or drift from the towers would be routed back to the 

4 cooling-tower basin at the base of each tower; this water is known as blowdown. Some waste 

5 heat would be removed from the cooling system with the blowdown water. The maximum 

6 blowdown water temperature was estimated to be 91.8°F (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G estimated 

7 the normal CWS blowdown flow rate to be 9041 gpm (maximum 29,387 gpm) and the normal 

8 SWS blowdown flow rate to be 159 gpm (maximum 459 gpm). 

9 Evaporation of cooling-water system water from the cooling tower increases the concentration 

10 of dissolved solids in the cooling-water system. To limit the concentration of dissolved solids, a 

11 portion of the blowdown water would be removed and replaced with makeup water from 

12 Monticello Reservoir. The blowdown water from each cooling tower would collect in a basin at 

13 the base of the tower. Time spent in the basin allows for settling of suspended solids, and 

14 chemical treatment if required, prior to discharging to the blowdown sump and eventually to Parr 

15 Reservoir. SCE&G plans to maintain the chemical concentration factor for the CWS cooling 

16 tower between two and four cycles of concentration. As noted previously, the CWS would be 

17 operated at four cycles of concentration unless high suspended solids concentrations in 

18 Monticello Reservoir occurred. If suspended solids were elevated, two cycles of concentration 

19 would be used to prevent scale formation or deposition from degrading tower performance 

20 (SCE&G 2009a). The estimated mean and maximum concentrations of chemicals in blowdown 

21 from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are tabulated below the applicable state water-quality 

22 criteria in Table 3-4. 

23 Other Plant Wastewater 

24 Miscellaneous low-volume wastewater would flow from various equipment and floor drains to 

25 building sumps. Sumps in the turbine building and diesel fuel oil area would discharge 

26 wastewater to an oil separator to isolate waste oil from wastewater. The turbine building sumps 

27 would be monitored for radioactive material; if detected then wastewater would be routed to the 

28 liquid radioactive waste-processing system. The common discharge piping of the sump pumps 

29 would also be monitored for radioactive material. If radioactive material was detected in this 

30 piping, the monitor alarm would trip the sump pumps and retention-basin pumps to isolate 

31 radioactive wastewater. Under normal conditions, nonradioactive wastewater would be pumped 

32 to a wastewater retention basin and mixed with cooling-tower blowdown in the blowdown sump 

33 (Figure 3-10). SCE&G estimated the normal wastewater discharge rate from the wastewater 

34 retention basin to be 144 gpm (maximum 431 gpm) (SCE&G 2009a). 

35 
April 2010 3-29 DRAFT NUREG-1939 

Site Layout and Plant Description 

Table 3-4. Water Quality of Proposed Units 2 and 3 Blowdown Effluent 1 

Category 

Constituent Concentration (μg/L) 

Arsenic 

Barium 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Copper 

Iron 

Lead 

Magnesium 

Manganese 

Mercury 

Nickel 

Selenium 

Silver 

Zinc 

South Carolina PQLs(a) 5 50 0.1 5 10 20 2 50 10 0.0005 10 5 5 10 South Carolina CMCs for freshwater aquatic life(b)

340 — 0.53 — 3.8 — 14.0 — — 1.6 150 — 0.37 0.37 

South Carolina MCLs(b) 10 2000 5 100 — — — — — 2 — 50 — — 

Mean and maximum values calculated from SCDHEC and SCE&G monitoring(c,d)

Mean 0 18 0.1 5.0 0 241 2.0 1856 8.9 0.0005 9.2 0 5.0 4.2Max 0 18 0.1 5.0 0 600 2.0 1856 21 0.0005 10 0 5. 0 24

Four-cycle concentration in blowdown at point of discharge(d)

Mean 0 71 0.4 20 0 962 8.0 7424 36 0.002 37 0 20 17Max 0 71 0.4 20 0 2400 8.0 7424 84 0.002 40 0 20 96

Diluted blowdown effluent concentration at broad river's 7Q10 flow(d)

Mean 0 19 0.1 5.5 0 264 2.2 2034 9.8 0.00055 10 0 5. 5 4.6Max 0 19 0.1 5.5 0 657 2.2 2034 23 0.00055 11 0 5.5 26

Diluted blowdown effluent concentration at broad river's annual mean flow(d)

Mean 0 18 0.1 5.0 0 244 2.0 1881 9.0 0.00051 9.3 00 5.1 4.3Max 0 18 0.1 5.1 0 608 2.0 1881 21 0.00051 10 0 5.1 24

Source: Adapted from SCE&G 2009a PQL = practical quantitation limit; MCL = maximum contaminant level; CMC = criterion maximum concentration; 7Q10 = lowest flow for 7 consecutive days 

expected to occur once per decade; MDL = method detection limit (a) SCDHEC (2008) (b) SCDHEC Water Classifications and Standards Regulation (R. 61-68), effective April 25, 2008 (c) Mean and maximum concentrations from SCDHEC monitoring at station B-327 (EPA 2006) and SCE&G monitoring of Monticello Reservoir (Table 

2.3-32) 

(d) A single analytical result with an MDL exceeding the applicable PQL was available for silver. SCE&G used a value for the incoming water 

concentration for sliver equal to the PQL of 5 μg/L. Although this value exceeds the relevant SCDHEC CMC, SCE&G does not believe the limited data for silver supports a conclusion that the water quality in Monticello Reservoir is degraded or that the blowdown effluent would degrade the water 

quality in Parr Reservoir. Future NPDES permit evaluations for the blowdown discharge would confirm protection of water quality. 

Blowdown flow rate (normal) 9383 gpm Broad River at VCSNS 7Q10 382,800 gpm Broad River annual mean flow at VCSNS 2,828,000 gpm
DRAFT NUREG-1939 3-30 April 2010 

Site Layout and Plant Description 

1 

Figure 3-10. Water-Use Summary Diagram (SCE&G 2009a) 2 

3 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-31 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The liquid radioactive waste-treatment system discharges to the blowdown pipeline downstream 

2 of the blowdown sump. SCE&G estimated the liquid radioactive waste-treatment system 

3 discharge flow rate to be approximately 3 gpm (maximum 200 gpm). However, the discharge 

4 flow rate would be adjusted to make sure radionuclide levels would be maintained below 

5 permitted discharge limits (SCE&G 2009a). 

6 Sanitary Wastewater-Treatment Plant 

7 The expected sanitary-system effluent flow rate is 36 gpm under normal operating conditions 

8 and 70 gpm maximum (SCE&G 2009a). Liquid effluent from the sanitary wastewater system 

9 would be discharged to the blowdown sump where it would be combined with cooling-tower 

10 blowdown water before being discharged to Parr Reservoir (Figure 3-10). 

11 Sludge generated from the sanitary wastewater-treatment system would be disposed of in an 

12 approved manner, including shipment offsite or disposal at an approved onsite location. 

13 Nonradioactive waste management is described further in Section 3.4.4. 

14 Water-Treatment Plant 

15 The water-treatment plant that would provide treated water to other plant water systems 

16 (service, demineralized, potable, and fire protection water systems) would return 49 gpm of 

17 water to Monticello Reservoir under normal operating conditions and 150 gpm maximum 

18 (SCE&G 2009a). This effluent would discharge into the existing Unit 1 cooling-water discharge 

19 canal that discharges into Monticello Reservoir (Figure 3-1). 

20 Stormwater-Management System 

21 The stormwater-management system for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be designed to 

22 direct runoff away from buildings via drainage ditches and swales to stormwater-retention 

23 basins. Water from the stormwater-retention basins (shown in Figure 3-5) would ultimately 

24 discharge to Mayo Creek to the east, an unnamed creek to the south, or an unnamed creek to 

25 the west. The two unnamed creeks flow into Parr Reservoir; Mayo Creek flows into the Broad 

26 River below Parr Shoals Dam. The design and operation of the stormwater systems for the 

27 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would comply with NPDES stormwater regulations 

28 administered by the SCDHEC. 

29 3.4.2.4 Power Transmission System 

30 As noted in Section 3.2.2.3, transmission lines and corridors are considered to interface with the 

31 environment during plant operation, because there are potential continuing impacts from electric 

32 fields, noise, and corridor maintenance. Corridor maintenance requires controlling woody 

33 vegetation and maintaining access roads. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper have established 

34 procedures for transmission system inspection and for maintenance of transmission-line 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-32 April 2010 

1 corridors using both chemical (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]-registered 

2 herbicides) and mechanical (tree trimming, mowing, hand clearing) means of vegetation control 

3 (SCE&G 2009a, e; Sott 2006; MACTEC 2008, Appendix B). 

4 3.4.2.5 Emergency Diesel Generators 

5 Proposed Units 2 and 3 would each have two 4000-kW standby generators and two 35-kW 

6 ancillary diesel generators. Emissions from these generators include particulates, sulfur oxides, 

7 carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide (SCE&G 2009a). When 

8 operated, the generators would produce gaseous emissions that would comply with all 

9 emissions standards, including EPA Tier 4 requirements governing diesel emissions being 

10 phased in over the 2009–2015 period. Gaseous releases would comply with levels permitted by 

11 the SCDHEC (SCE&G 2009a). 

12 3.4.3 Radioactive Waste-Management System 

13 Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste-management systems would be used to collect 

14 and treat the radioactive materials produced as byproducts of operating proposed Units 2 and 3. 

15 These systems would process radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents to maintain 

16 releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as is reasonably achievable before 

17 releasing them to the environment. Waste processing systems would be designed to meet the 

18 design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (“Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and 

19 Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ‘As Low as is Reasonably Achievable’ for 

20 Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents”). The radioactive 

21 waste-management systems are not shared between the existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 

22 and 3. Radioactive materials in the reactor coolant would be the primary source of gaseous, 

23 liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in AP1000s. Radioactive fission products build up within the 

24 fuel as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products would be contained in the 

25 sealed fuel rods, but small quantities could escape the fuel rods into the reactor coolant. 

26 Neutron activation of the primary coolant system would also add radionuclides to the coolant. 

27 The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for the VCSNS (SCE&G 2007) describes the 

28 methods and parameters used for calculating offsite radiological doses from liquid and gaseous 

29 effluents. The ODCM also describes the methodology for calculation of gaseous and liquid 

30 monitoring alarm/trip set points for release of effluents from VCSNS. Operational limits for 

31 releasing liquid and gaseous effluents are also specified in the ODCM to ensure compliance 

32 with NRC regulations. 

33 The systems used to process liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes are described in the following 

34 sections. A more detailed description of these systems for proposed Units 2 and 3 can be found 

35 in Chapter 11 of the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2008). Solid radioactive 

36 wastes produced from operating proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be both dry and wet 

37 solids. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-33 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 3.4.3.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste-Management System 

2 The liquid radioactive waste-management system functions to control, collect, segregate, 

3 process, handle, store, and dispose of liquids containing radioactive material such that any 

4 discharged liquid effluents are below concentration levels specified in 10 CFR Part 20, 

5 Appendix B, Table 2 (Westinghouse 2008). The system uses several process trains consisting 

6 of tanks, pumps, ion exchangers, and filters and is designed to handle both normal and 

7 anticipated operational occurrences. Normal operations include processing of: (1) borated, 

8 reactor-grade waste water, (2) floor drains and other wastes with potentially high suspended 

9 solid contents, (3) detergent wastes, and (4) chemical wastes. In addition, the radioactive 

10 waste-management system can handle effluent streams that typically do not contain radioactive 

11 material, but that may, on occasion, become radioactive (e.g., steam generator blowdown as a 

12 result of steam generator tube leakage). With two exceptions, liquid effluents processed 

13 through the liquid radioactive waste-management system are discharged to the environment. 

14 The exceptions are steam generator blowdown that is normally returned to the condensate 

15 system after processing and reactor coolant that can be degassed prior to reactor shutdown and 

16 returned to the reactor coolant system. 

17 Liquid waste is discharged in batches, with flow rates controlled during discharge to maintain 

18 acceptable concentrations when diluted by other nonradioactive liquid effluents, primarily 

19 cooling tower blowdown (SCE&G 2009a). The diluted liquid radioactive waste would be 

20 discharged into the blowdown discharge pipeline below the blowdown sump, and ultimately 

21 discharged to Parr Reservoir. The rate of discharge into the blowdown discharge pipeline is 

22 controlled and monitored to make sure the average annual effluent concentration limits from 

23 10 CFR Part 20 are not exceeded. The calculated dose to the maximally exposed individual 

24 (MEI) from liquid effluents is evaluated in Section 5.9.2 of this EIS. 

25 3.4.3.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste-Management System 

26 The gaseous radioactive waste-management system functions to collect, process, and 

27 discharge radioactive or hydrogen-bearing gaseous wastes. It is a once-through, ambient 

28 temperature, activated carbon delay system (Westinghouse 2008). Radioactive isotopes of 

29 iodine and the noble gases xenon and krypton are created as fission products within the fuel 

30 rods during operation. Some of these gases escape to the reactor coolant system through 

31 cladding defects and subsequently decay to stable isotopes and are released to the 

32 environment via plant ventilation, or are captured and then released by the gaseous radioactive 

33 waste-management system. In addition, various gaseous activation products, such as 

34 argon-41, are formed directly in the reactor containment during operation. The gaseous 

35 radioactive waste-management system is typically active only when monitored gaseous 

36 concentrations reach a given threshold. Waste gas flows through a guard bed that removes 

37 iodine, oxidizing chemicals, and moisture. From the guard bed it flows through two delay beds 

38 containing activated carbon that dynamically adsorbs and desorbs the gases, delaying them 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-34 April 2010 

1 long enough for significant radioactive decay to occur. The gaseous system can only delay 

2 noble gases, not collect them. If noble gases monitored in the coolant reach a threshold value, 

3 then the reactor coolant is diverted to the liquid radioactive waste-management system where 

4 the noble gases can be collected using the degasifier. 

5 Radioactive gaseous effluents from the system described above are discharged through the 

6 plant vent, which is on the side of the containment building about 183 ft above grade level 

7 (Westinghouse 2008). The rate of discharge into the atmosphere is controlled and monitored to 

8 verify that the average annual effluent concentration limits from 10 CFR Part 20 are not 

9 exceeded (SCE&G 2009a). The calculated dose to the MEI from gaseous effluents is evaluated 

10 in Section 5.9.2 of this EIS. 

11 3.4.3.3 Solid Radioactive Waste Management System 

12 The solid radioactive waste-management system functions to treat, temporarily store, package, 

13 and dispose of dry or wet solids. Solid radioactive wastes include spent ion-exchange resins, 

14 deep-bed filtration media, spent filter cartridges, dry active wastes, and mixed wastes. The 

15 system has a 60-year design objective and is designed to handle both normal and anticipated 

16 operational occurrences. The packaged wastes would be temporarily stored in the auxiliary and 

17 radwaste buildings prior to being shipped to a licensed disposal facility. The AP1000 solid 

18 waste-management system releases no gaseous or liquid effluent directly to the environment. 

19 This system discharges effluent through the liquid and gaseous waste-management systems. 

20 The expected total annual volume of solid radioactive waste treated and shipped would be 

1964 ft3 21 /yr from each unit with an expected total activity of radioactive material shipped from 

22 each unit of 1764 Ci/yr (SCE&G 2009a). The maximum total annual volume of solid radioactive 

waste shipped from each unit is estimated at 5717 ft3 23 /yr with a maximum total activity of 

24 radioactive material of 33,670 Ci/yr. 

25 The storage and transportation of used reactor fuel is discussed in Chapter 6, Fuel Cycle, 

26 Transportation, and Decommissioning. 

27 3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste-Management Systems 

28 The following sections provide descriptions of the nonradioactive waste systems proposed for 

29 VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including systems for chemical (including biocide), sanitary, and other 

30 effluents. All discharges to surface waters would be regulated by an NPDES permit that would 

31 limit the volume and constituent concentrations. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-35 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 3.4.4.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides 

2 Water withdrawn from Monticello Reservoir for use in the CWS and the SWS would be treated 

3 with both biocides and other chemicals. The biocides would be used to control biofouling of the 

4 systems, and other chemicals would be added to control scaling, corrosion, and solids 

5 deposition (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G estimated the amount, frequency of use, and 

6 concentrations of chemicals and biocides for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (Table 3-5). While 

7 some variation occurs in chemical treatment to meet particular water-use needs, plant effluents 

8 are required to be within regulated discharge limits (i.e., 40 CFR Part 423). Natural constituents 

9 in Monticello Reservoir in the vicinity of the VCSNS site are provided in Table 2-11. As 

10 described in Section 3.4.2, naturally occurring chemicals and trace minerals in the makeup 

11 water would be concentrated up to four times in the blowdown prior to discharge to Parr 

12 Reservoir (Table 3-4). 

13 Table 3-5. Waste Stream Concentration of Water-Treatment Chemicals from Two Units

Chemical-Type / Specific Frequency of Use 

Concentration in 

Waste Stream 

Biocide/sodium hypochlorite 1.5 h/d 0.05 ppm residual chlorine 

Algaecide/quaternary amine Intermittent <10 ppm 

pH adjustment/sulfuric acid Continuous 10 ppm 

Corrosion Inhibitor/ortho-polyphosphate Continuous 14.5 ppm 

Silt dispersant/polyacrylate Continuous 25 ppm 

Scale inhibitor/phosphonate Continuous 1.5 ppm 

Coagulant/polyaluminum chloride Intermittent 0.000042-0.00013 lb/gal 

Anti-scalant/polyacrylate Intermittent 150-450 ppm polyacrylate 

Oxygen scavenging/hydrazine 2.5 h/y or 1.25 h per shutdown 100 ppm hydrazine(a)

pH adjustment/ammonium hydroxide 20.7 h/y or 10.4 h per shutdown 100 ppm ammonia(a)

 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(a) If steam generator is drained to the wastewater system. 

14 3.4.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents 

15 As described in Sections 3.2 and 3.4.2, a new sanitary wastewater-treatment plant would be 

16 installed to serve the operational needs of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. This plant would process 

17 sanitary water and waste to meet local and State regulations for effluent quality as specified in 

18 the NPDES permit (SCE&G 2009a). The sanitary wastewater-treatment plant would discharge 

19 36 gpm of treated wastewater (70 gpm maximum) to the blowdown sump and thence to Parr 

20 Reservoir. Sludge from treatment plant holding tanks would be managed according to 

21 SCDHEC regulation, either by disposal in a landfill or onsite at a location approved by SCDHEC 

22 (SCE&G 2009a; SCDHEC 2009). 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-36 April 2010 

1 3.4.4.3 Other Effluents 

2 The plant wastewater system is designed to manage liquid effluent streams that would contain 

3 pollutants from system flushing wastes during startup; oil, grease, and suspended solids from 

4 floor drains; corrosion and wear of plant piping and equipment; and liquid waste generated 

5 during maintenance or inspection activities. These waste streams would be collected in sumps, 

6 processed (e.g., through an oil separator), and discharged to a retention basin (normal plant 

7 wastewater) or pond (startup flushing) for settling of solids. Liquid from the retention basin 

8 (144 gpm normal, 431 gpm maximum) and startup pond (intermittent) would be pumped to the 

9 blowdown sump for discharge to Parr Reservoir (Figure 3-10). 

10 The new water-treatment plant that would pretreat water for the SWS and other plant water 

11 systems would return 49 gpm water (150 gpm maximum) to Monticello Reservoir via the 

12 existing Unit 1 discharge canal (Figure 3-4, grid reference D2). 

13 Nonradioactive solid wastes include typical solid waste (garbage, wood, paper, metal), and 

14 nonradioactive resins, filters, and sludge. SCE&G would recycle or recover scrap metal, 

15 aluminum, oil, antifreeze, batteries, cardboard, and paper. Nonradioactive resins would be 

16 disposed of in an industrial landfill. Oil and solids periodically collected from the wastewater 

17 processing system would also be shipped offsite for disposal. As noted above, sanitary 

18 treatment plant sludge would be applied at an SCDHEC-approved location onsite, or shipped 

19 offsite for disposal at a permitted facility (SCE&G 2009a). 

20 Being classified as a large-quantity generator of hazardous waste, any such waste generated at 

21 the VCSNS site would be temporarily stored onsite and then disposed of offsite at a permitted 

22 facility (SCE&G 2009a). Hazardous wastes would be managed in compliance with Resource 

23 Conservation and Recovery Act and South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Act 

24 requirements. 

25 3.4.5 Summary of Resource Commitments During Operation 

26 Table 3-6 provides a list of the significant resource commitments involved in operating Units 2 

27 and 3. The values in the table, combined with the affected environment described in Chapter 2 

28 of this EIS, provide a part of the basis for the operational impacts assessed in Chapter 5. These 

29 values were stated in the ER, and the review team has determined that the values are not 

30 unreasonable. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-37 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 3-6. Resource Commitments Associated with Units 2 and 3 Operation 

Resource(s) Value Description 

Hydrology-Surface Water, 

Aquatic Ecology 

37,183 gpm 

(83 cfs) 

61,791 gpm 

(138 cfs) 

Normal operational raw-water withdrawal from Monticello 

Reservoir, all cooling towers for both units operating at four 

cycles of concentration 

Maximum operational water withdrawal from Monticello 

Reservoir, all cooling towers for both units operating at two 

cycles of concentration 

Hydrology-Surface Water, 

Meteorology-Air Quality 

27,160 gpm 

29,400 gpm 

Normal CWS evaporation rate 

Maximum CWS evaporation rate 

Meteorology-Air Quality, 

Terrestrial Ecology 

13 gpm 

13 gpm 

Normal CWS drift rate 

Maximum CWS drift rate 

Hydrology-Surface Water 27,751 gpm 

(62 cfs) 

31,094 gpm 

(69 cfs) 

Normal consumptive water use (all systems combined) 

Maximum consumptive water use (all systems combined) 

Hydrology-Surface Water 9383 gpm 

(21 cfs) 

30,547 gpm 

(68 cfs) 

Normal discharge flow rate to Parr Reservoir (all systems 

combined, 98 percent is blowdown) 

Maximum discharge flow rate to Parr Reservoir (all systems 

combined, 98 percent is blowdown) 

Hydrology-Surface Water, 

Aquatic Ecology 

78.7°F 

70.8°F to 86.6°F 

91.8°F 

Average blowdown temperature 

Range of modeled monthly blowdown temperatures 

Maximum blowdown temperature 

Terrestrial Ecology, 

Meteorology-Air Quality 

70 ft CWS cooling-tower height 

Terrestrial Ecology 229 ft above plant 

grade 

Tallest building height (shield building) 

Socioeconomics 800 workers 

1800 workers 

Normal operating workforce for two units 

Maximum workforce during refueling outages lasting 3 to 5 

weeks 

Terrestrial Ecology, 

Nonradiological Health, 

Socioeconomics 

71 dBA 

55 dBA 

55 dBA 

CWS cooling-tower sound level at 200 ft 

CWS cooling-tower sound level at 1000 ft 

Diesel generators sound level at 1000 ft 

Uranium Fuel Cycle, 

Transportation Need for 

3400 MW(t) Thermal power rating per unit 

Power 1200 MW(e) Gross electrical output per unit 87°F circulating water cold 

water temperature 

93 MW(e) Station load per unit 

Uranium Fuel cycle, 

Transportation 

93 percent Expected annual capacity factor 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-38 April 2010 

1 3.5 References 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 Protection against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

6 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 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

9 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

11 Part 423, “Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.” 

12 71 FR 4464. January 27, 2006. “AP1000 Design Certification.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear 

13 Regulatory Commission. 

14 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

15 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

16 Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

17 Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

18 (SCE&G). Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. ML082680277. 

19 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

20 Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper. 

21 MACTEC, Alpharetta, Georgia. Accession No. ML082680275. 

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

23 Sott, K.R. 2006. Santee Cooper – Transmission Vegetation Management Program. Accession 

24 No. ML090641089. 

25 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. R.61-68, 

26 Water Classifications & Standards. Effective April 25, 2008. Columbia, South Carolina. 

27 Accession No. ML100200687. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

April 2010 3-39 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009. Sludge 

2 Program. Accessed on September 17, 2009 at 

3 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/sludgepage.htm. Accession No. ML093280959. 

4 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

5 Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Revision 26. 

6 Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML081280582 and ML072910571. 

7 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

8 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 0, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

9 Accession No. ML081300555. 

10 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

11 3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

12 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

13 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

14 3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South 

15 Carolina. Accession No. ML092170463. 

16 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

17 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 

18 and R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

19 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report 

20 Audit Information Needs: G-3, GW-4, HP-6, HP-10, HP-11, LU-4, and SE-1.” NND-09-0148. 

21 June 1, 2009. Accession No. ML091550479. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G) to U.S. 

23 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letters from R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, 

24 and P.J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

25 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

26 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

27 GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2.” NND-09-0184. July 13, 2009. Accession No. 

28 ML092010266. 

29 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

30 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letters from R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, 

31 and P.J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

32 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

33 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): TLine-2 and 3.” NND-09-

34 0198. July 20, 2009. Accession No. ML092030443. 
Site Layout and Plant Description 

Draft NUREG-1939 3-40 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from R.B. Clary (SCE&G,) to U.S. 

2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in response to letter from R.B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, 

3 “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, 

4 Combined License Application – Supplemental Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) 

5 Information Needs NP-1, AQ-11 and AQ-13.” NND-09-0320. November 20, 2009. Accession 

6 No. ML093310245. 

7 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. EPA STORET Data Warehouse, South 

8 Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Water Quality Data for Parr Reservoir 

9 and Monticello Reservoir, last updated 3/9/2006. Accessed December 7, 2009 at 

10 http://www.epa.gov/storet/dw_home.html. Accession No. ML090630368. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

12 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

13 Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 

14 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

15 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

16 ML083230868. 

17 
April 2010 4-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.0 Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

2 This chapter examines the environmental issues associated with building the proposed nuclear 

3 reactor Units 2 and 3 at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site as described in the 

4 application for combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs) submitted to the 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) 

6 (SCE&G 2008). As part of its application, SCE&G submitted an Environmental Report (ER) 

7 (SCE&G 2009a), which discusses the environmental impacts of building, operating, and 

8 decommissioning proposed Units 2 and 3 and a Final Safety Analysis Report (SCE&G 2009o), 

9 which addresses safety aspects of construction and operation. 

10 In addition, SCE&G submitted the Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas 

11 Company for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and 

12 Necessity and for a Base Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear 

13 Facility in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, to the Public Service Commission of South Carolina 

14 (PSCSC) on May 30, 2008. The final order provided by the PSCSC approving the combined 

15 application and Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and 

16 Necessity (CPCN) was issued to SCE&G on March 2, 2009 (PSCSC 2009). 

17 As discussed in Section 3.3 of this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC’s authority 

18 related to building new nuclear generating units is limited to “activities that have a reasonable 

19 nexus to radiological health and safety and/or common defense and security” (72 FR 57416). 

20 Many of the activities required to build a nuclear power plant do not fall within the NRC’s 

21 regulatory authority and, therefore, are not “construction” as defined by the NRC. Such 

22 activities are referred to as “preconstruction” activities in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

23 Regulations (CFR) 51.45(c). The NRC staff evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

24 impacts of the construction activities that would be authorized with the issuance of a COL. The 

25 environmental effects of preconstruction activities (e.g., clearing and grading, excavation, and 

26 erection of support buildings) are included as part of this EIS in the evaluation of cumulative 

27 impacts. 

28 As described in Section 1.1.3, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is working as a 

29 cooperating agency on this EIS consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

30 (USACE and NRC 2008). The NRC and USACE concluded that entering into a cooperative 

31 agreement on preparation of this EIS is the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources 

32 in the environmental review of impacts associated with building proposed Units 2 and 3 at the 

33 VCSNS site. The goal of this cooperative agreement is to develop one EIS that provides all of 

34 the environmental information and analyses needed by the NRC to make a license/permit 

35 decision and all of the information needed by the USACE to perform analyses, draw 

36 conclusions, and make a permit decision in the USACE’s Record of Decision (ROD) 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-2 April 2010 

1 documentation. To accomplish this goal, the environmental review described in this EIS was 

2 conducted by a joint NRC/USACE review team. The review team was composed of NRC staff, 

3 its contractor’s staff, and USACE staff. 

4 The information needed by the USACE includes information to perform (1) analyses to 

5 determine that the proposed action is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 

6 (LEDPA), and (2) its public interest assessment. To perform the public interest assessment, the 

7 USACE considers the following public interest factors: conservation, economics, aesthetics, 

8 general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife 

9 values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, 

10 recreation, water supply, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, and 

11 mineral needs. 

12 Many of the impacts the USACE must address in its LEDPA analysis are the result of 

13 preconstruction activities. Also, most of the activities conducted by a COL applicant that would 

14 require a Department of the Army (DA) permit would be related to preconstruction. On March 2, 

15 2010, SCE&G submitted an application to the USACE for a permit to conduct the following 

16 activities: filling, dredging, excavating, grading, removing or destroying vegetation, and building 

17 structures. 

18 While both NRC and the USACE must meet the requirements of the National Environmental 

19 Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), both agencies also have additional requirements 

20 related to their permitting or licensing authorities. The NRC‘s regulatory authority is based on 

21 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.). The USACE’s regulatory 

22 authority related to the proposed action is based on Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

23 Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), which prohibits the obstruction or alteration of 

24 navigable waters of the United States without a permit from the USACE, and Section 404 of the 

25 Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

26 waters of the United States without a permit from the USACE. Therefore, an applicant may not 

27 commence preconstruction or construction activities in jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, 

28 without a DA permit. The permit would typically be issued after the USACE’s evaluation and 

29 public feedback in the form of public comments on its draft environmental review. Because the 

30 USACE is a cooperating agency under the MOU for this EIS, the USACE’s ROD of whether to 

31 issue a permit will not be made until after public comment has been received on this 

32 NRC/USACE draft EIS and the final EIS is issued. 

33 The collaborative effort of the NRC and the USACE in presenting their discussion of the 

34 environmental effects of building the proposed project, in this chapter and elsewhere, must 

35 serve the needs of both agencies. Consistent with the MOU, the staff of the NRC and the 

36 USACE collaborated in: (1) the review of the COL application and information provided in 

37 response to requests for additional information (developed by the NRC and the USACE) and 

38 (2) the development of the EIS. NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.45(c)) require that the impacts of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 preconstruction activities be addressed by the applicant as cumulative impacts in its ER. 

2 Similarly, the NRC’s analysis of the environmental effects of preconstruction activities on each 

3 resource area would be addressed as cumulative impacts, normally presented in Chapter 7. 

4 However, because of the collaborative effort between the NRC and the USACE in this 

5 environmental review, the combined impacts of construction activities that would be authorized 

6 by the NRC with its issuance of a COL and the preconstruction activities are presented in this 

7 chapter. For each resource area, the NRC also provides an impact characterization solely for 

8 construction activities that meet the NRC’s definition of construction at 10 CFR 50.10(a). 

9 Thereafter, both the assessment of the impacts of 10 CFR 50.10(a) construction activities and 

10 the assessment of the combined impacts of construction and preconstruction activities are used 

11 in the description and assessment of cumulative impacts in Chapter 7 of this EIS. 

12 For most environmental resource areas (e.g., aquatic ecology), the impacts are not the result of 

13 either solely preconstruction or solely construction activities. Rather, the impacts are 

14 attributable to a combination of preconstruction and construction activities. For most resource 

15 areas, the majority of the impacts would occur as a result of preconstruction activities. 

16 This chapter is divided into 13 sections. In Sections 4.1 through 4.10, the review team 

17 evaluates the potential impacts on land use, meteorology and air quality, water use and quality, 

18 terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic and cultural 

19 resources, nonradiological health effects, and nonradioactive waste. In Section 4.9, the NRC 

20 staff assesses the potential radiological health impacts to construction workers. An impact 

21 category level – SMALL, MODERATE or LARGE – of potential adverse impacts has been 

22 assigned by the review team for each resource area using the definitions for these terms 

23 established in Chapter 1. In some resource areas, for example, in the socioeconomic area 

24 where the impacts of taxes are analyzed, the impacts may be considered beneficial and would 

25 be stated as such. The review team’s determination of the impact category levels is based on 

26 the assumption that the mitigation measures identified in the ER or activities planned by various 

27 State and county governments, such as infrastructure upgrades (discussed throughout this 

28 chapter), are implemented. Failure to implement these upgrades might result in a change in the 

29 impact category level. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is presented 

30 in Section 4.11. A summary of the construction impacts is presented in Section 4.11. Citations 

31 for the references cited in this chapter are listed in Section 4.13. The technical analyses 

32 provided in this chapter support the results, conclusions, and recommendations presented in 

33 Chapters 7, 9, and 10 of this EIS. 

34 The review team’s evaluation of the impacts of construction of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

35 draws on information presented in SCE&G’s ER, supplemental documents, the USACE’s 

36 permitting documentation, as well as other government and independent sources. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-4 April 2010 

1 4.1 Land-Use Impacts 

2 This section provides information about the land-use impacts associated with site-preparation 

3 activities and building of Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Topics discussed include land-use 

4 impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site and land-use impacts within transmission-line 

5 corridors and on offsite areas. 

6 4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 

7 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be located southwest of the existing Unit 1 on the VCSNS site. 

8 The VCSNS site encompasses about 3600 ac of land and water entirely owned by SCE&G. 

9 The review team estimates that roughly 500 ac at the site would be required for the new units, 

10 including all laydown areas and support functions, which would include onsite transmission-line 

11 improvements. Additional land disturbance would occur to install a new cooling-water makeup 

12 pipeline between VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and Monticello Reservoir. The location of Units 2 and 3 

13 and supporting facilities is not classified as prime farmland. The site is not used as agricultural 

14 land or for mineral extraction, but is actively managed for forestry. 

15 SCE&G indicated that developing the site would result in the removal of approximately 225 ac of 

16 planted pine forest, 103 ac of naturally vegetated pine forest, 65 ac of mixed pine-hardwood 

17 forest, and 41 ac of hardwood forest. The remaining 56 ac that would be affected consist of 

18 nonforested, open, and recently cleared areas and the estimated areas for the access road 

19 (18 ac) and water-treatment plant (10 ac) (SCE&G 2009a). 

20 Based on SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2009a) and the review team’s characterization of site 

21 development activities in Section 3.3 of this EIS, the review team believes the following major 

22 activities would cause land-use impacts on the VCSNS site and in the vicinity: 

23  Approximately 240 ac would be permanently altered on the site to build VCSNS Units 2 and 

24 3 and associated infrastructure. This would include all excavation, trenching, and dredging 

25 for new intake and blowdown pipelines and the new water-treatment facility. It also would 

26 include clearing land for the new switchyard (38 ac). 

27  Approximately 180 ac within the plant site would be altered for temporary laydown and 

28 spoils storage. This area would include the concrete batch plant, spoils deposition areas, 

29 and temporary site support areas. 

30  A new 1.5-mi, four-lane, paved, main access road would link Parr Road with the VCSNS 

31 Units 2 and 3 site, requiring approximately 10 ac on the site in addition to the affected areas 

32 above. 

33  A new 1.5-mi improved access road would link the Units 2 and 3 cooling-tower area to an 

34 intake structure at Monticello Reservoir, affecting about 3 ac of land on the site. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

1  Parr Road and South Lake Access Road would be upgraded to accommodate increased 

2 traffic, and approximately 3/4 mi of the South Lake Access Road would be relocated to run 

3 parallel to and east of the existing railroad spur into the site, terminating at the VCSNS Units 

4 2 and 3 discharge structure. About 2 ac of land on the site would be affected to 

5 accommodate the upgrading. 

6  The existing railroad line would be rerouted through a fabrication and laydown area between 

7 the new units and the cooling towers, and would be supplemented with an additional railroad 

8 spur. A new spur also may be routed into the unloading areas at the concrete batch plant. 

9 Norfolk Southern Railway’s existing railroad line also may require upgrades to support the 

10 heaviest loads. Upgrades may include installing new ballast or rail sections on the existing 

11 railroad bed, both on and off of the site. The review team expects these impacts to occur 

12 within the footprints described above. 

13  Dredging in Parr Reservoir (off of the site) would be required to establish the blowdown 

14 discharge for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Dredge spoils would be disposed of in a 5.5-ac onsite 

15 spoils disposal area about a 1/2 mi east of the river (see Figure 4-1). 

16  Miscellaneous disturbance of as much as 60 additional acres on the site. 

17 Approximately 0.26 ac of wetlands on the VCSNS site would be affected by developing the 

18 proposed new units and associated infrastructure. Wetland impacts are discussed in greater 

19 detail in Section 4.3.1. 

20 Land-clearing activities would be mitigated to the extent possible. SCE&G would use best 

21 management practices (BMPs) during site development and would conform to all applicable laws 

22 and regulations. Examples of expected mitigation activities include wetland avoidance, use of 

23 stormwater-management systems, and implementation of spill containment controls before earth24 disturbing activities begin. Site-development activities that would affect land use include clearing, 

25 grubbing, grading and excavating, and stockpiling soils. Re-vegetation would comply with site 

26 maintenance and safety requirements. Permanently disturbed locations would be stabilized and 

27 contoured in accordance with design specifications. Methods to stabilize areas and prevent 

28 erosion or sedimentation would comply with accepted engineering, construction practices, and 

29 recognized environmental BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

30 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

31 review team recognizes that land-use changes on the VCSNS site would be substantial and 

32 notes several planned mitigation activities SCE&G would be implemented to lessen impacts. 

33 New land-use impacts on the site were viewed by the review team in the context of the previous 

34 significant impacts from building Unit 1. The site has already been significantly altered by that 

35 development and the associated operations (timber harvesting, etc.), and the development of 

36 the site is consistent with current zoning ordinances, as described in Section 2.2.1. Therefore, 

37 the review team concludes that land-use impacts of the proposed action on the site and vicinity 

38 would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-6 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 4-1. Habitats and Areas that Would Be Disturbed by the Development of the VCSNS 

3 Site 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Other Offsite Areas 

2 In its application for the two COLs, SCE&G proposed to build and operate two units at the 

3 VCSNS site, each with a rated net electrical output capacity of 1107 MW(e). As discussed in 

4 Section 2.2.2 of this EIS, the VCSNS site is connected to the regional power grid via existing 

5 230-kV transmission lines (see Figure 2-4). As illustrated in Figure 2-5, six new 230-kV 

6 transmission lines (four single-circuit lines and one SCE&G double circuit line) are planned to 

7 connect VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to the grid. Two of these lines would be owned by Santee8 Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public 

9 Service Authority) and routed almost entirely within existing transmission-line corridors 

10 (MACTEC 2008). The existing corridors and transmission lines were originally built to support 

11 the operation of VCSNS Unit 1. The other four lines would be owned by SCE&G. The precise 

12 routing of the SCE&G lines has not been determined, but the review team believes the corridors 

13 identified in Figure 2-5 are representative of the eventual routing. 

14 The PSCSC requires any jurisdictional utility (this applies to SCE&G but not Santee Cooper) 

15 proposing to build “major facilities,” including transmission lines of 125 kV or more, to apply for a 

16 CPCN. PSCSC’s rules are found in Title 58, Chapter 33, of the South Carolina Code of Laws 

17 (SC Code Ann. 58-33). An applicant for a CPCN must provide PSCSC with “a summary of any 

18 studies that have been made by or for applicant of the environmental impact of the facility ....” 

19 The PSCSC may not grant a CPCN for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a major 

20 utility facility unless the applicant has adequately defined “the nature of the probable 

21 environmental impact” (SC Code Ann. 58-33-160(1)) and has determined that the impact on the 

22 environment is “...justified, considering the state of available technology and the nature and 

23 economics of the various alternatives” under consideration. 

24 According to SCE&G, once the need for additional generating capacity has been demonstrated, 

25 and the size and location of generating units have been determined, SCE&G analyzes 

26 transmission system requirements (SCE&G 2009a). Once the utility determines desired grid 

27 termination and connection points, it initiates the siting process to develop transmission-line 

28 corridors. SCE&G has completed a siting study (FP&S 2008), which the review team has relied 

29 upon in its review. 

30 The review team expects that SCE&G transmission-line corridors planned to connect VCSNS 

31 Units 2 and 3 to the grid would require State certification, but the Santee Cooper lines would not 

32 require certification. Although the review team recognizes that State certification would not 

33 apply to Santee Cooper’s proposed transmission system improvements, in siting the new 

34 transmission-line corridors, Santee Cooper would consult with the South Carolina State Historic 

35 Preservation Office (SHPO), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the South Carolina 

36 Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and apply for a permit from the USACE. 

37 In siting new transmission lines, SCE&G has indicated a number of areas to be avoided in the 

38 transmission-line siting process, if possible, including buildings, mines, airports, military 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-8 April 2010 

1 facilities, parks, and wetlands. For any wetlands that are encountered, installation of 

2 transmission lines would be conducted in accordance with necessary State and Federal 

3 regulations to protect wetland areas. 

4 SCE&G characterized the proposed routes of the six new transmission lines as follows (SCE&G 

5 2009a): 

6 1. VCSNS-Killian – This SCE&G line would be routed to the vicinity of Winnsboro, South 

7 Carolina, and then generally follow the Interstate 77 (I-77) corridor to connect to the 

8 existing Killian substation near Killian, South Carolina, southeast of the VCSNS and 

9 northeast of Columbia, South Carolina. 

10 2. VCSNS-Flat Creek – This Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Winnsboro 

11 substation near Winnsboro, South Carolina, then to the existing Richburg switching station 

12 near Great Falls, South Carolina, and finally to the existing Flat Creek substation west of 

13 Lancaster, South Carolina. 

14 3. VCSNS-Lake Murray No. 2 – This SCE&G line would connect to the existing Lake Murray 

15 switchyard for the McMeekin and Saluda Hydro stations near the eastern boundary of Lake 

16 Murray. 

17 4/5. VCSNS-St. George – This double-circuit SCE&G line would connect to a new substation 

18 near St. George, South Carolina. 

19 6. VCSNS-Varnville – This Santee Cooper line would connect to the existing Sandy Run 

20 substation near Sandy Run, then to Orangeburg substation in Orangeburg, South Carolina 

21 then to the St. George substation near St. George, and then to the existing Varnville 

22 substation near Varnville, Hampton County, South Carolina. 

23 The expected land-use impacts associated with these corridors are given in Table 4-1. For 

24 land-use impact analysis, the review team performed its own analysis of the affected acreage, 

25 based on GIS data provided by the applicant (SCE&G 2009r). The review team used the 

26 specific GIS-based routes to determine what acreage would be affected, based on land-use and 

27 land-cover data from USGS (2001). The review team’s analysis indicates that as much as 2100 

28 ac of land may be needed to develop the transmission system for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

29 Several factors mitigate this impact. About half of the proposed corridors requiring some 

30 corridor expansion would likely be located immediately adjacent to an existing transmission-line 

31 corridor or other utility corridor. Of the expected 424.5 mi of new transmission lines, more than 

32 half (248.9 mi) would be placed within existing transmission-line corridors and not further 

33 fragment forest cover or other existing land uses. Corridors crossing agricultural areas would 

34 not remove affected land from agricultural production. The majority of the land-use impacts 

35 would occur in the VCSNS-St. George corridor, with the VCSNS-Killian corridor having much 

36 smaller affected acreage, and the other corridors having only minimal acreage affected. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 4-1. Land-Use Impacts of the Proposed New Transmission-Line Corridors 

Corridor Name 

Termination 

Point 

Total 

Length

(mi) 

Length 

Requiring 

Expansion of 

Existing Corridor 

(mi) 

Length 

Requiring 

New 

Corridor 

(mi) 

Corridor 

width 

(ft) 

Land-Use 

Impact 

(ac) 

VCSNS-Killian Killian 

Substation 

36.6 18.9 17.7 100 443.6 

VCSNS-Flat 

Creek 

Flat Creek 

Substation 

71.7 0.7 0.0 100 8.5 

VCSNS-Lake 

Murray No. 2 

Lake Murray 

Switchyard 

19.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 

VCSNS-St. 

George 

St. George 

Substation 

(proposed) 

134.2 65.8 68.4 100 1626.7 

VCSNSVarnville Varnville 

Substation 

163.0 1.7 0.0 100 20.6 

 Total 424.5 87.1 86.1 2099.4 

Sources: SCE&G 2009a; MACTEC 2008; SCE&G 2009r 

Totals are affected by rounding. Acreages are estimated, based on GIS data provided by SCE&G. Where no 

corridor width data were available, the review team estimated uniform 100-ft corridor widths, for consistency. 

2 Based on information in Table 4-1, the most significant land-use impacts would occur as a result 

3 of siting over 86 mi of entirely new transmission-line corridors in portions of the VCSNS-Killian 

4 and VCSNS-St. George corridors. These new portions would not be adjacent to or within 

5 currently existing corridors. Clearing these new corridors would noticeably alter existing land 

6 uses on about 1058.1 ac as current uses are converted to utility corridor use. The review team 

7 estimates, based on proportions presented in Table 2-2, about 390 ac of forested land, some of 

8 which is currently devoted to silviculture production, would be cleared and converted to utility 

9 use. Minimal plots of land would be removed from agricultural production where new 

10 transmission towers would be sited. Land-clearing and transmission-line installation activities in 

11 the corridors would follow BMPs and would be mitigated to the extent possible. For example, 

12 agricultural access would not be precluded during the growing season. 

13 Information about roads, housing and indirect infrastructure impacts appears in Section 4.4 of 

14 this EIS. No impacts on offsite land uses (outside of the transmission line corridors) are 

15 expected to result from the proposed action. 

16 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review, the 

17 review team concludes that because over 86 mi of entirely new transmission-line corridor would 

18 be required to connect VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to the grid, coupled with an additional 87 mi of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-10 April 2010 

1 necessary corridor expansion, that land conversions over such long runs would be noticeable to 

2 the general public. SCE&G identified several mitigation methods that would limit the land-use 

3 impacts significantly. Four of the six new corridors would be sited in either an expansion of 

4 existing corridors or entirely within existing corridors to the extent practicable. The review 

5 team’s conclusion also is based on the fact that the proposed corridor routing attempted to use 

6 existing corridors to the maximum extent practicable, thereby avoiding potentially significant 

7 land-use impacts. In addition, SCE&G stated that flexibility in routing would prevent significant 

8 impacts on existing urban and residential uses. Therefore, the review team concludes the land9 use impacts of transmission-line installation would be MODERATE, but additional mitigation 

10 beyond the applicant’s commitments would not be warranted. Because no other offsite land11 use changes are expected to result directly or indirectly from the proposed action, the review 

12 team concludes that impacts on other offsite land uses would be SMALL. 

13 4.1.3 Summary of Land-Use Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction 

14 The review team evaluated the construction and preconstruction activities related to building 

15 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the potential land-use impacts at the site and vicinity, in the 

16 region, and in the potential transmission-line corridors. The review team determined that, 

17 because of the large amount of land owned by SCE&G at the VCSNS site and consistency with 

18 local zoning regulations, the land-use impacts of the proposed action would be SMALL at the 

19 site and in the vicinity, MODERATE for proposed transmission-line corridors, and SMALL for 

20 other offsite areas. The review team considered SCE&G’s commitments to planned mitigation 

21 activities, including a high degree of transmission-line routing flexibility, as the basis for reaching 

22 these conclusions. Based on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction 

23 activities represent only a part of the analyzed activities (not including transmission-line 

24 installation activities); the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction 

25 activities would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no further mitigation measures 

26 beyond SCE&G’s commitments would be warranted. 

27 4.2 Water-Related Impacts 

28 Water-related impacts involved in building a nuclear power plant are similar to impacts that 

29 would be associated with the development of any large industrial site, and not much different 

30 than those seen while building VCSNS Unit 1. Prior to initiating onsite activities, including any 

31 site-preparation work, SCE&G would be required to obtain the appropriate authorizations 

32 regulating alterations to the hydrologic environment. These authorizations would likely include 

33 the following: 

34  Clean Water Action Section 404 Permit issued by USACE 

35  River and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit issued by the USACE 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1  Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification by the South Carolina Department of Health and 

2 Environmental Control (SCDHEC) 

3  Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

4 and Industrial Stormwater Permits by SCDHEC 

5  Water and Sewer Connection Permits typically issued by a city, county or municipal district. 

6 Hydrologic alterations are discussed in Section 4.2.1; water-use impacts are discussed in 

7 Section 4.2.2; water-quality impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.3; and water monitoring is 

8 discussed in Section 4.2.4. This section draws from material presented in SCE&G’s ER 

9 (SCE&G 2009a). 

10 4.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations 

11 Activities associated with building the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would affect several 

12 bodies of surface water and the aquifers underlying the site. Affected bodies of surface water 

13 include Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, Mayo Creek, and the Broad River below Parr 

14 Shoals Dam. Building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require dredging for the installation of the 

15 blowdown discharge diffuser in Parr Reservoir and excavation and/or dredging for installation of 

16 the new intake structures for the circulating-water system and water-treatment plant on 

17 Monticello Reservoir. Other activities would require alteration of the land surface in the vicinity 

18 of the new units. The surface would be contoured to include surface-water drainage ditches 

19 and three stormwater-retention ponds to handle stormwater flows and allow suspended solids to 

20 settle prior to discharge to a waterbody. Other hydrologic alterations include clearing and 

21 grading for the new and upgraded roadways and for modifications to the railroad line (widening 

22 existing railroad line, rerouting, and adding a railroad spur). The railroad line to be widened is 

23 adjacent to a seasonal stream. The new main access road would cross Mayo Creek about 1 mi 

24 north of the main facility entrance. These land surface modifications would alter surface-water 

25 runoff flow patterns and would alter the infiltration properties of the land surface. 

26 Intake structure sites on Monticello Reservoir would be dewatered with submersible pumps 

27 installed inside cofferdams. A well-point dewatering system may also be used to maintain a dry 

28 environment to allow for fabrication of each intake structure once excavation is completed. 

29 SCE&G plans to return this water to the reservoir via discharge behind a turbidity curtain. A 

30 turbidity curtain is a floating barrier of geotextile material designed to deflect and contain 

31 sediment within a limited area minimizing sediment transport within a body of water. SCE&G 

32 also indicated that dewatering activities to support open excavation, sheet-pile installation, or 

33 behind cofferdams may generate water that could be routed to a settlement basin (SCE&G 

34 2009a). 

35 Hydrologic alterations to offsite surface waterbodies could occur during installation of the 

36 proposed new transmission lines discussed in Section 4.1.2. No surface or groundwater would 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-12 April 2010 

1 be used in the installation of these lines. Although the exact routes are not yet determined, 

2 proposed locations indicate the lines would cross numerous waterbodies and wetlands. BMPs 

3 would be applied for erosion and sedimentation control (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 Onsite groundwater would not be used during construction and preconstruction activities for the 

5 proposed units, but it would be affected as a result of those activities. Conditions and activities 

6 that could affect groundwater levels and alter groundwater flow around VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

7 include the following: site grading that includes in-filling to the east of the site for cooling towers, 

8 the hydraulic properties of fill (structural and common fill), changes in recharge due to 

9 impervious surfaces and stormwater basins, and dewatering during excavation (see SCE&G 

10 2009b). As described in Section 2.3.1.2 of this EIS, the site is located on a hilltop with the water 

11 table forming a subdued reflection of the topography, resulting in a groundwater divide near the 

12 proposed Units 2 and 3 locations. Site grading and the redistribution of groundwater recharge 

13 from impervious surfaces and/or stormwater basins would alter the groundwater flow locally 

14 around the hilltop but would not affect the broader groundwater flow in the area, particularly on 

15 the other side of surrounding surface waterbodies. Excavation dewatering would lower the 

16 water-table elevation locally and reduce the hydrostatic pressures in the deeper bedrock 

17 aquifer. The impacts of excavation dewatering are discussed more fully in Section 4.2.2.2, but 

18 the low aquifer yields in the area and large distance to water-supply wells minimize the impact 

19 of this temporary groundwater alteration. 

20 Offsite impacts on groundwater from activities on the hilltop around VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would 

21 be limited by the influence of local bodies of surface water along the project boundaries (Mayo 

22 Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir). Alterations from excavation 

23 dewatering would be temporary with the aquifers recovering after pumping has stopped. Water 

24 from the powerblock excavations would be pumped to the stormwater-management system 

25 (SCE&G 2009a). Within this system, water would be routed to settlement basins before being 

26 discharged through an NDPES-permitted outfall. 

27 In summary, the hydrologic alterations associated with construction and preconstruction 

28 activities on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site would be limited to dredging for the intake and 

29 discharge structures, altering the surface topography, changes to runoff and infiltration 

30 characteristics (e.g., site grading, laydown yards, stormwater-collection trenches and basins), 

31 and dewatering the excavations for the nuclear island, intake structures, and discharge 

32 structures. Offsite hydrologic alterations are associated with the proposed new or expanded 

33 transmission-line corridors where they cross wetlands or surface waters. The impacts of 

34 hydrologic alterations resulting from both onsite and offsite activities would be localized and 

35 temporary, and the required permits, certifications, and stormwater pollution prevention plan 

36 (SWPPP) call for the implementation of BMPs to minimize impacts. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts 

2 The impacts of building a nuclear power plant on water use are similar to impacts that would be 

3 associated with the development of any large industrial site. This section includes identification 

4 of the proposed activities associated with building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 that could affect water 

5 use, and analysis and evaluation of proposed practices to minimize adverse impacts on water 

6 use by these activities. The impacts on the use of surface water and groundwater are 

7 discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2, respectively. Information in this section is drawn from 

8 the ER and supplemental information provided by SCE&G (2009a, b, c). 

9 4.2.2.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Use 

10 Monticello Reservoir would supply water for construction and preconstruction activities for 

11 VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Water needs for building activities at the site would be similar to typical 

12 uses of water for large industrial projects. These uses include dust abatement, concrete mixing, 

13 and potable water needs. Peak water needs during preconstruction and construction activities 

14 are estimated to be 420 gpm (approximately 1 cfs) SCE&G (2009a). Assuming complete 

15 consumptive use, the peak withdrawal represents less than 1 percent of the 7Q10 (lowest flow 

16 for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade) estimated for Broad River (SCE&G 

17 2009a). The 7Q10 flow is used to assess the impacts of alteration on flow during low-flow 

18 periods. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval is required for any 

19 withdrawal from Monticello Reservoir other than for the operation of VCSNS Unit 1. 

20 Until the proposed water-treatment plant is completed, water needed during construction and 

21 preconstruction activities would be supplied by the Jenkinsville Water Company. The 

22 Jenkinsville Water Company is a public source with enough excess capacity to meet the site’s 

23 needs (SCE&G 2009a). In addition to groundwater wells in Fairfield County, the water company 

24 also purchases water from other nearby water systems including the Town of Winnsboro. The 

25 Town of Winnsboro has significant excess capacity from surface-water sources (more than 

26 1 million gpd) (SCE&G 2009a; SCDNR 2005a). 

27 The impacts on surface water would be of limited duration. Peak water demands would 

28 represent a small portion of the available water. Based on the information provided by SCE&G 

29 and the above observations from the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

30 concludes that the impacts on surface water use during construction and preconstruction 

31 activities for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be 

32 warranted. Based on the above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities 

33 represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of 

34 NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL, and no mitigation measures would be 

35 warranted. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-14 April 2010 

1 4.2.2.2 Impacts on Groundwater Use 

2 SCE&G stated “[t]here are no plans to use local groundwater for construction or operations of 

3 VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Construction of Units 2 and 3 power blocks requires temporary 

4 dewatering of the power block area” (SCE&G 2009b). However, “[c]urrently the dewatering 

5 plans the EPC [engineer, procure, and construct] contractor is developing are conceptual and 

6 details on rates, durations, and discharge locations are still being established” (SCE&G 2009c). 

7 Due to the low hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface materials at the site (as described in 

8 Section 2.3.1.2 of this EIS), the review team determined that the excavation dewatering would 

9 be temporary and localized with minimal offsite impact. 

10 As stated in Section 2.3.2.2 of this EIS, currently the closest water-supply well to the site is at a 

11 private residence approximately 1 mi east of the site (SCE&G 2009a). The nearest groups of 

12 wells, used for residences and stores, are located 1.5 mi east of the site and 2.5 mi southeast of 

13 the site (SCE&G 2009a). The closest location at which a water-supply well could be installed 

14 near the facility is on the nearest site boundary approximately 0.75 mi to the southeast (SCE&G 

15 2009b). As discussed in EIS Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2, groundwater well yields, both 

16 regionally and locally, are generally less than 30 gpm. 

17 As mentioned in the previous section, until the proposed water-treatment plant is completed, 

18 water needed during construction and preconstruction would also be supplied by the 

19 Jenkinsville Water Company which utilizes groundwater wells in Fairfield County and purchases 

20 water from nearby water systems utilizing mainly surface water. The review team 

21 acknowledges that a portion of water supplied to VCSNS until the treatment plant is constructed 

22 could be provided from groundwater pumped by one or more of the regional water supply 

23 utilities. However, even if the entire water supply came from groundwater, the groundwater use 

24 would only occur until the water treatment plant was completed and would not exceed the 

25 existing water supply capacity of these utilities. Therefore, this groundwater use would not 

26 significantly alter the region’s ability to meet groundwater demands. 

27 Factors that limit the impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on groundwater use in 

28 the area are: (1) limited and temporary excavation dewatering, which may be required for Units 2 

29 and 3; (2) the low groundwater pumping rates due to the generally low permeability of the 

30 aquifers in this area; (3) the relatively large distances to local groundwater supply wells; and 

31 (4) the site location that is partially isolated hydrologically from offsite users by surface 

32 waterbodies (Mayo Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir). As a result, 

33 the review team concludes that the groundwater use impacts of construction and preconstruction 

34 of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL and no mitigation would be warranted. Based on the 

35 above analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of 

36 the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction 

37 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts 

2 The impacts of building a nuclear power plant on water quality are similar to impacts that would 

3 be associated with the development of any large industrial site. This section includes 

4 identification of the proposed activities associated with building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 that could 

5 affect water quality, and analysis and evaluation of proposed practices to minimize adverse 

6 impacts on water quality by these activities. The impacts on surface water and groundwater are 

7 discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 and Section 4.3.3.2, respectively. 

8 4.2.3.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Quality 

9 The activities associated with building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would occur close enough to 

10 Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, Broad River, and Mayo Creek that the impacts from these 

11 activities on the quality of surface water need to be considered. These impacts are discussed in 

12 SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2009a). 

13 Section 4.2.1 of this EIS discusses the impact of surface-water runoff and the discharge of 

14 water from dewatering activities. These activities are regulated by NPDES permitting, FERC 

15 approval, adoption of a SWPPP, use of BMPs, and by obtaining dredging permits and USACE 

16 approval. Discharges to Parr Reservoir would also require FERC approval. 

17 Activities related to road and railroad spur improvement could potentially affect water quality in 

18 Mayo Creek or other small creeks on the property as land clearing and grading increase the 

19 potential for runoff and erosion. Other activities associated with building the proposed units 

20 would occur in areas that drain into Mayo Creek, its tributaries, or small unnamed creeks to the 

21 south and east of the proposed new facilities. SCE&G would use BMPs for soil erosion controls 

22 and comply with applicable regulations designed to prevent stormwater runoff from affecting the 

23 water quality in Mayo Creek and other small streams (SCE&G 2009a). 

24 The temporary sewage-treatment plant in place during the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

25 would use sodium hypochlorite disinfection and process up to 17,500 gpd (12.15 gpm). The 

26 location of the treatment plant, the waterbody receiving its effluent, and the discharge location 

27 would be established as part of the NPDES permitting process (SCE&G 2009a). 

28 New transmission lines would need to be installed. Tower and line installation activities would 

29 comply with State and Federal guidelines and BMPs would be used to minimize impacts on 

30 water quality from erosion and sedimentation. 

31 Because the impacts of hydrologic alterations resulting from activities associated with building 

32 the proposed units would be localized and temporary, and because the required permits, 

33 certifications, and the SWPPP call for the implementation of BMPs to minimize impacts, the 

34 review team concludes that the impacts on surface-water quality from activities related to 

35 construction and preconstruction of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and no further 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-16 April 2010 

1 mitigation beyond the actions stated would be warranted. Based on the above analysis, and 

2 because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed 

3 activities, the review team concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction would be 

4 SMALL, and no further mitigation measures beyond the BMPs would be warranted. 

5 4.2.3.2 Impacts on Groundwater Quality 

6 SCE&G committed to quickly cleaning up “minor spills of diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, or 

7 lubricants” which would “mitigate impacts to local groundwater because spills would be quickly 

8 attended to and not allowed to penetrate into the groundwater” (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G also 

9 developed a spill prevention plan as a part of the SWPPP, which is a condition of the 

10 stormwater discharge permit issued by SCDHEC. The spill prevention plan lists BMPs that are 

11 implemented to minimize the potential for releases of pollutants during preconstruction and 

12 construction that would be followed as required by SCDHEC. 

13 Factors that limit the impacts of preconstruction and construction activities on groundwater 

14 quality in the area are 1) SCE&G’s BMPs for spill prevention and control as mentioned above; 

15 2) the relatively large distances to local groundwater supply wells; and 3) the partial isolation of 

16 the site from offsite users by surface waterbodies (Mayo Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, 

17 and Monticello Reservoir). As a result, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of construction 

18 and preconstruction on groundwater quality would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be 

19 warranted. Therefore, the impacts of NRC-authorized construction would be SMALL, and no 

20 further mitigation would be warranted. 

21 4.2.4 Water Monitoring 

22 SCE&G outlines monitoring programs for hydrologic and chemical monitoring in Sections 6.3 

23 and 6.6 of its ER for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a). The SCDHEC requires 

24 NPDES permitting for projects that disturb more than 1 ac of land. The NPDES permit covers 

25 the monitoring of stormwater discharges from the areas associated with building the proposed 

26 units. To obtain an NPDES permit a SWPPP must be filed. The SWPPP developed by SCE&G 

27 would include a description of visual inspection actions to detect erosion and provide effective 

28 sediment control. The SWPPP also would include a description of sediment control BMPs. The 

29 approval of the SWPPP precedes the issuance of the NPDES permit, which would typically 

30 describe the monitoring locations and frequency. In addition, SCE&G indicated it would use the 

31 NPDES monitoring program for Unit 1 to detect any water-quality changes that might be caused 

32 by activities associated with building the proposed units (SCE&G 2009a). The current NPDES 

33 monitoring program for VCSNS Unit 1 includes 11 existing outfalls. 

34 SCE&G outlines groundwater monitoring programs for hydrologic and chemical monitoring in 

35 Sections 6.3 and 6.6 of its ER for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G 

36 installed 31 monitoring wells to characterize the groundwater flow in the vicinity of proposed 

37 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 as part of preapplication site characterization activities. Four of the 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 wells have been retained for future groundwater monitoring (SCE&G 2009d). These four 

2 wells are located outside the footprint of the nuclear island (see Figure GW-11-1 in SCE&G 

3 2009d). SCE&G indicated that it would add other groundwater monitoring wells based on 

4 any needs identified during discussions with the SCDHEC during final design and 

5 permitting (SCE&G 2009d). 

6 4.3 Ecological Impacts 

7 This section describes the potential impacts on ecological resources from building the proposed 

8 VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including the installation of new transmission lines to connect the units to 

9 the grid. The section is divided into two subsections: terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. 

10 4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts 

11 This section provides information about the construction and preconstruction activities for 

12 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and their associated impacts on the terrestrial ecosystem. 

13 Topics discussed include terrestrial resource impacts on the VCSNS site and in areas 

14 associated with the expansion of the transmission system to include six new 230-kV 

15 transmission lines. SCE&G stated it would develop and follow a Construction Environmental 

16 Controls Plan, which would include compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal 

17 ordinances, laws, etc. to prevent or minimize potential impacts (SCE&G 2009a). Other 

18 environmental-management controls, such as meeting the requirements of existing permits and 

19 use of BMPs, would be implemented through existing SCE&G VCSNS procedures and modified 

20 as necessary. The plan would cover topics such as protection of sensitive resources, 

21 stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, noise and vibration, air quality (fugitive 

22 dust), spill prevention and response, and cleanup and restoration. In addition, all construction 

23 personnel would be required to take environmental awareness training covering the 

24 aforementioned topics prior to being allowed to work onsite (SCE&G 2009a). 

25 4.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

26 A majority of the site-preparation and project-development activities for proposed VCSNS Units 

27 2 and 3 would occur in areas previously disturbed during construction of Unit 1. Impacts from 

28 development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated areas would result from the clearing and 

29 grading of approximately 490 ac (SCE&G 2009a). Approximately 137 ac outside the exclusion 

30 area boundary would be used for temporary facilities, laydown areas, and spoils-disposal areas 

31 (SCE&G 2009a). Approximately 120 ft of shoreline on the Parr Reservoir would be temporarily 

32 disturbed to install the blowdown discharge structure, and installation of the raw- (makeup-) 

33 water intake from Monticello Reservoir would temporarily disturb approximately 175 ft of 

34 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-18 April 2010 

1 shoreline (SCE&G 2009a). In addition, approximately 2.44 mi of new transmission-line corridor 

2 would be cleared of forest and planted in grass to accommodate two of the proposed new 

3 230-kV transmission lines. 

4 Impacts on Habitats 

5 Affected habitats would include forested land and wetlands. 

6 Forests

7 The grading, clearing, and excavation related to the development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, site 

8 structures, and roadways would disturb approximately 435 ac of forested habitat, which would 

9 result in the permanent removal of approximately 225 ac of planted pines, 103 ac of naturally 

10 vegetated pines, 65 ac of mixed pine-hardwoods, and 41 ac of hardwood. Approximately 56 ac 

11 of open, nonforested, and recently cleared areas would be disturbed during development, 

12 including approximately 18 ac for the access road and 10 ac for the water-treatment plant 

13 (SCE&G 2009a) (see Figure 4-1). Approximately 40 percent of the 1090 ac of mixed forest on 

14 the VCSNS site would be permanently removed during site-preparation activities, and a large 

15 portion of forests removed would be planted pine. The permanent loss of approximately 435 ac 

16 of forest is less than 1 percent of the available approximately 51,000 ac of mixed forest in the 

17 vicinity of the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would occupy an area dominated by planted loblolly pine 

19 (Pinus taeda) with a few small stands of hardwood forest present. The proposed site for the 

20 cooling-tower development area contains a small stand of naturally vegetated loblolly pine, 

21 planted pine, and a few small hardwood stands in the more mesic sites along streams and 

22 ravines (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b; SCE&G 2002; SCE&G 2009a). 

23 Wetlands

24 Site-preparation and site-development impacts on wetlands on the VCSNS site may include 

25 filling, clearing of vegetation, sedimentation, erosion, and alterations to hydrology. SCE&G 

26 stated that it has sited the proposed facilities and infrastructure in a way that would minimize 

27 impacts on wetlands and wildlife habitat, and that impacts on wetlands that occur near areas of 

28 site preparation and development would be minimized by using established BMPs (SCE&G 

29 2009a). SCE&G has established 50-ft buffered streamside management zones onsite that 

30 would be protected in accordance with BMPs such as the use of turbidity curtains and spill 

31 control established by the South Carolina Forestry Commission (Figure 4-2) (SCFC 1994; 

32 SCE&G 2009a). Site preparation for the cooling towers would permanently remove 

33 approximately 0.26 ac of wetland “L” associated with a small stream (Figure 4-2) (SCE&G 

34 2009a). This activity would result in the loss of less than 1 percent of the approximately 44.3 ac 

35 of the total wetlands on the VCSNS site (see Table 2-14). 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 4-2. Streams and Wetlands, Including a 50-ft Buffer, on the VCSNS Site (letters in 

3 circles identify streams) 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-20 April 2010 

1 SCE&G has conducted wetland delineations on the site and received a Jurisdictional 

2 Determination from the USACE on June 29, 2009. The USACE issued the Jurisdictional 

3 Determination based on an onsite inspection, review of soil survey information, aerial maps, and 

4 other relevant information sources (USACE 2009). SCE&G (2009n) states the following: 

5 To provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional waters impacts 

6 associated with the proposed project, SCE&G would likely propose to purchase 

7 adequate credits from an approved mitigation bank in the service territory in 

8 which impacts are proposed. If such a bank does not exist, mitigation credits 

9 could be purchased from another bank as deemed appropriate by the regulatory 

10 agencies. SCE&G may also propose to provide mitigation credits by conducting 

11 certain activities on company-owned property in close proximity to proposed 

12 jurisdictional waters impacts as deemed appropriate by the regulatory agencies. 

13 The proposed cooling-tower blowdown line and raw-water intake structures were sited in a way 

14 that would minimize impacts on wildlife habitat and wetlands. The blowdown line would be 

15 routed along an existing railroad corridor and the intake structure would be sited adjacent to the 

16 existing intake in an area with no wetlands (SCE&G 2009a). A sheet-pile cofferdam and 

17 dewatering system would be used to facilitate construction of the intake and discharge 

18 structures. Erosion and sediment control measures such as a turbidity curtain would be used 

19 and other BMPs would be used when needed (SCE&G 2009a). All excavated and dredged 

20 material would be transported to an onsite spoils area. Thus, impacts on terrestrial habitats 

21 associated with the intake and discharge installation activities would be minimal. 

22 Cleared and disturbed lands resulting from site-preparation and site-development activities are 

23 vulnerable to significant soil erosion due to wind and water forces. Appropriate measures and 

24 controls to limit soil erosion during these activities would be taken to stabilize these areas, 

25 prevent erosion and sedimentation, and reduce runoff as required by applicable laws, 

26 regulations, and permit requirements, and recognized BMPs would be used for all proposed 

27 activities (SCE&G 2009a). 

28 Due to the existence of similar habitats onsite and the large amount of those habitats 

29 surrounding the VCSNS site, impacts due to from habitat in loss from the site-preparation and 

30 site-development footprint for Units 2 and 3 and associated areas are expected to be minimal. 

31 Impacts on Wildlife 

32 Impacts from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would 

33 be unavoidable. Site-preparation and site-development activities that would affect wildlife at the 

34 VCSNS site include loss of habitat (temporary and permanent), presence of humans, heavy 

35 equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, outdoor lighting, and fugitive dust. These 

36 activities would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the development areas. Larger 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 and more mobile animals would likely flee the area, while less mobile animals such as reptiles, 

2 amphibians, and small mammals such as the beaver (Castor canadensis), would be at greater 

3 risk of incurring mortality. Although the surrounding forest and wetland habitat would be 

4 available for displaced animals, the movement of wildlife into surrounding areas would increase 

5 competition for available space and could result in increased predation and decreased fecundity 

6 for certain species. These conditions could lead to a temporary localized reduction in 

7 population size for particular species. When site-preparation and site-development activities are 

8 completed, species that can adapt to disturbed or developed areas may readily recolonize 

9 portions of the site where suitable habitat remains, is replanted, or restored. 

10 Increased traffic in the area from site-preparation and site-development activities would increase 

11 roadway mortality due to forced movement of wildlife into traffic areas as individuals flee 

12 construction areas. Mammals such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon 

13 (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), and eastern gray squirrel 

14 (Sciuris carolinensis) would likely suffer increased roadside mortality (Forman and Alexander 

15 1998). The review team concludes that these impacts would not be detectable beyond the local 

16 vicinity and would not destabilize regional wildlife populations. 

17 Noise from site-preparation and site-development activities can affect wildlife by inducing 

18 physiological changes, nest or habitat abandonment, or behavioral modifications, or it may 

19 disrupt communications required for breeding or defense (Larkin 1996). However, it is not 

20 unusual for wildlife to adapt to such noise (Larkin 1996). Development activities that would 

21 generate noise include operation of equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and heavy 

22 construction vehicles. Short-term noise levels from development activities onsite could be as 

23 high as 108 dBA (SCE&G 2009a). However, that level would not extend far beyond the 

24 boundaries of the project site. The predicted noise level range from development activity is 

25 approximately 55 to 84 dBA at a distance of 400 ft from each activity (SCE&G 2009a). The 

26 threshold at which birds and small mammals are startled or frightened is 80 to 85 dBA 

27 (Golden et al. 1980). The review team expects that noise levels associated with creation of the 

28 transmission-line corridor would be similar to noise levels associated with development activities 

29 at the VCSNS site (which is below threshold levels for wildlife at 400 ft) but would be incurred 

30 for a more limited duration at any given location. Thus, impacts on wildlife from noise are 

31 expected to be negligible. 

32 Avian collisions with fabricated structures such as large cranes and other construction 

33 equipment are a result of numerous factors related to species characteristics, such as flight 

34 behavior, age, habitat use, seasonal habits, and diurnal habits, as well as to environmental 

35 characteristics such as weather, topography, land use, and the orientation of the structures 

36 (Manville 2005). Most authors on the subject of avian collisions with utility structures agree that 

37 collisions are not a biologically significant source of mortality for thriving populations of birds 

38 with good reproductive potential (Brown 1993). The NRC (1996) reviewed monitoring data 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-22 April 2010 

1 concerning avian collisions at nuclear power plants with large cooling towers and determined 

2 that the overall avian mortality rate is low, therefore avian collisions are not expected to be 

3 significant. 

4 Refueling stations, fuel storage, and the storage of other liquids during site-preparation and 

5 development activities also pose a threat to local surface waters used by wildlife on the site. 

6 However, SCE&G has established environmental controls to keep such liquids from escaping 

7 containment, thereby minimizing mortality and morbidity of wildlife (SCE&G 2009a). BMPs 

8 related to the management of effluent and stormwater runoff as required by the Stormwater 

9 Management Plan and the SCDHEC NPDES permit would also limit these impacts. 

10 Impacts on habitats and wildlife related to site-preparation and site-development include direct 

11 mortality from land clearing, increased traffic, noise, and chemical spills. Displacement of 

12 individuals, increased competition, and lost productivity could also result from construction and 

13 preconstruction activities. However, the review team does not expect these activities to be 

14 measurable at a population level beyond the project site. The review team has determined that 

15 the site-preparation and site-development-related impacts of habitat loss, noise, avian collisions, 

16 and increased traffic may adversely affect onsite wildlife. However, these impacts would be 

17 temporary, minor, and mitigated. Development of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

18 done according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, and 

19 established BMPs. Waterways and wetlands would be avoided to the extent possible (SCE&G 

20 2009a). Therefore, the review team concludes that site-preparation and site-development 

21 impacts on wildlife habitat on the proposed VCSNS site would be localized. 

22 4.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines 

23 This section assesses impacts on terrestrial resources expected to occur from site-preparation 

24 and site-development activities within the proposed transmission system. Impacts on habitats 

25 and wildlife from development of the new transmission lines required for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

26 would vary depending on the site-preparation and site-development activities required for the 

27 specific line. 

28 Impacts on Habitats 

29 The review team examined potentially affected habitats within the proposed SCE&G and Santee 

30 Cooper transmission-line corridors. As described in Sections 2.2 and 3.2, a total of six new 

31 offsite 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to distribute the power generated by the 

32 proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Santee Cooper would develop and maintain two of 

33 the lines, and the other four would be developed and maintained by SCE&G in three corridors. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 SCE&G Transmission Lines

2 The VCSNS-Lake Murray line would be upgraded and routed entirely within existing 

3 transmission-line corridors. Because the entire line resides within Fairfield, Richland, and 

4 Lexington Counties (the same counties used in the site and vicinity analysis for VCSNS Units 2 

5 and 3 in Section 4.3.1), the habitat types and wildlife are generally similar. There would be no 

6 clearing for the Lake Murray line, only structure replacement and restringing of lines (FP&S 

7 2008). All work performed by SCE&G would be done in compliance with applicable Federal, 

8 State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements. Therefore, the potential impacts on 

9 terrestrial habitats from upgrading transmission lines in existing transmission-line corridors 

10 would be minimal, and mitigation beyond the use of standard BMPs would not be warranted. 

11 For the remaining two SCE&G lines (the VCSNS-Killian line [single-circuit], and the VCSNS-St. 

12 George line [double-circuit]), the exact routing is not yet determined, so the extent and type of 

13 wildlife within the proposed new transmission-line corridors are not known at the time of this 

14 writing. A siting study was conducted to identify optimal viable routes that would minimize 

15 impacts on important habitats and species. Both lines would require widening of existing 

16 corridors and creation of new corridors. Where the new lines are parallel to existing SCE&G 

17 transmission lines, the existing transmission-line corridor width would be increased by 70 ft. 

18 Where new lines require new right-of-way, the width of the corridor would be 100 ft. (FP&S 

2008). The VCSNS-Killian line siting study area encompasses 144,640 ac (226 mi2 19 ) which 

20 encompasses an approximate linear distance of 37 mi, and approximately 19 mi of the line 

21 would run parallel to existing electrical transmission lines. The remaining approximately 18 mi 

22 of line would require the creation of new corridor. The VCSNS-St. George line siting study area 

encompasses 874,888 ac (1367 mi2 23 ), which encompasses an approximate linear distance of 

24 134 mi; approximately 66 mi of the line would be routed parallel to existing transmission-line 

25 corridors and approximately 68 mi would require the creation of a new corridor (see Table 3-1). 

26 Within the larger study areas for both lines, hypothetical transmission-line rights-of-way routes 

27 were presented for the VCSNS-Killian line and the VCSNS-St. George line to use for analysis. 

28 The proposed VCSNS-Killian line would be 37 mi long with a total of 380 ac of new 

29 transmission-line right-of-way in Fairfield and Richland Counties. The proposed VCSNS-St. 

30 George line would be 134 mi long with a total of 1491 ac of new right-of-way and would cross 

31 Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, 

32 Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, and Saluda Counties (Figure 2-5) (FP&S 2008). For the 

33 VCSNS-Killian line, the total acreage of wetland (all palustrine) to be affected by land clearing 

34 would be approximately 18 ac, which represents approximately 4.7 percent of the 380-ac 

35 corridor (SCE&G 2009n). The total acreage of wetland (all palustrine) to be disturbed in the 

36 VCSNS-St. George line would be approximately 201 ac within the 1491-ac corridor, which 

37 represents approximately 13.5 percent of the corridor (SCE&G 2009n) Data for affected 

38 wetlands and stream buffers in SCE&G’s proposed transmission-line corridors are listed in 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-24 April 2010 

1 Table 4-2. Land-cover data for the siting-study areas for each of the proposed VCSNS-Killian 

2 and VCSNS-St. George lines and the total areas of each classification type that would be 

3 affected are listed in Table 4-3. 

4 Table 4-2. Affected Wetlands and Stream Buffers in SCE&G’s Proposed New Transmission5 Line Corridors 

Construction Activity 

VCSNSKillian 

230-kV Line 

VCSNS-St. 

George 230-kV 

Line 

Acres of river, stream, lake, or pond in the transmission-line corridor 0.6 19.4 

Acres of transmission-line corridor requiring hand clearing within 

100 ft of any stream, river, lake, or pond 

24.2 131.4 

Acres of transmission-line corridor requiring hand clearing within 

100 ft of any wetland 

13.5 92.3 

Acres of PSS wetland affected by clearing within a wetland 0.1 21.1 

Acres of PEM wetland affected by clearing within a wetland 1.6 5.2 

Acres of PFO wetland affected by clearing within a wetland 4.4 95.4 

Acres of upland in the transmission-line corridor 336 1126 

Total 380 1491 

PEM = palustrine emergent; PFO = palustrine forested; PSS = palustrine scrub-shrub 

6 Assuming that the actual routes would be similar to those proposed as “viable” routes, the 

7 number of acres of each type of habitat that would be affected represent a small fraction of the 

8 available habitat in the traversed landscapes, and thus, impacts on habitats would be negligible. 

9 However, if the actual routes differ from the hypothetical routes, impacts on habitats could be 

10 greater. 

11 Santee Cooper Transmission Lines

12 The Santee Cooper lines are almost entirely routed within existing transmission-line corridors 

13 with the exception of 2.44 mi that would require a new 100-ft-wide corridor adjacent to the 

14 existing transmission-line corridor. The VCSNS-Flat Creek and VCSNS-Varnville lines would be 

15 routed 99 percent within existing transmission-line corridors (MACTEC 2008). The remaining 1 

16 percent (2.44 mi) would require new 100-ft-wide corridors, which would be adjacent to existing 

17 maintained transmission-line corridors (MACTEC 2008). Clearing of the 2.44 mi of new 

18 transmission-line corridor would occur very close to the VCSNS site. Impacts on habitats and 

19 wildlife in these areas would be the same as impacts onsite and would be mitigated (see 

20 Section 4.3.1). A total of 45 ac of new transmission-line corridor, which is equal to 

21 approximately 1.3 percent of the entire 3534 ac of transmission-line corridor, would be cleared 

22 (SCE&G 2009n; MACTEC 2008). 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 4-3. Impacts on Land Cover in the Proposed VCSNS-Killian and VCSNS-St. George 

2 Transmission-Line Corridors 

Land Cover Classification 

VCSNSKillian 

230-kV Line 

(Affected 

Area) 

VCSNSKillian 

230-kV 

Line Total 

Study Area 

VCSNS-St. 

George 

230-kV Line 

(Affected 

Area) 

VCSNS-St. 

George 

230-kV Line 

Total Study 

Area 

Acres 

Bottomland/Floodplain Forest 8.1 4978.3 79.1 69,759.5 

Closed Canopy Evergreen Forest/Woodland 50.2 30,610.0 93.1 85,890.0 

Cultivated Land 0.0 102.3 87.8 36,568.5 

Dry Deciduous Forest/Woodland 13.2 7324.5 31.5 19,572.1 

Dry Scrub/Shrub Thicket 41.8 40,833.4 200.4 226,099.3 

Dry Mixed Forest/Woodland 100.2 8345.1 379.1 145,595.7 

Fresh Water 1.0 3242.5 8.5 6105.6 

Grassland/Pasture 86.9 18,229.7 511.0 202,472.3 

Marsh/Emergent Wetland 0.2 30.4 2.2 699.0 

Mesic Deciduous Forest/Woodland 7.1 5112.2 10.6 5025.8 

Mesic Mixed Forest/Woodland 0.7 517.6 16.7 4932.7 

Needle-Leaved Evergreen Mixed 

Forest/Woodland 

6.2 6486.9 5.1 7449.2 

Open Canopy/Recently Cleared Forest 24.2 6102.4 12.6 2159.1 

Pocosin 0.0 NA 0.9 1010.7 

Urban Development 33.7 10,086.2 49.5 51,833.1 

Urban Residential 5.4 1648.1 0.0 3931.7 

Wet Scrub/Shrub Thicket 1.3 682.0 3.0 1444.5 

Swamp 0.2 45.8 0.0 NA 

Total 380.4 144,393.4 1491.1 874,853.7 

Sources: MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008 

NA = Not applicable 

3 A wetland delineation was completed along the 2.44 mi of proposed new transmission-line 

4 corridor in July 2008 and it was determined that site preparation to widen the VCSNS-Flat Creek 

5 line would result in the conversion of approximately 276 linear ft (0.11 ac) of forested stream to 

6 nonforested stream, and site preparation to widen the VCSNS-Varnville line would result in the 

7 conversion of 0.60 ac of forested wetlands to nonforested wetlands and 276 linear ft (0.11 ac) of 

8 forested stream to nonforested stream (SCE&G 2009e). Santee Cooper stated that all clearing 

9 would be done using BMPs and that no mechanized clearing or grubbing would be necessary 

10 (SCE&G 2009e). 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-26 April 2010 

1 Site-preparation and structure installation activities that would occur in the existing transmission2 line corridors that may cause temporary impacts would be limited to replacement of existing 

3 structures and installation of new lines. Santee Cooper stated that it would install new 

4 structures on or adjacent to existing footprints whenever possible and that disturbance from 

5 these activities would not create impacts greater than those that already occur during ongoing 

6 transmission-line corridor maintenance activities (MACTEC 2008). Santee Cooper has also 

7 stated that it would take measures to minimize impacts on wetlands by following 

8 recommendations from the USACE to mitigate temporary impacts from site preparation and 

9 structure installation such as the use of mulches, hay bales, turbidity curtains, and other 

10 erosion-control methods. Engineering controls and existing procedures are also in place to 

11 address unavoidable disturbances. All work performed by Santee Cooper would be done in 

12 compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements. 

13 Based on the small amount of new corridor clearing and subsequent small loss of wetlands and 

14 streams, the review team concludes that the impacts on habitats from clearing the new 

15 transmission-line corridors and upgrading existing corridors for the proposed Santee Cooper 

16 lines would be minimal. 

17 Summary of Overall Transmission Line Impacts on Habitats

18 The combined length mileage of new or expanded (widened) transmission-line right-of-way for 

19 both SCE&G and Santee Cooper would be approximately 174 mi. An estimated 1916 ac of new 

20 right-of-way would be established. A total of approximately 220 ac of wetlands (all palustrine) 

21 would be subject to land-clearing impacts. Additional nonforested (emergent) wetlands are also 

22 present within the proposed new transmission-line right-of-way areas, but these wetlands would 

23 not have to be physically disturbed to build or maintain the transmission lines. 

24 Impacts on Wildlife 

25 Wildlife present in the transmission-line corridors during the proposed work would be subjected 

26 to many of the same types of impacts described for the proposed VCSNS site. Some wildlife 

27 would perish or be displaced during clearing of new transmission-line corridors, and, as a 

28 consequence of habitat loss and fragmentation, competition for remaining resources could 

29 increase. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be at 

30 greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, which would be 

31 displaced to adjacent habitats. Undisturbed land adjacent to the corridors could provide habitat 

32 to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and resources could 

33 reduce population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from construction noise 

34 and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with new transmission towers and 

35 conductors or the equipment used to install these components. Noise levels associated with the 

36 building of the transmission lines would be similar to or less than and of shorter duration than 

37 noise levels associated with construction at the proposed VCSNS site, and would be below 

38 disturbance threshold levels for wildlife at about 400 ft (SCE&G 2009a; MACTEC 2008). Thus, 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The potential for 

2 traffic-related wildlife mortality is expected to be low because construction crews would be small 

3 and dispersed over very large geographic areas (MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008). Avian mortality 

4 resulting from collisions with structures and equipment during transmission-line development 

5 would represent a small hazard for bird populations, particularly when compared to impacts 

6 resulting from habitat loss (Manville 2005; MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008). The review team 

7 expects that noise levels associated with creation of the transmission-line corridor would be 

8 similar to noise levels associated with development activities at the VCSNS site and would be 

9 below threshold levels for wildlife at 400 ft. 

10 The creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some species, including 

11 those that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed 

12 deer, northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), and the 

13 gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks 

14 (Buteo jamaicensis) and great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus), would likely exploit newly created 

15 hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be converted to and maintained 

16 in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide foraging habitat for wading birds. 

17 However, fragmentation of forests could affect species that are dependent on large tracts of 

18 continuous forested habitat. All work in the proposed transmission-line corridors would be done 

19 according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, and 

20 established BMPs. Because SCE&G and Santee Cooper have procedures in place to minimize 

21 impacts on wildlife and habitats, and both plan to use existing footprints for new structures, the 

22 potential impacts of construction in existing corridors would be minimal. Because of the 

23 uncertainty concerning the possible routing of new transmission-line rights-of-way, the review 

24 team concludes that the terrestrial resources within and adjoining the new transmission-line 

25 rights-of-way could be altered noticeably. 

26 4.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

27 This section describes the potential impacts on the important species identified using NRC 

28 criteria (NRC 2000) in Section 2.4.1 resulting from development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and 

29 associated transmission lines. 

30 Important Species – Site and Vicinity 

31 No Federally or State-listed species are known to occur on the VCSNS site. There are no areas 

32 designated as critical habitat on and in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The delisted bald eagle 

33 (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is known to occur on the VCSNS site and is still protected under the 

34 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Two active bald eagle 

35 nests are known to occur on or in the immediate of the VCSNS site; one is located on SCE&G 

36 property north of existing Unit 1 on a jetty that extends into Monticello Reservoir, and the other 

37 is located west of Parr Reservoir less than 1 mi from the western boundary of the SCE&G 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-28 April 2010 

1 property (see Figure 4-1). Proposed site-preparation and site-development activities would not 

2 encroach upon either nest because they would take place well beyond the 660-ft buffer 

3 recommended for commercial construction activities near active bald eagle nests (FWS 2007). 

4 Therefore, the potential to disturb eagles using these two nest sites would be minimal. 

5 Important Species – Transmission Lines 

6 The transmission lines associated with the proposed project would not travel through any areas 

7 designated or proposed by the FWS as “critical habitat” for endangered or threatened species 

8 (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). However, the SCE&G siting study stated occurrences of 

9 protected species have been mapped within 500 ft of the proposed VCSNS-St. George line 

10 (FP&S 2008), although it did not indicate the identities of the species. Additional Federally and 

11 State-listed species inhabit counties crossed by the proposed transmission-line corridors. A 

12 complete list of Federally and State-listed species that are known to occur in counties crossed 

13 by transmission lines associated with the project is given in Table 2-17. This list was compiled 

14 from the SCDNR Natural Heritage Database (SCDNR 2006a) and the FWS list (FWS 2008). 

15 Because the exact routes have not yet been determined by SCE&G, ground surveys were not 

16 conducted. SCE&G stated it would perform detailed ecological surveys to protect Federally and 

17 State-listed threatened and endangered species that may occur along the transmission lines as 

18 part of the permitting process prior to commencing construction activities (FP&S 2008). Once 

19 final routes are determined, the FWS and SCDNR would be consulted. 

20 The proposed transmission lines would travel through a variety of habitats that support large 

21 and small game as well as waterfowl species. Because most of the new transmission lines 

22 would be constructed within or adjacent to existing corridors for operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 

23 3, no significant additional impacts would be expected to occur on any commercially or 

24 recreationally important species as a result of transmission-line upgrade activities in those 

25 corridors. 

26 No areas designated or proposed by the FWS as “critical habitat” for threatened or endangered 

27 species occur on or immediately adjacent to the proposed transmission-line corridors (MACTEC 

28 2008). None of the transmission lines crosses State or Federal parks, wildlife refuges, wildlife 

29 management areas, or preserves. Because SCE&G and Santee Cooper have procedures in 

30 place to minimize impacts on important species and habitats, the potential impacts of site 

31 preparation and development in existing corridors would be minimal. Uncertainty remains about 

32 the exact routing of the proposed new transmission lines. The review team therefore concludes 

33 that, depending upon the exact routing ultimately selected, the terrestrial resource impacts 

34 resulting from associated with the site-preparation and development work within the new 

35 transmission-line rights-of-way might be regionally noticeable. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-29 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring 

2 SCE&G has stated that it would not conduct any monitoring of terrestrial resources during site 

3 preparation and development at the VCSNS site and associated transmission-line corridors 

4 (SCE&G 2009a). The review team likewise does not consider any monitoring necessary to 

5 protect terrestrial ecological resources. 

6 4.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts 

7 Mitigation measures for terrestrial impacts related to site preparation and development include 

8 the implementation of BMPs and performance of wetland mitigation, which are described in the 

9 previous sections. 

10 4.3.1.6 Summary of Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 

11 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

12 review team has determined that the impacts from site preparation and development on 

13 terrestrial resources on the VCSNS site, including permanent and temporary losses of forests 

14 and wetlands, would be localized and would not noticeably alter the ecology of the surrounding 

15 landscape. The affected terrestrial habitat types are common in the surrounding landscape, and 

16 much of the affected habitat consists of planted pine forest and successional vegetation on soils 

17 previously disturbed during development of VCSNS Unit 1. SCE&G stated that it would work 

18 with the USACE to determine appropriate mitigation through the permitting process of Section 

19 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill 

20 material into waters of the United States. The impact on wildlife at the population level 

21 (including Federally and State-listed species), would be negligible. SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

22 have both identified BMPs they use on the site (SCE&G 2009a) and in the transmission-line 

23 corridors and which they would use throughout the development and maintenance of the 

24 proposed facilities. Each utility also has stated that it would adhere to all applicable permit 

25 requirements. Because SCE&G and Santee Cooper have established procedures for 

26 minimizing impacts on important species and habitats, the potential impacts of transmission-line 

27 development in existing corridors would be minimal. There is uncertainty concerning the routing 

28 of new transmission-line corridors and the creation of approximately 86 mi of new right-of-way. 

29 Therefore, the review team concludes that the terrestrial resource impacts associated with the 

30 development of the new transmission-line corridors could noticeably alter the terrestrial 

31 ecological character of the surrounding landscape, especially due to forest fragmentation. 

32 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

33 review team concludes that the impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on 

34 terrestrial ecology resources on the VCSNS site would be SMALL. No further mitigation beyond 

35 that discussed above would be warranted. Based on the above analyses, and because 

36 NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-30 April 2010 

1 NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities on terrestrial 

2 ecological resources would be SMALL on the VCSNS site. The NRC staff also concludes that 

3 further mitigation beyond that stated above would not be warranted. 

4 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

5 review team concludes that the offsite terrestrial ecological impacts from preconstruction 

6 activities related to the development of the proposed associated transmission lines would be 

7 MODERATE. The greatest potential for regionally noticeable terrestrial ecological impacts 

8 would be from clearing and fragmentation of forest cover caused by clearing approximately 86 

9 mi of new transmission-line corridor not parallel to existing rights-of-way. The review team also 

10 concludes that further mitigation beyond that stated above would not be warranted. The Limited 

11 Work Authorization (LWA) rule specifically indicates that transmission lines are not included in 

12 the definition of construction. Therefore, no noticeable offsite terrestrial ecological impacts 

13 would result from NRC-authorized construction activities. 

14 4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts 

15 Impacts on aquatic resources stemming from site-preparation activities for VCSNS Units 2 and 

16 3 would include activities associated with the three main waterbodies at the site. As described 

17 in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, a discharge structure would be built at Parr Reservoir. A raw-water 

18 intake structure and a water-treatment plant intake structure would be installed at Monticello 

19 Reservoir. Site preparation activities for building the cooling towers would result in the filling of 

20 a seasonal headwater tributary to Mayo Creek. The locations of these structures and 

21 associated activity areas are shown in Figure 3-4. Additional aquatic impacts may include 

22 nonpoint source pollution in the form of stormwater runoff from site-preparation areas, 

23 preparation of new transmission-line corridors, and widening of existing transmission-line 

24 corridors. All work would be conducted in accordance with Clean Water Act, Section 401 and 

25 404 regulations (40 CFR 230). 

26 4.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity 

27 Parr Reservoir 

28 Construction and preconstruction activities associated with installation of the discharge structure 

29 in Parr Reservoir include dredging and pile driving, which can cause noise impacts as well as 

30 increased sedimentation and runoff. The specifications pertaining to the discharge structure 

31 have not been finalized, but the proposed shoreline disturbance area is estimated to include 120 

32 linear ft, the structure is 20-ft wide with 50 ft of disturbance on either side (SCE&G 2009a). The 

estimated dredge volume required for installation of the discharge structure is 11,000 yd3 33 and 

the estimated dredge area is 34,000 ft2 34 (SCE&G 2009f, g). All dredge and excavated materials 

35 would be disposed of at the upland location on the VCSNS site shown in Figure 3-4. The 36-in.-

36 diameter blowdown discharge pipe and associated diffuser line would extend approximately 100 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-31 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 ft from the shoreline into the reservoir and would be stabilized with rip-rap. The diffuser line 

2 would contain multiple ports with the discharge points approximately 3 ft above the bottom of 

3 the reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 Activities associated with the installation of the blowdown line and discharge structure include 

5 pile driving and excavation of the land extending from the uplands to the water’s edge to 

6 facilitate an adequate slope of the blowdown line (SCE&G 2009a). Preparation and installation 

7 of the discharge structure at Parr Reservoir include installation of sedimentation and turbidity 

8 control structures such as turbidity curtains and cofferdams, excavation and dredging in the 

9 vicinity of the diffuser structure, and disposal of dredged materials (SCE&G 2009a). 

10 Monticello Reservoir 

11 The installation of two water-intake structures on the Monticello Reservoir may affect aquatic 

12 biota. Dredging activities in these locations may temporarily increase turbidity, siltation, and 

13 noise. As described in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.1, SCE&G has proposed to install a new raw14 water intake structure approximately 1250 ft west of the existing VCSNS Unit 1 intake structure 

15 to supply makeup cooling water for Units 2 and 3. The raw-water intake structure for VCSNS 

16 Units 2 and 3 would be constructed of concrete and would be approximately 60 ft long and 75 ft 

17 wide (SCE&G 2009a). The estimated dredge volume for the raw-water intake structure is 

10,000 yd3

 and the estimated dredge area is 25,000 ft2 18 (SCE&G 2009f, g). All dredged 

19 materials would be disposed of at the upland location on the VCSNS site shown in Figure 3-4. 

20 Proposed activities associated with the installation of a new raw-water intake structure include 

21 the installation of a sheet-pile cofferdam and the subsequent dewatering of the construction 

22 area (SCE&G 2009a). Plans include the installation of a turbidity curtain around the perimeter 

23 of the installation area prior to the installation of the cofferdam (SCE&G 2009a). Turbidity 

24 curtains are often used in conjunction with activities that cause increased sedimentation and 

25 turbidity and are a tool for implementing BMPs (Francingues and Palermo 2005). 

26 The water for plant operations (service water system and potable, fire protection, and 

27 demineralized water systems) would also be derived from Monticello Reservoir, but would be 

28 obtained from the water-treatment plant intake structure to be installed approximately 5500 ft 

29 east of the existing VCSNS Unit 1 intake structure (see Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3-4) (SCE&G 

30 2009a). SCE&G has proposed two options for building the water-treatment plant intake 

31 structure, both of which necessitate using barges as work platforms and installation of a 

32 cofferdam and turbidity curtain. The deployment of barges into Monticello Reservoir may 

33 require modifications of up to 100 ft of shoreline, which may result in the removal of rip-rap or 

34 other bank-stabilizing structures. Both options would also require the installation of a 

35 maintenance access pier approximately 17-ft wide extending approximately 200 ft from the 

36 shoreline into Monticello Reservoir. Compliance in both installation and design would be in 

37 accordance with USACE requirements and FERC permitting (SCE&G 2009p). 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-32 April 2010 

1 Onsite Streams 

2 Site-preparation activities associated with onsite streams include permanent and temporary 

3 impacts on aquatic environments. The designated location of cooling towers associated with 

4 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require filling Stream L, a seasonal headwater stream that drains 

5 into Mayo Creek (Figure 4-2) (SCE&G 2009a). Filling of this headwater stream would result in 

6 the permanent loss of 774 linear ft of stream habitat (SCE&G 2009a). 

7 Localized, temporary site-preparation impacts on onsite streams include the widening of an 

8 existing railroad spur right-of-way adjacent to a seasonal stream and the construction of a new 

9 bridge at Mayo Creek. SCE&G has proposed to widen an existing railroad spur right-of-way to 

10 make room for railroad upgrades and the new blowdown line associated with VCSNS Units 2 

11 and 3. Site-preparation activities associated with the expansion of the railroad line right-of-way 

12 are proposed to occur adjacent to a seasonal stream for approximately 0.5 mi (SCE&G 2009a). 

13 Impacts associated with widening the right-of-way, upgrading the railroad spur, and installing a 

14 new 36-in.-diameter blowdown line adjacent to the seasonal stream may result in increased 

15 runoff to, and sedimentation in, the stream, resulting in degradation of habitat and lower 

16 dissolved oxygen levels. The development of a new four-lane road connecting the site17 preparation area associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to State Highway 213 (SC-213) includes 

18 plans for a new bridge crossing that would span Mayo Creek (SCE&G 2009a). Although 

19 temporary, aquatic impacts associated with bridge installation include an increased potential for 

20 runoff and sedimentation. The SCDHEC regulates activities related to stormwater management 

21 and sediment control (SCDHEC 2008). SCE&G (2009a) has recognized the aquatic ecosystem 

22 implications of runoff generated from site-preparation activities at the VCSNS site and has 

23 acknowledged the necessity of compliance with practices and permits such as a SWPPP and a 

24 general NPDES permit for industrial stormwater. Impacts from runoff and in-water installation 

25 activities would be mitigated through use of temporary culverts and BMPs such as the use of 

26 cofferdams and turbidity (silt) curtains (SCE&G 2009a). 

27 As described in Section 3.2.2, the proposed location of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is on the top of a 

28 hill, and stormwater would drain away from the site in several directions. A stormwater29 management system would be installed (SCE&G 2009a). Installation would include site 

30 grading, ditches, swales, and basins. The current and proposed stormwater-retention basins in 

31 the immediate vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 3-5. Outflow from these basins would 

32 eventually drain into several unnamed creeks to the west and into Mayo Creek to the east. 

33 Once drainage enters Mayo Creek it would flow south, then west around the southern base of 

34 the powerblock area (SCE&G 2009a). 

35 To minimize sedimentation and impacts on water quality, SCE&G intends to conduct land 

36 clearing activities during dry periods (SCE&G 2009a). 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-33 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines 

2 The delivery of power associated with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would require upgrading 

3 existing transmission-line corridors and installing new transmission lines and substations. With 

4 regard to the delivery of power, two entities, SCE&G and Santee Cooper, are responsible for 

5 identifying the proposed locations associated with new and upgraded transmission lines. In 

6 total, six new 230-kV lines are proposed for the transmission of electricity associated with 

7 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). 

8 SCE&G Transmission Lines 

9 The final locations for the majority of the SCE&G proposed transmission systems have yet to be 

10 determined. Three corridors would be required to carry the four SCE&G-owned transmission 

11 lines as described in Section 4.1.2. The VCSNS-Lake Murray corridor would not include any 

12 new corridor development, while the VCSNS-Killian line would require approximately 18 mi of 

13 new corridor and 19 mi of corridor adjacent to existing corridor. The VCSNS-St. George 

14 corridor would require 66 mi of corridor adjacent to existing corridor and 68 mi of new corridor 

15 (FP&S 2008). Activities associated with the SCE&G transmission system would include 

16 clearing land, installing new poles, hanging new lines, and upgrading existing lines. The 

17 SCE&G transmission system would cross numerous streams and rivers throughout the State of 

18 South Carolina, which includes the Piedmont and Coastal Plain ecoregions. SCE&G has 

19 proposed to follow State and Federal guidelines involving the use of BMPs for limiting impacts 

20 on waterbodies as described previously, during transmission system installation activities, which 

21 includes leaving low-growing vegetation intact to provide stream buffer zones (FP&S 2008). An 

22 estimated 24.2 ac and 131.4 ac of corridor would be cleared within 100 ft of a stream, river, 

23 lake, or pond for the VCSNS-Killian and VCSNS-St. George lines, respectively. Only 0.6 ac of 

24 river, lake, stream, or pond habitat is within the proposed VCSNS-Killian corridor, and 19.4 ac 

25 are within the proposed VCSNS-St. George corridor (FP&S 2008, Chart 6.3-1). 

26 Impacts on the waterways associated with transmission-line activities include erosion of soils, 

27 potential for pollutant discharge from equipment, and temporary disturbance and/or 

28 displacement of aquatic biota. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper would implement BMPs to 

29 minimize adverse conditions for aquatic biota and habitats during transmission-line installation. 

30 Examples of BMPs to minimize impacts on streams and open water include establishment of 

31 sediment basins, sediment traps, and silt fences to control and divert runoff away from streams, 

32 and maintenance of stream buffers (MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008). In addition, both Santee 

33 Cooper and SCE&G have acknowledged the need for acquiring State and Federal permits and 

34 the incorporation of BMPs and SWPPPs into said permits (MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008). 

35 SCE&G stated that it “will comply with the S.C. Stormwater Management and Sediment 

36 Reduction Act related to water quality protection and will comply with the recommendations of 

37 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-34 April 2010 

1 various regulatory agencies, including the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, S.C. 

2 Department of Health and Environmental Control, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, etc.” 

3 (FP&S 2008). 

4 Santee Cooper Transmission Lines 

5 Two transmission-line corridors would be installed by Santee Cooper: the VCSNS-Flat Creek 

6 and the VCSNS-Varnville lines. Santee Cooper intends to install 2.44 mi of new transmission7 line corridor adjacent to an existing corridor, and upgrade 232 mi of existing transmission-line 

8 corridors. Activities associated with Santee Cooper transmission lines would include replacing 

9 transmission poles, moving existing poles, and adding new poles within the footprint of the 

10 existing corridors; hanging new lines on existing supports; and clearing land (MACTEC 2008). 

11 The Santee Cooper transmission lines would include 140 stream and river crossings throughout 

12 various watersheds within the State of South Carolina (Figure 4-3) (MACTEC 2008). Within the 

13 existing transmission-line corridors, the new transmission structures are expected to span 

14 streams. However, the 2.44 mi of proposed new 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor 

15 associated with the VCSNS-Varnville line may require the installation of one or two structures 

16 within the Parr Reservoir (MACTEC 2008). Placement of pile foundations in the Parr Reservoir 

17 would be required for installation of new transmission towers, but no dredging activities would 

18 be required. The new corridor would run adjacent to the existing corridor that currently spans 

19 Parr Reservoir. Santee Cooper would prepare a SWPPP, in accordance with SCDHEC 

20 guidance (SCDHEC 2002), for minimization of impacts on sediment quality during installation 

21 activities (MACTEC 2008). 

22 A combined 551 linear ft of forested stream habitat would be converted to nonforested stream 

23 habitat through preparation of both Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors (SCE&G 2009e). 

24 To minimize impacts on streams and open water, MACTEC (2008) states “installation and 

25 replacement of transmission structures at river and stream crossings can be accomplished by 

26 setting the transmission structures on the banks in such a way that runoff will be diverted, 

27 resulting in minimal impacts to adjacent streams and rivers.” Santee Cooper transmission lines 

28 would cross navigable waters of the State of South Carolina at 18 locations. Permitting 

29 approval would be required by the USACE through Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 

30 Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) and SCDHEC. 

31 4.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats 

32 One Federally listed endangered aquatic species, the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona 

33 decorata), is listed as possibly occurring in Fairfield County, but is not known to occur at the 

34 VCSNS site. In total, six Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species occur within 

35 counties proposed for siting of new transmission lines, including designated critical habitat for 

36 the Carolina heelsplitter. Several aquatic taxa within Fairfield and Newberry Counties are State 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-35 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 4-3. Proposed SCE&G and Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Corridors in Relation to 

3 Crossings of Major Waterbodies 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-36 April 2010 

1 species of concern. The list of taxa includes one freshwater fish, three freshwater mussels, and 

2 one crayfish. In addition, two species of invasive aquatic plant are known to occur at the 

3 VCSNS site. Impacts stemming from the various installation activities are dependent on the 

4 sensitivity of a species to localized disturbance, habitat associations typically made by a 

5 particular species, critical time periods associated with a species’ life cycle, and the intensity 

6 and duration of the disturbance. Numerous aquatic biota are found within the vicinity of the 

7 VCSNS site. The following discussion includes aquatic species that are of conservation 

8 concern and are known or thought to exist in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. 

9 Recreational Species

10 Both Parr and Monticello reservoirs support recreational fisheries for largemouth bass 

11 (Micropterus salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and catfish (Ictalurus spp.). Except for catfish, 

12 these species have life histories that indicate known use of shallow-water habitats for 

13 reproduction and nesting activities. The use of turbidity curtains and cofferdams can minimize 

14 impacts on these shallow-water habitats. However, the timing of installation activities may have 

15 more detrimental effects on aquatic resources if performed during critical spawning seasons in 

16 mid to late spring. Because no exact schedule is given for installation activities associated with 

17 the raw-water and water-treatment plant intakes or the blowdown line for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 

18 activities in these potential shallow-water habitat areas may affect recreational species. 

19 Invasive Species

20 Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) has been identified as an aquatic invasive species 

21 by the South Carolina Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Task Force. Alligatorweed is a rapidly 

22 colonizing aquatic plant that forms dense vegetative mats that can alter flow and inhibit the 

23 uptake of water by other plants (SCDNR 2008). Proliferation of this aquatic nuisance species 

24 can occur via disturbance if plants become fragmented and subsequently re-root (SCDNR 

25 2006c). Alligatorweed has been documented above and below the proposed discharge location 

26 in Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). In addition, water primrose (Ludwigia uruguayensis) occurs 

27 in Monticello Reservoir, and can be an invasive, colonizing plant capable of choking shorelines 

28 and clogging intake structures. Shoreline installation activities that result in the disturbance of 

29 alligatorweed or water primrose may result in these plant species spreading to other aquatic 

30 habitats if vegetative fragments become uprooted and established elsewhere. 

31 Important Species

32 The three freshwater mussel species listed as State species of concern within the vicinity 

33 (Fairfield or Newberry Counties) of the VCSNS site include the eastern creekshell (Villosa 

34 delumbis), the eastern floater (Pyganodon cataracta), and the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata). 

35 It is unknown whether the eastern creekshell or the yellow lance occurs within the vicinity of the 

36 VCSNS site. However, a single eastern floater was collected near the proposed raw-water 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-37 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 intake in Monticello Reservoir (CBS 2009a). A more detailed mussel sampling survey may be 

2 necessary to determine the extent of eastern floater presence near the intake-installation area 

3 prior to installation activities. Potential impacts on populations of mussels in the area of the 

4 proposed intake include habitat loss, reproductive losses, and mortality associated with 

5 dredging. 

6 Federally Listed Species 

7 The Carolina heelsplitter is the only Federally protected aquatic species that may reside in 

8 onsite creeks and streams in the vicinity of VCSNS. Six Federally protected aquatic species 

9 reside within the counties affected by transmission-line installation activities: the shortnose 

10 sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Carolina heelsplitter, and four species of sea turtle: 

11 loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea 

12 turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). As part of 

13 the NRC’s responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the review 

14 team has prepared biological assessments documenting potential impacts on the Federally 

15 listed threatened or endangered aquatic and terrestrial species as a result of the construction 

16 and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site. The biological assessments are included in 

17 Appendix F of this EIS, and the findings and determinations are summarized in this section. 

18 The shortnose sturgeon is an amphidromous freshwater fish that spends a portion of its life 

19 cycle in freshwater environments and a portion in estuarine ecosystems (NOAA 1998). The 

20 shortnose sturgeon is reported to occur in six counties proposed for transmission-line crossings: 

21 Aiken, Calhoun, Colleton, Hampton, Orangeburg, and Richland (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; 

22 FWS 2008; SCDNR 2006a). FWS (2008) reports the possible occurrence of shortnose 

23 sturgeon in Dorchester and Lexington Counties, also proposed counties for transmission-line 

24 crossings. 

25 The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel that has endured significant habitat degradation 

26 by various development activities. This species is thought to be sensitive to sedimentation and 

27 pollutants in waterways (SCDNR 2009). The Carolina heelsplitter is known to occur in three 

28 counties proposed for transmission-line crossings: Chester, Lancaster and Saluda with critical 

29 habitat designated in Chester and Lancaster Counties (FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; FWS 2008; 

30 SCDNR 2006a), and is listed as possible to occur in Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and 

31 Richland Counties (FWS 2008). 

32 The use of BMPs for activities associated with preparation and installation of new transmission33 line corridors and infrastructure is expected to limit potential impacts on these species. Carolina 

34 heelsplitter was included in the habitat survey of the 2.44 mi of proposed new corridor in Parr 

35 Reservoir. Historically, the species was reported in small to large streams and rivers, and 

36 usually found in mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates along stable, well-shaded 

37 stream banks. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-38 April 2010 

1 The Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) is a Federal species of concern in Fairfield and Richland 

2 Counties (FWS 2008), a State threatened species in Richland County (SCDNR 2009), and a 

3 State species of concern in Fairfield County (SCDNR 2006a). Due to the limited distribution of 

4 this freshwater fish, any development activities that result in an alteration of habitats used by the 

5 Carolina darter pose a threat to this species (Hayes and Bettinger 2006). The Carolina darter 

6 was not documented during the SCDNR 2000-2004 Broad River drainage aquatic surveys 

7 (Bettinger et al. 2003, 2006), within the vicinity of the VCSNS site (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007, 

8 2009a; Quattlebaum 2008a, 2008b; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009) and was not captured 

9 during the 1978-1984 survey efforts within Parr and Monticello reservoirs (Dames and Moore 

10 1985). 

11 Two mollusks listed as Federal species of concern are known to occur within counties proposed 

12 for transmission-line crossings. The brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) is known to occur in 

13 Lancaster County and the Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) is known to occur in Saluda 

14 County (FWS 2008). Both the brook floater and the Savannah lilliput are listed as State species 

15 of concern in Lancaster and Saluda Counties, respectively (SCDNR 2006a). 

16 The robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) is known to occur in Aiken County, which is 

17 proposed for transmission-line crossings, and it is listed as a Federal species of concern within 

18 this county (FWS 2008). The Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee has implemented 

19 efforts to reintroduce this native species to river basins such as the Broad River by stocking 

20 rivers with robust redhorse fingerlings (Self and Bettinger 2006; Rohde et al. 2009). In 2008, 

21 SCDNR caught two robust redhorse while electrofishing for smallmouth bass (Micropterus 

22 dolomieu) in Monticello Reservoir (NRC 2009a). Aquatic surveys in the vicinity of the VCSNS 

23 site resulted in the capture of two robust redhorse in the Parr Reservoir, representing 0.1 

24 percent of the total catch (Quattlebaum 2008a; Normandeau 2008). 

25 Distocambarus youngineri, also commonly known as the Saluda crayfish (FWS 2008) or the 

26 Newberry burrowing crayfish (Taylor et al. 2007) is a State and Federal species of concern 

27 (FWS 2008). This species has been encountered in few locations within South Carolina; all 

28 have been limited to Newberry County and only one occurrence has been documented in the 

29 Broad River (SCDNR 2006b). It is unknown whether D. youngineri occurs within the vicinity of 

30 the VCSNS site; however, only Procambarus species were collected during field sampling in 

31 Mayo Creek in 2009 (CBS 2009b). 

32 Although exact placement of final corridors has not yet been determined, SCE&G has indicated 

33 that activities for installation would be avoided in any critical habitat for Federal or State listed 

34 species (SCE&G 2009a). 

35 The loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

36 do not occur in counties associated with VCSNS or transmission-line corridors with the 

37 exception of Colleton County. Current siting plans for the VCSNS-Varnville transmission-line 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-39 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 corridor, as discussed in Section 2.4.2.2, do not occur near nesting beaches or near marine 

2 habitats used by sea turtles in Colleton County. Therefore, there is no potential for 

3 transmission-line preparation activities to affect these species. 

4 4.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Site Preparation 

5 SCE&G plans to perform preconstruction-related monitoring for water quality in accordance with 

6 Federal and State permitting requirements as specified by USACE and SCDHEC. Prior to 

7 building activities within transmission-line corridors, monitoring may include on- the-ground 

8 surveys to implement appropriate site-specific BMPs. Accidental spills during the building 

9 phase would be mitigated through a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 

10 (SCE&G 2009a). Monitoring associated with the SWPPP may also be implemented during the 

11 preconstruction and construction phases of the project (SCE&G 2009a), and SCDHEC may 

12 require specific monitoring activities as a part of its permitting process to assess potentially 

13 affected areas such as waterbodies associated with the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site and within 

14 transmission-line corridors. The USACE would conduct compliance monitoring during the 

15 building phase of the project relative to activities within permitted areas (e.g., streams, wetlands, 

16 transmission-line corridors) (SCE&G 2009a).

17 4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

18 The review team has reviewed the proposed site construction and preconstruction activities 

19 associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the potential impacts on aquatic biota in the Broad 

20 River and Parr Reservoir, Monticello Reservoir, onsite streams, and waterbodies associated 

21 with transmission-line corridors. Site construction and preconstruction activities would ultimately 

22 be episodic, yet impacts would be greatest for nonmotile aquatic organisms. 

23 Filling in of the headwaters for Stream L, which flows into Mayo Creek (Figure 4-2), would result 

24 in a noticeable change for that immediate area; however, water-quality impacts are likely to be 

25 negligible through the use of BMPs to control sedimentation. Aquatic biota residing in this 

26 portion of Stream L would either move downstream as filling activities commence, or be 

27 eliminated if prevented from moving downstream (SCE&G 2009a). The loss of habitat and 

28 potential loss of species are expected to be minimal when considering similar unaffected 

29 freshwater stream habitats in the region. 

30 Installation of water-intake and discharge structures would result in temporary impacts at distinct 

31 locations within the Parr and Monticello reservoirs, but would be largely controlled by the use of 

32 BMPs associated with the management of water quality. By following State and Federal BMPs 

33 associated with water quality, the impacts of the installation of new transmission-line corridors 

34 on aquatic biota would be short-term and minimal. Based on this review, the review team 

35 concludes that the impacts resulting from the proposed preconstruction and construction 

36 activities would be minimal. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-40 April 2010 

1 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the above observations from the review 

2 team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the impacts on onsite aquatic 

3 biota during construction and preconstruction activities for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

4 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted. Based on the above 

5 analysis, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the 

6 analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC-authorized construction 

7 activities would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted. 

8 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the above observations from the review team’s 

9 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that impacts on offsite aquatic biota from 

10 preconstruction activities related to the development of the proposed associated transmission 

11 lines would be SMALL, and no further mitigation measures would be warranted. The LWA rule 

12 specifically indicates that transmission lines are not included in the definition of construction. 

13 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no impacts on offsite aquatic biota 

14 associated with NRC-authorized construction activities. 

15 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 

16 Socioeconomic impacts may occur in the region surrounding the proposed site. This discussion 

17 emphasizes socioeconomic impacts from construction and preconstruction activities on 

18 Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, although it considers the entire 50-mi 

region surrounding the proposed VCSNS site.(a) 19 The scope of the review is guided by the 

20 magnitude and nature of the expected impacts of the construction and preconstruction activities 

21 of the proposed project and by the site-specific community characteristics that can be expected 

22 to be affected by these activities. 

23 Along with the region and the subset of the region mentioned above, the review team 

24 considered an additional subset of the region called the economic impact area. This area 

25 includes the same four counties identified above, which the review team concludes make up the 

26 functional economic region for current and future impacts tied to the VCSNS site. This 

27 economic impact area is discussed in terms of employment, income, and output impacts. 

28 Very large projects, such as proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 can affect individual communities, 

29 the surrounding region, and minority and low-income populations. The evaluation here 

30 assesses the impacts of project-related activities and of the onsite workforce during the VCSNS 

 

(a) For the purposes of this EIS, the relevant region is limited to the area necessary to include social and 

economic base data for (1) the county in which the proposed plant would be located and (2) the 

specific portions of surrounding counties and urbanized areas (generally, up to 50 mi from the 

VCSNS site) from which the construction and/or operations workforce would be principally drawn, or 

that would receive stresses to community services by a change in the residence of construction 

and/or operations workers. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-41 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 construction and preconstruction activities on the communities and governmental jurisdictions 

2 within the vicinity of the VCSNS site; i.e., the region within 50 mi of the VCSNS site. Unless 

3 otherwise specified, the primary source of information for this section is the SCE&G ER 

4 (SCE&G 2009a). The review team’s conclusions are based upon independent verification of 

5 SCE&G’s information in the ER, visits to the site, vicinity, and region, and consultation with local 

6 officials. 

7 If the two COLs are approved, construction and preconstruction activities are planned to span a 

8 total of 123 months, with 30 months dedicated to site clearing and preparation, and 93 months 

9 for building Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a). The building of Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by 

10 2 years, for a total construction and preconstruction period of 10.25 years (SCE&G 2009a). 

11 SCE&G estimates that the peak onsite workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 during 

12 construction and preconstruction activities would occur during 2013 and during 2015 reaching a 

13 total of up to 3600 workers. The staggered construction and preconstruction periods would 

14 allow the peak workforce from Unit 2 to transfer to Unit 3 and then steadily decline until both 

15 units are ready for operation. SCE&G indicates the operations staff of 400 at each unit would 

16 be employed approximately 2 to 3 years before fuel loading of each unit, to allow time for 

17 simulator training and startup testing (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 The VCSNS site and parts of the surrounding region have experienced significant growth over 

19 recent decades, and, as a result, the area has adjusted to providing services needed by in20 migrating populations. The region has not been insulated from recent negative economic 

21 impacts from the current economic downturn. 

22 The following sections describe the economic component of the physical impacts on the site 

23 (Section 4.4.1), demographic impacts on the community (Section 4.4.2), economic impacts 

24 (Section 4.4.3), and the impacts on infrastructure and community services (Section 4.4.4). The 

25 impacts on minorities and low-income populations are covered in Section 4.5 of this chapter. 

26 4.4.1 Physical Impacts 

27 Construction and preconstruction activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts 

28 such as noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, light, and dust. Vibration and shock impacts are not 

29 expected because of the strict control of blasting and other shock-producing activities. This 

30 section addresses potential impacts that may affect people, buildings, and roads. 

31 4.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public 

32 The VCSNS site is in a rural setting, bounded on the north by Monticello Reservoir and on the 

33 west by the Broad River. To the west and south are forested and agricultural lands in which a 

34 few residences and small communities are located. The site is located entirely within Fairfield 

35 County. No significant industrial or commercial facilities are planned in the immediate vicinity of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-42 April 2010 

1 the site. SCE&G plans to use the existing transmission lines and facilities where possible, 

2 although six new 230-kV transmission lines would be needed to connect the new units to the 

3 SCE&G grid, requiring 100-ft widening of some existing transmission-line corridors or entirely 

4 new corridors in some cases (see Section 4.1.2). 

5 SCE&G has indicated that all construction and preconstruction activities would occur within the 

6 VCSNS site boundary and would be performed in accordance with applicable Occupational 

7 Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards, BMPs, and other applicable regulatory and 

8 permit requirements. 

9 The people most vulnerable to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from 

10 construction and preconstruction activities include personnel working onsite, and people 

11 working or living immediately adjacent to the site. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, an 

12 estimated 104 individuals lived within 1 mi of the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009o). Given their 

13 proximity, the residents living directly adjacent to the VCSNS site in the town of Jenkinsville and 

14 unincorporated Fairfield County have the greatest potential for offsite exposure to aesthetic, 

15 noise, air quality, and light impacts from construction and preconstruction activities. Impacts 

16 from the increased and altered traffic patterns and resulting noise, emissions, and congestion, 

17 and from impacts caused by the presence of VCSNS project-related workers would extend 

18 farther from the VCSNS site, but are likely to be most concentrated in the nearby communities 

19 and on the roadways within the vicinity of the site. 

20 4.4.1.2 Noise Impacts 

21 Noise is an environmental concern because it can cause adverse health effects, annoyance, 

22 and disruption of social interactions. Noise would result from clearing, earthmoving, foundation 

23 preparation, pile driving (if needed), concrete mixing and pouring, steel erection, and various 

24 stages of facility equipment fabrication, assembly, and installation, during which a substantial 

25 number of diesel- and gasoline-powered vehicles and other equipment would be used. Noise 

26 from the VCSNS site also would be generated by internal combustion engines, impact 

27 equipment (e.g., jackhammers, pile drivers), and other equipment such as grinders and saws, 

28 explosives, loudspeakers, alarms, and sirens. Decibels increase logarithmically, with pressure 

29 levels of separate sounds being logarithmically, not arithmetically, additive. This means that if 

30 one sound of 60 dB is added to another sound of 60 dB, the total is 63 dB, a 3-dB increase, and 

31 not 120 dB. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise determined that project-related 

32 increases of 1.5 dBA (if the ambient level is above 65 Ldn [day night average sound level]) or 

33 3 dBA (if the ambient level is below 65 Ldn) are considered “substantial.” In addition to routine 

34 noises, sudden, infrequent, short-term blasts of noise may be disruptive of sleep or have a 

35 “startle effect” on humans and wildlife that can result in significant annoyance to affected 

36 populations. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-43 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 During construction and preconstruction activities, noise is expected to peak above 100 dBA at 

2 a 50-ft distance from the equipment, with multiple pieces operating simultaneously. The 

3 activities that produce noises in this range would be intermittent, although at points in the 

4 project, activities could be scheduled for 24-hour days, 7 days a week. It is expected that noise 

5 levels experienced by sensitive noise receptors outside of the exclusion area boundary would 

6 rapidly attenuate to below 50 dBA (SCE&G 2009a). Continuous noise would be lower. 

7 Because the site is surrounded by forests and moderate topography, the review team concludes 

8 that noise emanating from the project site could be somewhat muffled to surrounding 

9 communities and the associated impact would not be significant. 

10 The majority of transmission lines that would be needed for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 already have 

11 been constructed, although some expansions and upgrades would need to be built. Limited 

12 maintenance activities in transmission-line corridors and improvements to towers, lines, and 

13 corridors would be undertaken as part of the project and would create short-term sources of 

14 noise in the corridors. Consequently, the review team concludes that noise impacts on 

15 surrounding communities from these activities during construction and preconstruction would be 

16 negligible. 

17 4.4.1.3 Impacts on Air Quality 

18 The VCSNS site is in Fairfield County, South Carolina, which is an attainment area for all criteria 

19 pollutants (40 CFR 81.108 and 81.341). The baseline air quality characteristics are described in 

20 Section 2.9.2 of this EIS. The Clean Air Act establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

21 (NAAQSs), which include the following criteria pollutants: 

22  sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

23  particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) 

24  particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) 

25  carbon monoxide (CO) 

26  nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

27  ozone (O3) 

28  lead (Pb). 

29 Temporary and minor impacts on local ambient air quality could occur as a result of activities at 

30 the VCSNS site during construction and preconstruction. Fugitive dust and fine particulate 

31 emissions, including those PM10 in size, would be generated during earthmoving and material32 handling activities. Equipment and offsite vehicles used for hauling debris, equipment, and 

33 supplies also produce emissions. Given Fairfield County’s attainment status for criteria 

34 pollutants, only oxides of nitrogen (a precursor to ozone) and carbon monoxide (combustion 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-44 April 2010 

1 exhaust) are pollutants of primary concern for construction and preconstruction impacts at the 

2 VCSNS site. Several variables affect emissions; these variables include the type of vehicles, 

3 the timing and phasing of construction and preconstruction activities, and haul routes. The 

4 emissions and their impacts on air quality would be minimized through mitigative actions and 

5 compliance with all Federal, State, and local regulations that govern construction and 

6 preconstruction activities and emissions from construction vehicles. 

7 SCE&G stated that it would identify specific mitigation measures to control fugitive dust (SCE&G 

8 2009a). Mitigation measures would include any or all of the following: 

9  Stabilize access roads and spoil piles. 

10  Limit speeds on unpaved access roads. 

11  Periodically water unpaved access roads to control dust. 

12  Perform housekeeping (i.e., remove dirt spilled onto paved roads). 

13  Cover haul trucks. 

14  Minimize material handling (e.g., limit drop heights and double handling). 

15  Cease grading and excavation activities during high winds and extreme air pollution 

16 episodes. 

17  Phase grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils. 

18  Revegetate road medians and slopes. 

19  Phase construction and preconstruction activities to minimize daily emissions. 

20  Perform proper maintenance of construction vehicles to maximize efficiency and minimize 

21 emissions. 

22 Local air quality could be affected by construction and preconstruction activities. Exhaust 

23 emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would generate small amounts of 

24 particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. If 

25 construction and preconstruction activities include the burning of debris, refuse, or residual 

26 building materials, SCE&G has indicated that it would secure any required permits from the 

27 State or county and follow any pertinent local ordinances. 

28 Therefore, although emissions from construction and preconstruction activities and equipment 

29 operation are unavoidable, the review team concludes that SCE&G’s mitigation efforts would 

30 limit impacts on air quality during construction and preconstruction activities and would not 

31 warrant mitigation beyond the measures discussed for inclusion in the mitigation plans. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-45 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 BMPs and control measures would be used to limit the impacts of emissions. The concrete 

2 batch plant would be operated in compliance with SCDNR regulations; use of the onsite plant 

3 would reduce emissions from trucks that otherwise would deliver concrete to the site. Control 

4 measures would include development and implementation of a plan to control fugitive dust; 

5 grading to promote drainage and minimize mud on vehicles; stabilization of ground surfaces as 

6 soon as practical after clearing (e.g., reseeding); wetting of bare ground and unpaved roadways 

7 during dry conditions; conduct of any burning in accordance with applicable regulations and 

8 forest fire-safety measures; and inspecting and servicing construction equipment regularly 

9 (SCE&G 2009a). 

10 4.4.1.4 Impacts on Buildings 

11 Only SCE&G buildings would be affected by construction and preconstruction activities at the 

12 immediate VCSNS site. Existing buildings at the site have been constructed to safely withstand 

13 any possible impact, including shock and vibration, from activities associated with additional 

14 development at the VCSNS site (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A). Except for the existing 

15 structures on the VCSNS site, no other industrial, commercial, or recreational structures would 

16 be directly affected by the construction of the new facility. 

17 The nearest residence is approximately 1.3 mi from the site and is not expected to be directly 

18 affected by construction and preconstruction activities (SCE&G 2009a). If blasting is necessary, 

19 the building(s) most vulnerable to shock and vibration would be the VCSNS-related facilities, 

20 which have been built to withstand forces in excess of those they would experience as a result 

21 of activities at the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009a). Consequently, the review team concludes that 

22 the impacts on buildings would be limited and would not warrant mitigation. 

23 4.4.1.5 Transportation Impacts 

24 This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and construction materials to and from the 

25 VCSNS site from three perspectives: the socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of dust 

26 and particulate matter put into the air by vehicle traffic, and the potential health impacts caused 

27 by additional traffic-related accidents. The socioeconomic impacts are addressed here and in 

28 Section 4.4.4.1. The air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.4.1.1, and the human health 

29 impacts are addressed in Section 4.8. 

30 No new construction or major modification of public roads is planned and only minor repairs and 

31 maintenance of existing roadways are likely in preparation for site-development activities. The 

32 affected roads are primarily rural or county roads and do not support large volumes of daily 

33 traffic. Therefore, the review team concludes that the expected physical impacts on public 

34 roads and highways would be limited to wear and tear on the local roads from the increased 

35 traffic to the site. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-46 April 2010 

1 The main railroad lines in central South Carolina are owned and operated by the Norfolk 

2 Southern Railroad. Material deliveries to support construction and preconstruction activities are 

3 expected to be made by railroad using the existing VCSNS railroad spur that enters the site at 

4 its southern boundary and extends to the central portion of the site. The Norfolk Southern line 

5 and the VCSNS railroad spur would experience increased use if materials are brought in by 

6 train. The review team expects that some upgrading of the railroad line would be required 

7 between the site and Peak, South Carolina. Because these modifications are expected to be 

8 made within the existing railroad bed and any new railroad line would be built within the VCSNS 

9 site only, the review team concludes that the impacts of railway upgrading would be minimal. 

10 4.4.1.6 Impacts on Aesthetics 

11 The VCSNS site is on a plateau above the Broad River and surrounded by lowlands, forested 

12 hills, and agricultural lands. The site is largely concealed from view by the surrounding forests. 

13 The 6800-ac Monticello Reservoir hosts numerous water sports and outdoor activities 

14 throughout the year and is surrounded by natural woodlands and low-density residential 

15 communities. Jenkinsville Park, approximately 2 mi east of the site, is the closest park. Any 

16 plumes and some construction equipment are likely to be visible from the reservoir. However, 

17 because Monticello Reservoir is north of the proposed facility, direct view of the VCSNS Units 2 

18 and 3 site is blocked by forest from most points on the reservoir or screened by views of Unit 1. 

19 Visual impacts are determined by assessing the consequences of actions on scenic quality, 

20 scenic value, and the sensitivity of the affected viewscapes (DOI 2008). Negative visual 

21 impacts from additional development on the VCSNS site would be lessened by topography and 

22 by the fact that low-profile cooling towers would be used. Visual impacts on neighboring 

23 residents and individuals using the reservoir caused by cranes and increased traffic would be 

24 temporary. Therefore, the review team concludes that the impact of construction and 

25 preconstruction activities at the proposed VCSNS site on aesthetics and recreational 

26 opportunities would not be significant and would not require mitigation. 

27 4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts 

28 The review team has evaluated information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its 

29 environs, and performed an independent review of the potential physical impacts of construction 

30 and preconstruction activities on the local area and region of the VCSNS site. The review team 

31 concludes that the expected physical impacts enumerated in the preceding sections would be 

32 SMALL and that mitigation beyond the strategies outlined by SCE&G in its ER would not be 

33 warranted. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-47 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.4.2 Demographic Impacts on the Community 

2 Socioeconomic impacts are the result of project expenditures and employment that change the 

3 employment and population levels of a community from baseline levels. Project expenditures 

4 and employment drive changes in population baselines by drawing new residents into an area 

5 and/or by preventing the departure of existing residents from an area. Growth in population and 

6 employment increase spending in the area, leading to increased demand for housing, 

7 education, and other facilities and services. The assessment of demographic impacts of the 

8 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities is based on the 

9 consequences to the region and local communities of employment of an estimated peak of 

10 almost 3600 workers. An expected 800 operations workers also would be onsite for training 

11 purposes toward the end of construction and preconstruction activities. 

12 All workers onsite during the project are included in the assessment of impacts of the NRC13 authorized activities, whether “construction” workers or “operations” workers. The building of 

14 Units 2 and 3 would be staggered by 2 years for a total site construction and preconstruction 

15 period of 10.25 years. This schedule would allow for sustained peak employment as employees 

16 finishing Unit 2 are then transferred to Unit 3 as it is reaching its employment peak, followed by 

17 a gradual reduction in employment as both units are completed. 

18 As discussed in Section 2.5 of this EIS, the region extends 50 mi from the site boundary. 

19 Although the review team considered the entire region within a 50-mi radius of the VCSNS site 

20 when assessing socioeconomic impacts of construction and preconstruction activities, the 

21 primary focus is on Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, all of which are in 

22 South Carolina. Based on the size of the resident workforce within commuting distance of the 

23 VCSNS site, commuter patterns, and the distribution of residential communities in the area, the 

24 review team expects minimal demographic impacts on other counties within the region. 

25 Based on this information, the review team anticipates that the majority of the construction and 

26 preconstruction workforce would not migrate into the economic impact area but already would 

27 live within a reasonable commuting distance. The review team examined the Final 

28 Environmental Statement (FES) issued for the Operating License for Unit 1 by NRC (NRC 

29 1981). The timing of the FES was such that construction of Unit 1 was nearly complete and 

30 provided some ready observations to the NRC staff about the extent of the socioeconomic 

31 impacts. Based on a survey of Unit 1 construction workers, the NRC staff concluded that 

32 80 percent of them lived within the 50-mi region, and that 50 percent of them lived in Lexington 

33 and Richland Counties (NRC 1981). While construction methods and skill sets have changed 

34 over the intervening years, the greater Columbia metropolitan area has also grown significantly. 

35 The review team would not expect significantly different settlement patterns during the Units 2 

36 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-48 April 2010 

1 Over the past decade, the four-county region surrounding the VCSNS site has experienced 

2 strong population growth, creating many employment opportunities for construction workers in 

3 the area. Given the presence of a significant construction industry and related workforce in the 

4 region, significant in-migration appears unlikely during construction and preconstruction 

5 activities (see Tables 2-30 and 2-31).

6 As discussed in Section 2.5, the baseline (without VCSNS Units 2 and 3) population of the 

7 region is expected to continue to grow at a steady rate (see Table 2-24). Based on regional 

8 growth since the Unit 1 construction, coupled with observed migration behavior during the Unit 1 

9 construction, and typical outage workforce migration patterns, the review team concludes that 

10 50 percent of the peak workforce or 1800 workers can be assumed to migrate into the four11 county economic impact area. Potentially, it could be less than that amount, but 50 percent 

12 provides a reasonable assumption, given that the skills required for modern, large-scale 

13 construction projects have increased in complexity and finding sufficient numbers of 

14 appropriately skilled workers would require searching beyond the Columbia metropolitan area 

15 (SCE&G 2009c). Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimated household size of 2.6 persons, 

16 1800 in-migrating workers amount to 4680 in-migrating persons when families are considered. 

17 The specific community impacts resulting from potential demographic changes are discussed in 

18 Section 4.4.4. Table 4-4 highlights expected county-level demographic impacts. 

19 Table 4-4. Expected Distribution of In-Migrating Construction Workers in the Region at Peak 

20 of Construction 

County 

Number of 

Current Unit 1 

Operations 

Workforce 

Percent of 

Current Unit 1 

Operations 

Workforce 

Number of 

Units 2 and 3 

In-Migrating 

Construction 

Workforce 

Number of 

In-Migrating 

People 

Fairfield County 58 9.1 164 426 

Lexington County 219 34.5 621 1615 

Newberry County 115 18.1 326 847 

Richland County 209 32.9 592 1540 

Economic Impact Area 601 94.6 1703 4427 

Other Counties 34 5.4 97 253 

Total 635 100.0 1800 4680 

21 The review team anticipates that the majority of the in-migrating workers would move into 

22 Richland and Lexington Counties because of their relative proximity to the site, housing 

23 availability, and amenities. The review team estimated the baseline population of the four most 

24 local counties would increase steadily over the 2010–2060 period (see Table 2-23). Therefore, 

25 based upon current and projected population levels, the expected increase in in-migrating 

26 workers and their families would represent a less than 1 percent increase over the region’s 

27 projected 2010 population. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-49 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Because of the area’s size, the review team expects that any demographic impacts from 

2 construction and preconstruction activities would be SMALL and temporary. Likewise, the 

3 review team expects that Fairfield and Newberry Counties would receive relatively few of the in4 migrating workers and their families. Therefore, the review team anticipates any population 

5 impacts of construction and preconstruction activities in Fairfield and Newberry Counties would 

6 not be noticeable and the communities nearest the VCSNS site would likely experience SMALL 

7 and temporary demographic impacts. 

8 4.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community 

9 This section evaluates the changes in employment, income, and output attributable to the 

10 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities in the four-county economic 

11 impact area. 

12 4.4.3.1 Economy 

13 The impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on the local and regional economy 

14 depend on the region’s current and projected economy and population. Characteristics of the 

15 economy and workforce in the region are described in Section 2.5.2 of this EIS. At its peak, the 

16 construction- and preconstruction-phase workforce is estimated to require about 3600 workers. 

17 Construction and preconstruction activities would be staggered by 2 years between Units 2 and 

18 3 to avoid dramatic swings in employment. In its ER, SCE&G estimates that the Units 2 and 3 

19 construction and preconstruction activities would last 30 months for preparation and grading and 

20 93 months for building the new units, for a total project duration of 10.25 years (SCE&G 2009a). 

21 The in-migration of approximately 1800 workers, most bringing their families, would create new 

22 indirect jobs in the area through a process called the “multiplier effect.” The number of in23 migrating workers would be affected to some degree by local training programs and other 

24 measures to prepare the local labor force. Each dollar spent on goods and services by one 

25 person becomes income to another, who saves some money but re-spends the rest. In turn, 

26 this re-spending becomes income to someone else, who in turn saves a portion and re-spends 

27 the rest, and so on. The percentage by which the sum of all spending exceeds the initial dollar 

28 spent is called the “multiplier.” The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic 

29 Analysis (BEA), Economics and Statistics Division, provides regional multipliers for industry jobs 

30 and earnings and a custom set of multipliers was provided by BEA to SCE&G for the four31 county economic impact area (SCE&G 2009a). 

32 The Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) employment multiplier for the economic 

33 impact area is 2.045, meaning that for each direct job created a total of 2.045 jobs (including the 

34 direct job) would be supported in the economic impact area. In the case of the VCSNS 

35 construction and preconstruction activities this means the 1800 direct jobs at the project peak 

36 would generate 1881 indirect and induced jobs in the four-county economic impact area. Only 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-50 April 2010 

1 the in-migrating direct jobs are counted so that a net impact can be estimated. Other indirect 

2 and induced jobs are assumed to be allocated to area residents who would be leaving other 

3 jobs to take VCSNS-related employment. As a result, the direct employment of 3600 workers at 

4 the project peak would support a total of 3672 indirect employment in the economic impact area. 

5 Because half of the workforce is expected to migrate to the area, only half of the direct and 

6 indirect employment supported by the project would count as an impact on the economic 

7 impact area. 

8 Skilled workers required for construction and preconstruction activities at the proposed VCSNS 

9 Units 2 and 3 include electrical workers, welders, and pipe fitters. To obtain the necessary 

10 skilled and unskilled workers, construction companies are expected to recruit some employees 

11 from local technical school programs and to work with local and regional technical school 

12 programs and school administrators to expand offerings in the necessary technical and craft 

13 areas. 

14 During visits to the area, the review team observed that significant job training programs are 

15 being implemented in the local area specifically to train workers for the VCSNS construction 

16 jobs and other similar jobs beyond the VCSNS project. Given the nature of the regional 

17 economy and the materials needed to construct proposed Units 2 and 3, only a relatively limited 

18 quantity of materials and services are expected to be purchased from within the economic 

19 impact area during construction and preconstruction activities. 

20 The review team estimates that the average wage in the Columbia metropolitan area for these 

21 workers currently is about $37,000 per year or about $18.50 per hour, based on a 2000-hour 

22 work year, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2008a). Assuming a 

23 benefits package that would double that annual amount to $74,000, the review team estimates 

24 that annual earnings at peak project employment would be about $266.4 million. That 

25 $266.4 million represents the direct income effect of the project to the economic impact area. 

26 Applying the income multiplier of 1.926 supplied to SCE&G from RIMS II, the earnings, including 

27 benefits, paid to the project workforce would result in generation of an additional $246.7 million 

28 annually in the economic impact area during peak employment years, for a total income effect of 

29 $513.1 million. As discussed with employment, the real impact would net out to about half 

30 ($256.5 million) because only half of the direct and indirect employment supported by the 

31 project would count as an impact to the economic impact area. 

32 Combined with the indirect jobs created by the proposed action, this would likely have a positive 

33 effect on unemployment in the area during the early stages of the project when onsite 

34 employment would be increasing and would create business opportunities for housing and 

35 service-related industries, especially in Lexington and Richland Counties. 

36 The review team concludes, based on its independent review of the likely economic effects of 

37 the proposed action that beneficial economic impacts of the proposed action would be 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-51 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 experienced throughout the four-county economic impact area. Depending on actual worker 

2 relocation patterns, portions of Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties would 

3 expect temporary positive economic and employment impacts on the local economy during 

4 construction and preconstruction activities. Economic impacts elsewhere in the wider region 

5 would be smaller but beneficial. 

6 4.4.3.2 Taxes 

7 The tax structure of the region is discussed in EIS Section 2.5. Several types of taxes would be 

8 generated during the construction and preconstruction activities, including income taxes on 

9 wages and salaries, sales and use taxes on corporate and employee purchases, and personal 

10 property taxes associated with employees. 

11 Given that 50 percent of the peak project workforce already would live in the local area, and that 

12 the in-migrating workers would reside primarily in the four counties roughly in the same 

13 distribution as the current operations workforce for Unit 1, the review team expects no county in 

14 the economic impact area or the State to experience a significant change in its tax revenue 

15 streams during construction and preconstruction activities. To the degree that skilled workers 

16 from out of state are likely to relocate to the economic impact area during construction and 

17 preconstruction activities, the review team expects that a minimal increase in State income tax 

18 revenue would be generated from their salaries. However, the skilled craft jobs would account 

19 for a very small proportion of the overall workforce in the economic impact area, making a major 

20 State income tax revenue impact unlikely. 

21 Because the number of new income tax payers in South Carolina resulting from the VCSNS 

22 project would not change noticeably in the context of the State’s income tax base, income tax 

23 revenue attributable to the VCSNS project also would be minimal. The review team estimates 

24 that $12−$15 million in annual income tax revenue would be attributable to construction and 

25 preconstruction during peak years of activity; however the overwhelming majority of that 

26 revenue would have been generated by the same workers in South Carolina, from their 

27 employment prior to gaining employment at VCSNS. Similarly, State sales tax impacts should 

28 be viewed in the same context. Such revenue impacts only apply to the portion of the workforce 

29 that would be new to South Carolina. 

30 The in-migrating employees and contractors working at the VCSNS site during the project also 

31 would pay property taxes, State income taxes, real-estate transfer fees, and motor-vehicle 

32 taxes, which are collected by or on behalf of the State government and distributed to State 

33 agencies and minor jurisdictions, including schools. The area around the proposed site would 

34 experience an increase in sales and use taxes generated by retail expenditures 

35 (e.g., restaurants, hotels, merchant sales, food) by the construction and preconstruction 

36 workforce. The SCE&G estimates, based on a State assumption of 4.17 percent of gross 

37 income being collected in sales taxes, annual sales tax collections directly and indirectly 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-52 April 2010 

1 attributable workforce would generate approximately $4.8 million annually within the economic 

2 impact area (SCE&G 2009h). The economic impact area also would experience an increase in 

3 the sales and use taxes collected from building materials and supplies purchased for the 

4 project. These revenues would likely be generally proportional to the wages paid to workers at 

5 proposed Units 2 and 3, increasing through the peak of construction and preconstruction 

6 activities and then declining until stabilizing after completion of these activities. 

7 Although SCE&G currently pays property taxes on the existing land and improvements at the 

8 VCSNS site, the review team does not expect that there would be any increase in property 

9 taxes revenue until after construction and preconstruction activities are completed. Currently, 

10 taxes paid by SCE&G on the VCSNS site account for about 40 percent of Fairfield County’s 

11 total annual property tax revenues. For the years 1999 to 2008, based on Table 2-33 of this 

12 EIS, SCE&G’s share of Fairfield County’s property tax revenue has been slightly declining. 

13 After completion, SCE&G would pay property taxes on the new VCSNS Units 2 and 3 facilities 

14 under a “fee in-lieu of tax” agreement with Fairfield County (SCE&G 2009h). These impacts are 

15 discussed in Section 5.4.3.2. 

16 Based on this assessment, the review team concludes that the potential impact of taxes within 

17 the region because of the construction and preconstruction activities would be minimal and 

18 beneficial. The impact within Fairfield County, where the units would be located, also would be 

19 minimal and beneficial because the review team expects most tax impacts to occur during the 

20 operations phase. 

21 4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts on the Community 

22 The review team has reviewed information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its environs, 

23 and performed an independent review of potential economic impacts of construction and 

24 preconstruction activities on the local area and region of the VCSNS site. The review team 

25 concludes that the expected economic impacts on the affected communities, enumerated in the 

26 preceding sections, would be SMALL and beneficial, and no further mitigation would be 

27 required. 

28 4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

29 Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public 

30 services, and education, as described in the following sections. 

31 4.4.4.1 Transportation Impacts 

32 Railways, waterways, roads, and highways are the modes of transportation relevant to the 

33 VCSNS site. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-53 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Railways and Waterways 

2 While the spur line from the Norfolk Southern railroad line may be used to bring in heavy 

3 construction materials, the review team does not anticipate its use to increase greatly. Some 

4 railroad upgrading may be required and new spur lines would be laid on the VCSNS site. No 

5 waterways would be used to transport construction materials to the site. 

6 Roads and Highways 

7 This section deals with the infrastructure impacts of the traffic generated by construction and 

8 preconstruction activities. The air quality impacts of transportation are addressed in Section 

9 4.4.1.5 and the human health impacts are addressed in Section 4.8.3. 

10 Construction- and preconstruction-related impacts on traffic are determined by five elements: 

11  the number and timing of worker vehicles on the roads per shift 

12  the number of shift changes for the workforce per day 

13  the number and timing of truck deliveries to the site per day 

14  the projected population growth rate in Fairfield County 

15  the current capacity and usage of the roads, including use by the existing operations 

16 workforce. 

17 Based on South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) traffic data (see Table 2-34), 

18 SC-213 between the Newberry County line and SC-215 at Jenkinsville currently averages 

19 2400 vehicles daily under normal circumstances. That number is well under the 8600-vehicle 

20 capacity suggested by level of service (LOS) “C”, which is the SCDOT standard for two-lane 

21 rural roadways (SCDOT 2009). SCDOT also indicates that SC-215 from the Richland County 

22 line to the junction with SC-213 averages 1600 vehicles daily under normal circumstances, also 

23 well under LOS “C” standards. The review team recognizes that many options exist to allow 

24 flexibility in organizing site shift schedules, and believes that a two-shift work schedule would be 

25 a realistic assumption for the VCSNS site for traffic impact analysis during construction and 

26 preconstruction activities. SCE&G suggested that under a two-shift option (two 12-hour shifts), 

27 total peak-hour traffic on SC-213 and SC-215 would be 2118 vehicles, of which 1800 would be 

28 associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 activities (SCE&G 2009h). Under that assumption, the 

29 annual average daily traffic (AADT) for each route would rise to 6000 for SC-213 and to 5200 for 

30 SC-215, still well within SCDOT capacity standards. 

31 Under these assumptions, SCDOT road-capacity standards would not be exceeded, but the 

32 increase in traffic would be noticeable to local residents in the Jenkinsville area for the worker 

33 commuting hours during the limited period of peak building activity. The review team estimates 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-54 April 2010 

1 volumes during construction and preconstruction activities would represent a 50-percent 

2 increase in AADT on SC-213 and a 125-percent increase in AADT on SC-215. The review 

3 team concludes that these impacts would be noticeable, especially during periods of shift 

4 change. These impacts would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and site delivery traffic that 

5 have no other route options available. Without mitigation, acute traffic impacts would increase 

6 during outage periods at Unit 1, when on average 655 additional workers, spread across a 

7 similar shift schedule, would travel to the site. 

8 SCE&G states that it would develop a traffic-management plan prior to starting major 

9 construction and preconstruction activities. Planned mitigation measures could include 

10 establishing centralized parking away from the site and using worker bus shuttle services, 

11 encouraging car pools, staggering shift schedules so that acute traffic impacts could be avoided, 

12 scheduling delivery services to occur at off-shift-change times, and establishing shuttle services 

13 from Columbia (SCE&G 2009a). 

14 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s own independent review, 

15 including visits to the site and affected communities, the review team concludes that during 

16 peak site employment, the traffic impacts from site-development activities for Units 2 and 3 

17 would have locally noticeable impacts in the immediate vicinity of the VCSNS site and the 

18 community of Jenkinsville and minimal impacts on other roadways in the region. These impacts 

19 would be largely temporary and of short duration, based on the size of the workforce during any 

20 one period, and would abate as construction and preconstruction activities wind down. SCE&G 

21 has identified several planned mitigation measures to minimize the impact. Therefore, the 

22 review team concludes that traffic impacts in the Jenkinsville area would be noticeable, but not 

23 destabilizing, in close proximity to the site, including the Jenkinsville community. The rest of the 

24 region would experience little to no traffic-related impacts. 

25 4.4.4.2 Impacts on Recreation 

26 As discussed in Section 2.5.2.4, a variety of recreation areas exist in the region, including State 

27 parks and public and private facilities that support outdoor activities such as recreational boating 

28 and fishing on the Monticello Reservoir, hiking, camping, and hunting. 

29 The review team concludes that at least half of construction workers and their families would be 

30 from within the region and therefore would have no net effect on the usage rates for local 

31 recreational facilities. Given the large population of the 50-mi region and the relatively small 

32 number of expected in-migrating workers relative to each county’s population, the review team 

33 expects some minimal increase in recreation site usage rates due to the in-migrating worker 

34 families and mitigation would not be warranted. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-55 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.4.4.3 Housing Impacts 

2 Regional housing characteristics and availability are described in Section 2.5.2.5 and 

3 Table 2-35. The proximity of a number of population centers to the VCSNS site, including the 

4 City of Columbia, adds flexibility to the provision of housing in the vicinity of the site. The urban 

5 areas of Columbia, Lexington, and West Columbia – all within reasonable commuting distance 

6 to the site – add to this flexibility. Given the number of new jobs that would be created by the 

7 construction and operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and the availability of heavy 

8 construction workers within the region (see Table 2-31), the demand for housing by in-migrating 

9 workers would not put significant pressure on the local housing supply. 

10 The greater Columbia metropolitan area has sufficient housing available for rent or purchase, as 

11 is typical of most developing urban areas. If a significant number of workers migrate into the 

12 area, the region would be able to provide housing for the workers and their families. The four13 county area surrounding the VCSNS site has demonstrated that it can meet the housing 

14 demands of a growing population over the past decade during which it experienced steady 

15 growth. Housing data for this area in 2000 indicate that there were 21,848 vacant housing units, 

16 or 8.8 percent of the county’s total housing stock. Renter-occupied housing accounted for 

17 70,549 or 31.2 percent of the area’s total occupied housing stock (see Table 2-35). Based on 

18 county population projections, the review team believes that population growth will remain 

19 steady in this area for the 2010–2060 period, necessitating continued expansion of the area’s 

20 housing stock (see Table 2-23). 

21 The boom-and-bust nature of large-scale construction projects aggravates the housing impacts 

22 in local communities. The typical pattern begins when in-migrating workers and their families 

23 (along with local residents with enhanced economic resources because of project- and worker24 related jobs and expenditures) increase the demand for housing. Increased demand creates 

25 upward pressure on both the housing supply and prices in the local area. When construction 

26 ends, most in-migrating workers leave and local indirect jobs also are lost. Because a 

27 considerable construction workforce already lives locally, many of these impacts could be 

28 avoided. Additionally, the high population growth rate in the region would mitigate much of the 

29 economic decline after the completion of construction. Planning and zoning activities since the 

30 completion of Unit 1 are likely to prevent adverse impacts from haphazard housing practices like 

31 informal recreational vehicle camping, living out of vehicles, etc. Finally, the review team 

32 believes that while recent economic events have depressed the national economy, this 

33 economic downturn is temporary, and current long-term growth projections are still reasonable. 

34 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and NRC’s own independent review, the review 

35 team concludes that the housing-related impacts of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

36 construction and preconstruction activities would be minimal and temporary for the region and 

37 the four-county economic impact area, with no particular concentration of impacts. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-56 April 2010 

1 4.4.4.4 Impacts on Public Services 

2 This section describes the available public services and discusses the impacts of construction 

3 and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site on water supply and waste treatment; police, 

4 fire, and medical services; education; and social services in the region. 

5 Water Supply Facilities 

6 Like VCSNS Unit 1, water for construction and preconstruction activities, including potable water 

7 and industrial use, for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would likely be obtained from Monticello Reservoir, 

8 which has a maximum capacity of 1.296 million gpd that is maintained by pumping from the 

9 Broad River via the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility. As described in Section 3.2.2, a new 

10 water-treatment system supplied by Monticello Reservoir would be developed to serve Units 2 

11 and 3. The review team estimates that Units 2 and 3 peak project employment, Unit 1 

12 operations employment, and potential outage contractor employment would represent a 

13 maximum demand on this system of 440,100 gpd using the conservative assumption of 90 gpd 

14 per capita ([635 operations workers + 655 outage workers + 3600 workers] x 90). SCE&G 

15 estimated the peak water demand for construction and preconstruction use at 420 gpm or 

16 604,800 gpd (SCE&G 2009a). Monticello Reservoir capacity is maintained by pumping from the 

17 Broad River; this use rate represents less than 1 percent of the Broad River flow under very low 

18 flow conditions (see Section 4.2.2.1). Until the proposed water-treatment system for Units 2 and 

19 3 is operational, water for construction and preconstruction would be obtained from the 

20 Jenkinsville Water District, a public source with enough excess capacity to meet this additional 

21 demand (SCE&G 2009a). Therefore, the review team concludes that impacts on the site 

22 potable water system would be minimal. 

23 Monticello Reservoir is not a source for any other public water systems. As discussed in 

24 Section 4.2.2, the review team does not expect construction and preconstruction activities to 

25 affect groundwater or wells in the region. The review team concludes that there would be 

26 minimal impacts on public water systems and private wells in the vicinity due to water demands 

27 onsite. 

28 The location and capacity of water and wastewater systems serving the communities in the four29 county area are described in Section 2.5.2.6. These communities are expected to provide a 

30 majority of the construction and preconstruction workers, minimizing the need for additional 

31 water supplies. The review team expects impacts on public water systems from in-migrating 

32 workers and their families to be minimal, because large concentrations of workers relocating to 

33 any single locality within the four-county area are not likely. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-57 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Wastewater-Treatment Facilities 

2 The municipal wastewater-treatment facilities affected by the in-migration of population because 

3 of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities are described in Section 

4 2.5.2.6. As indicated previously, the majority of the workforce is expected to come from within 

5 the region, while the majority of in-migrating workers would relocate to communities in the four6 county area. The region surrounding the VCSNS site has experienced steady and significant 

7 population growth in the past decade, and as a result, water districts in the region have 

8 developed wastewater-treatment plants capable of absorbing the increased demands (see 

9 Table 2-38). SCE&G expects to construct a new sanitary waste-treatment system to service 

10 site-development activities for Units 2 and 3 (see Section 3.2.2). The review team expects 

11 minimal impacts on wastewater-treatment facilities from the Units 2 and 3 construction and 

12 preconstruction activities. 

13 Police, Fire, and Medical Facilities 

14 The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department and local police departments provide law15 enforcement services in Fairfield County. The Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department has 

16 jurisdiction in the unincorporated areas of the county and is the designated emergency 

17 response police enforcement provider. Current growth trends in property tax revenue, 

18 illustrated in Table 2-33, suggest that demands for any new services associated with 

19 construction and preconstruction activities would be readily absorbed by the increase in revenue 

20 associated with general growth in the local area. The review team concludes that the impact on 

21 law enforcement and firefighting services would be minimal and no mitigation would be 

22 warranted. 

23 Residents in the four-county area are served by several hospitals, a number of clinics, and 

24 private practice doctors and dentists. Within the region surrounding the VCSNS site, Richland 

25 County acts as a central hub for healthcare services with several large medical centers in the 

26 Columbia area. The capacities for each of these medical centers can be found in Section 

27 2.5.2.6. For this reason, the review team concludes that there would be no significant impacts 

28 on medical facilities and on resident healthcare services in the region. 

29 Social Services 

30 The review team anticipates that demands placed on social services related to construction and 

31 preconstruction activities would occur in proportion to workforce residence patterns. Therefore, 

32 no single county would experience significant increases in demand for social services compared 

33 to any other. The review team believes the fact that Fairfield County is the host county of the 

34 VCSNS site does not imply that Fairfield County would receive any more impact on its social 

35 services infrastructure than any other county in the economic impact area. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-58 April 2010 

1 Workforce training programs currently getting underway are expected to mitigate some 

2 demands on social services caused by poverty. The enhanced employment opportunities 

3 created by the multiplier effect during construction and preconstruction activities may provide 

4 some benefits to the disadvantaged population served by the South Carolina Department of 

5 Social Services. Increasing populations will most likely result in increased demand for non6 income-related health services, such as aid for children with special needs. However, such 

7 increases would constitute only a minor part of the overall availability of these services. As the 

8 project winds down and direct and indirect jobs are lost, demands on social services may 

9 increase. The review team concludes that the impact on social services within any given county 

10 in the local area would be minimal. 

11 4.4.4.5 Impacts on Education 

12 Within the four-county area there are 168 public schools serving almost 111,000 students, with 

13 an average student-to-teacher ratio of 13.3 to 1, well below the State-mandated ratio maximum 

14 of 28:1. The total number of students in the public school systems surrounding the VCSNS site 

15 has grown over the past decade as the population of the region as a whole has grown. The 

16 largest public school districts in the area plan to construct new schools prior to the start of 

17 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 activities. Based on information in Table 4-4, the number of in-migrating 

18 workers and their families will most likely be minimal and would be dispersed across the four19 county area in roughly the proportion of the current operations workforce for Unit 1. The review 

20 team believes that project-related students that would enter the local school systems already 

21 have been factored into current growth projections. 

22 4.4.4.6 Summary of Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

23 The review team has evaluated information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its 

24 environs, and performed an independent review of potential infrastructure and community 

25 service impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on the local area and region of the 

26 VCSNS site. The review team concludes that the expected infrastructure and community 

27 service impacts on the affected communities, enumerated in the preceding sections, would be 

28 SMALL, with one exception. The review team concluded that transportation impacts for a 

29 limited number of people living and working along the roadway network in the Jenkinsville 

30 community would be MODERATE. The review team also concluded that no further mitigation 

31 would be warranted for socioeconomic impacts, beyond SCE&G’s commitments. 

32 4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts During Construction and 

33 Preconstruction 

34 Based on the discussion in the preceding sections, the review team concluded that the 

35 socioeconomic impacts of construction and preconstruction activities would be SMALL, with one 

36 exception. The review team concludes that transportation impacts for a limited number of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-59 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 people living and working along the roadway network in the Jenkinsville community would be 

2 MODERATE. The review team also concludes that no further mitigation would be warranted for 

3 socioeconomic impacts, beyond SCE&G’s commitments. 

4 Based on the conclusions above, and because NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

5 only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of NRC6 authorized construction activities would be SMALL, with one exception. The NRC concluded 

7 that no further mitigation would be warranted for those impacts. 

8 The review team concludes that the transportation impacts along the roadway network in the 

9 Jenkinsville community would be MODERATE. To determine the portion of this impact 

10 attributable to NRC-authorized construction activities, the NRC staff assumes, based on 

11 SCE&G’s characterization of construction-related labor hours (SCE&G 2009a), 80 percent of 

12 traffic-related impacts over the life of the project would be associated with NRC-authorized 

13 construction activities. Using this allocation, the NRC staff estimates that VCSNS construction 

14 activities would lead to an increase of traffic on SC-213 of 40 percent above baseline conditions 

15 during peak project employment. The impact on SC-215 would be a 100-percent increase in 

16 traffic above baseline conditions. SCE&G has committed to extensive traffic-mitigation activities 

17 noted in Section 4.4.4.1, which would reduce the potential traffic impacts in the Jenkinsville 

18 area. Traffic levels associated with NRC-authorized construction activities would not exceed 

19 State capacity standards for two-lane highways. However, the NRC staff concludes that the 

20 traffic impacts in the Jenkinsville area from NRC-authorized construction activities still would be 

21 MODERATE, and additional mitigation measures beyond SCE&G’s commitments would not be 

22 warranted. 

23 4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts 

24 The review team evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority and low-income 

25 populations in the communities identified in Section 2.6 of this EIS could be affected by 

26 disproportionately high and adverse impacts from building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 at the 

27 proposed site. The review team (1) identified all potentially significant pathways for human 

28 health and welfare effects, (2) determined the impact of each pathway for populations, and 

29 (3) determined whether the characteristics of the pathway or special circumstances of the 

30 minority and low-income populations would result in a disproportionately high and adverse 

31 impact. To perform this assessment, the review team followed the methodology described in 

32 Section 2.6.1. In the context of construction and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site, 

33 the review team considered the questions outlined in Section 2.6.1. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-60 April 2010 

1 Research of population data indicated several census blocks within the vicinity of the VCSNS 

2 site and region having a minority population representing over 50 percent of the total population. 

3 Therefore, the review team concluded that more research into these populations and potential 

4 pathways was warranted. Upon further investigation, the review team determined that the 

5 population within the vicinity of the site, while not identified through the review criteria discussed 

6 in Section 2.6.1, included a high proportion of low-income people, as well. The review team 

7 determined that, the high proportion of minority and low-income people living in the vicinity of 

8 the VCSNS site and Jenkinsville creates a potential for a disproportionate impact. Furthermore, 

9 these minority and low-income communities exhibit additional unique characteristics and 

10 practices (subsistence fishing and hunting and personal vegetable gardening) that further 

11 identify them as vulnerable to disproportionately high and adverse impacts. 

12 Environmental justice impacts are described in the following sections, including the impacts on 

13 health (Section 4.5.1), physical and environmental (Section 4.5.2), subsistence and special 

14 conditions (Section 4.5.3) and socioeconomic impacts (Section 4.5.4). Environmental justice 

15 impacts are summarized in Section 4.5.5. 

16 4.5.1 Health Impacts 

17 Section 4.9 of this EIS assesses the radiological doses to construction workers and concludes 

18 that the doses would be within NRC and EPA dose standards. Section 4.9 further concludes 

19 that radiological health impacts on the construction workers for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

20 would be SMALL. In addition, there would be no radioactive material on the construction site 

21 except for very small sources such as those commonly used by radiographers; therefore, there 

22 would be no radiation exposure to members of the public living near the construction site. 

23 Based on this information, the review team concludes there would be no disproportionately high 

24 and adverse impact on low-income or minority members of the construction workforce or the 

25 local population. 

26 Section 4.8 of this EIS assesses the nonradiological health effects for construction workers and 

27 the local population from fugitive dust, noise, occupational injuries, and transport of materials 

28 and personnel. In Section 4.8, the review team concludes nonradiological health impacts on 

29 construction workers and the local population would be SMALL. While the review team found 

30 evidence of unique characteristics and practices in the minority or low-income populations near 

31 the site, no practices or characteristics were found that would result in differential 

32 nonradiological health impacts compared to the general population. Based on this information, 

33 the review team concludes there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on 

34 low-income or minority members of the construction workforce or the local population. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-61 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts 

2 Except for the final phases of construction and preconstruction activities, just before the fuel is 

3 loaded into the reactor, construction of a nuclear power plant is very similar in environmental 

4 effects to the construction of any other large-scale industrial project. The three primary 

5 pathways in the environment for impacts to occur are via soil, water, and air. The potential 

6 impacts on each of these pathways, along with noise and socioeconomic impacts are discussed 

7 below. 

8 4.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts 

9 Construction and preconstruction activities at the VCSNS site represent the largest source of 

10 soil-related environmental impacts. However, while construction and preconstruction activities 

11 would disrupt large volumes of soil, the effects would be primarily localized and would have little 

12 migratory ability and would diminish to imperceptible levels beyond the site boundary. The 

13 planned use of BMPs at the site would mitigate these effects. Soil disruption within local 

14 communities attributable to any induced development activities would be limited, similar to 

15 normal ongoing activities, and dispersed geographically. As discussed in Section 2.6.2 of this 

16 EIS, while the review team found evidence of unique practices (private vegetable gardening) for 

17 the high proportion of low-income communities in the vicinity of the site and near Jenkinsville, 

18 the review team did not find any pathway that could result in different soil-related impacts 

19 compared to the general population. Given these factors, the review team concludes that soil20 related environmental impacts during construction and preconstruction activities would impose 

21 no disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

22 4.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts 

23 Water-related environmental impacts include erosion-related degradation of surface water and 

24 the introduction of anthropogenic substances into surface water and groundwater. Such 

25 impacts attenuate rapidly with distance and would reach near background levels beyond the site 

26 boundary. No local minority or low-income communities were found to use the Broad River as a 

27 source of water for public supply. As analyzed in Section 4.2, the review team expects SMALL 

28 impacts on the Broad River or Monticello Reservoir from sediments and contaminants. 

29 Onsite groundwater would not be used as a water-supply source during construction and 

30 preconstruction activities, and there would be no discharges to the groundwater environment. 

31 Any necessary dewatering of the excavation would be localized, temporary, and limited in 

32 impact to areas within the site boundary. Consequently, the impacts of the proposed action on 

33 groundwater quality would be negligible, localized, and temporary. As discussed in Section 

34 2.6.2 of this EIS, the review team found evidence of some subsistence fishing in the vicinity of 

35 the site and near Jenkinsville, but did not identify any construction or preconstruction pathway 

36 that could result in different water-related impacts compared to the general population. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-62 April 2010 

1 Therefore, the review team concludes that the potential for minor negative impacts from 

2 surface-water or groundwater sources would not cause water-related disproportionate and 

3 adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

4 4.5.2.3 Air Quality Impacts 

5 Air quality impacts attenuate rapidly with distance from the source. Based on the findings in 

6 Section 4.4.1.3, motor-vehicle exhaust and dust from onsite construction and preconstruction 

7 activities would cause minor and localized air quality impacts that would not extend beyond the 

8 site boundaries. However, traffic-related air quality impacts would be more apparent within the 

9 vicinity of the site or the site access roads. While minority and low-income populations have 

10 been identified in the vicinity of the site and the site access roads, air quality impacts would be 

11 limited in duration to the peak employment period while building the proposed project and only 

12 to short periods of time during worker commutes. 

13 Air quality impacts from construction and preconstruction activities at the site are at a distance 

14 from sensitive receptors and as a result are projected to cause minor localized adverse impacts 

15 on air quality at peak employment. These impacts would be highly localized and limited to the 

16 VCSNS site and local transportation routes leading to the site. Other than their location along 

17 access roads that may become congested, the review team did not identify evidence of any 

18 other unique characteristics or practices in the environmental justice community that may result 

19 in different impacts compared to the general population. Given the attenuation due to distance, 

20 the limited duration of construction and preconstruction activities, and the highly localized nature 

21 of the impacts, the review team concludes that construction and preconstruction activities would 

22 cause minor, but not disproportionate, adverse impacts on air quality for minority and low23 income populations. 

24 4.5.2.4 Noise Impacts 

25 Section 4.4.1.2 of this EIS describes the review team’s evaluation of noise impacts on 

26 surrounding communities from construction and preconstruction activities. These impacts were 

27 determined to be negligible. As stated in that analysis, noise levels from construction and 

28 preconstruction activities may exceed 100 dB within the site, but would be attenuated by 

29 distance and obstacles such as buildings, vegetation, and topography. Noise from traffic along 

30 the access routes to the sites may intermittently exceed levels acceptable for residential areas. 

31 However, these impacts would be more noticeable within the vicinity of the site or the site 

32 access roads. Sensitive noise receptors closest to the site are likely to experience intermittent, 

33 but temporary, noise pollution during the peak of construction and preconstruction activities. 

34 Other than their location within the site vicinity, the review team did not identify evidence of 

35 unique characteristics or practices in the environmental justice community that may result in 

36 different noise-related impacts compared to the general population. Adverse noise impacts 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-63 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 attenuate rapidly with distance and would not extend beyond this limited geographic area. 

2 Given the noise attenuation due to distance and physical obstructions, the limited duration of 

3 peak construction and preconstruction activities, and the highly localized nature of the activities 

4 (immediate proximity to the site), the review team concludes that construction and 

5 preconstruction activities would cause minor, but not disproportionate, adverse noise impacts on 

6 minority and low-income populations. 

7 4.5.3 Subsistence and Special Conditions 

8 The NRC’s environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of affected populations 

9 of particular interest or with unusual circumstances, such as minority communities that are 

10 exceptionally dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations such as 

11 American Indian settlements. As discussed in Section 2.6.1, the review team received 

12 anecdotal evidence of private vegetable gardens and subsistence fishing among the low-income 

13 populations in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. However, under closer investigation, no pathways 

14 were identified from construction and preconstruction activities that would modify or disrupt 

15 these subsistence uses. The review team also searched locally for evidence of subsistence 

16 fishing and hunting and could not identify any concentration of these activities that would be 

17 affected by construction and preconstruction activities at the site. Nor did the review team 

18 identify any unusual resource dependencies such as plants with religious or economic 

19 significance or any key transportation routes that might be disrupted by construction and 

20 preconstruction activities. Therefore, the review team concludes that there would be no 

21 disproportionate adverse impacts on the subsistence activities of minority or low-income 

22 populations from construction and preconstruction activities for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

23 4.5.4 Socioeconomics 

24 The four-county economic impact area has sufficient housing available and has experienced 

25 levels of growth such that in-migrating workers would not have a noticeable impact on housing 

26 prices or availability in any affected county. 

27 Other than their location along access roads that may become congested, the review team did 

28 not identify evidence of any other unique characteristics or practices in the environmental justice 

29 community that may result in different impacts compared to the general population. With 

30 respect to the natural or physical environment, the review team determined that traffic during 

31 construction and preconstruction has the potential for adverse impacts on residents in the 

32 vicinity of the VCSNS site and in Jenkinsville. As discussed in Section 4.4.4.1, while road 

33 capacity standards would not be exceeded by the maximum building related traffic (daily 

34 commute times during peak building activity), construction worker traffic would constitute a 50-

35 percent increase in average daily traffic along SC-213 and a 125-percent increase along SC36 215. The review team anticipates that because the traffic-related impacts are temporary and of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-64 April 2010 

1 short duration in nature, they would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville 

2 community. Without mitigation, acute traffic impacts would increase further during outage 

3 periods at Unit 1, when on average 655 additional workers, spread across a similar shift 

4 schedule, would travel to the site. 

5 SCE&G states that it would develop a traffic-management plan prior to starting major 

6 construction and preconstruction activities, including a possible centralized parking lot that 

7 would transport workers to and from the VCSNS site, encouraging car pools, staggering shift 

8 schedules and delivery services and establishing shuttle services from Columbia (SCE&G 

9 2009a). However, even with the proposed mitigation, given the communities in the vicinity of 

10 the VCSNS and Jenkinsville exhibit such high proportions of minority and low-income people, 

11 the review team determined that there could still be a disproportionately high and adverse 

12 impact on minority and low-income communities in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. 

13 The actions to be taken by SCE&G, together with the intermittent and limited duration 

14 characteristics of commuter traffic, led the review team to determine that there would be a 

15 noticeable but not destabilizing impact on those minority and low-income populations. 

16 4.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts During Construction and 

17 Preconstruction 

18 Given the magnitude of the impacts that would generally be attenuated due to distance, the 

19 limited duration of construction and preconstruction activities, and the highly localized nature of 

20 the impacts, the review team concludes that construction and preconstruction activities would 

21 cause SMALL, but not disproportionate, impacts on health, physical and environmental 

22 resources, subsistence and special conditions, and socioeconomics; for traffic-related impacts, 

23 greater detail was considered and is discussed in the following. The review team concluded 

24 there could be traffic-related disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low25 income populations found in the Jenkinsville area. However, the review team believes that 

26 because the traffic-related impacts would be temporary and of short duration in nature, they 

27 would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. Therefore, the review 

28 team concludes that the environmental justice impacts from construction and preconstruction 

29 activities related to traffic would be MODERATE. 

30 The review team concluded that there were disproportionately high and adverse impacts from 

31 construction and preconstruction activities on minority and low-income populations, and that the 

32 impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing. The environmental justice impacts could not 

33 be entirely avoided by the applicant’s mitigative measures; therefore, the review team 

34 determined that the remaining impacts would be MODERATE. As discussed in Section 4.4.5, 

35 the NRC staff assumes that 80 percent of the traffic impact is associated with NRC authorized 

36 construction activities. Furthermore, the 80 percent of the total construction and preconstruction 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-65 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 traffic-related impacts attributable to NRC-authorized construction activities still would be 

2 noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. Therefore, the NRC staff 

3 concludes that the environmental justice impacts from NRC-authorized construction activities 

4 related to traffic would be MODERATE. 

5 The review team determined there are no other pathways by which the identified minority or 

6 low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to suffer disproportionate and 

7 adverse environmental or health impacts as a result of the project. Therefore, the NRC staff 

8 concludes there are no other health, physical or environmental pathways by which the identified 

9 minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to suffer disproportionate 

10 and adverse environmental or health impacts as a result of the NRC-authorized construction 

11 activities. 

12 4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 

13 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires that Federal 

14 agencies take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural 

15 environment, which includes archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places 

16 important to local populations. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

17 (NHPA), also requires Federal agencies to consider impacts on those resources if they are 

18 eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (such resources are referred to as 

19 “Historic Properties” in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, “Coordination with the National 

20 Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” the NRC is coordinating compliance with Section 106 of the 

21 NHPA in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA. 

22 Construction and preconstruction of new nuclear power plants can affect either known or 

23 undiscovered cultural resources. In accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the 

24 NRC and USACE are required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic 

25 properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and, if such properties are present, determine 

26 whether any significant impacts are likely to occur. Identification of historic properties is to occur 

27 in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), American Indian Tribes, 

28 interested parties, and the public. If significant impacts are possible, efforts should be made to 

29 describe potential mitigation. As part of the NEPA/NHPA integration, if no historic properties 

30 (i.e., places eligible for listing in the National Register or meeting the NEPA definition of 

31 important) are present or affected, the NRC and the USACE are still required to notify the SHPO 

32 before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is required to 

33 assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-66 April 2010 

1 4.6.1 Onsite Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts 

2 For a description of the historic and cultural resource information about the VCSNS site, see 

3 Section 2.7 of this EIS. As explained in Section 2.7, previous cultural resource identification 

4 efforts resulting in the identification of a total of 39 archaeological sites within the VCSNS site 

5 APE, most of which have been recommended as ineligible for listing in the National Register. 

6 Four archaeological sites have either been recommended as National Register eligible, 

7 38FA330 (General Pearson Cemetery) and 38FA360; potentially eligible, 38FA366; or 

8 recommended for preservation, despite not being considered potentially eligible for inclusion in 

9 the National Register, 38FA349. 

10 These four archaeological sites are located within the project APE but outside of the proposed 

11 footprint of disturbance identified by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009f). SCE&G currently has protective 

12 measures in place for these resources, including fencing at the Pearson Cemetery, temporary 

13 fencing at 38FA360, and delineation of all four sites as sensitive areas on management maps 

14 and plant layout and design drawings (SCE&G 2009i, j). Proposed signage would read 

15 “Environmentally Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb” (SCE&G 2009j). These protective measures 

16 would be identified and added to SCE&G’s Environmental Management Plan for VCSNS Units 2 

17 and 3 (SCE&G 2009j). In addition, SCE&G would provide cultural awareness training for all 

18 workers including awareness of signage and inadvertent discovery procedures for Unit 1, which 

19 would also be applied to Units 2 and 3 and described in SCE&G’s Environmental Management 

20 Plan (SCE&G 2009i, j, k). These procedures indicate that work would stop and SHPO would be 

21 contacted if inadvertent discovery of cultural resources occurs (SCE&G 2009j, k). The South 

22 Carolina SHPO, in a letter to SCE&G, concurred with a finding of no adverse effect to 

23 archaeological sites 38FA330 and 38FA360 based on protective and avoidance measures 

24 being implemented by SCE&G, but would like to see the protective and avoidance measures 

25 formalized in a Programmatic Agreement (SCE&G 2009q). The SHPO also indicated that if 

26 archaeological site 38FA366 cannot be avoided, additional archaeological testing would need to 

27 occur to evaluate the site for National Register eligibility. The SHPO also concurred in a letter 

28 to SCE&G with a finding of no historic properties affected for the 35 archaeological sites that are 

29 not eligible (SCE&G 2009q). 

30 To address the SHPO’s request for a Programmatic Agreement, SCE&G has agreed to enter 

31 into a management agreement with the SHPO to formalize avoidance and protective measures 

32 listed above as well as any updates made to the Environmental Management Plan regarding 

33 cultural resources awareness training and inadvertent discovery procedures (SCE&G 2009j). 

34 Consultation between SCE&G and the SHPO regarding the management agreement is ongoing 

35 (SCE&G 2009m; NRC 2010). 

36 The review team analyzed the construction and preconstruction activities related to building the 

37 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the potential cultural and historic resources impacts. The 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-67 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 review team has also considered the communication between the SHPO and SCE&G regarding 

2 a management agreement that will formalize the protection and avoidance measures being 

3 undertaken by SCE&G to ensure protection of the onsite cultural resources (NRC 2009b, 2010). 

4 For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, based on the (1) protective measures that SCE&G 

5 will undertake to avoid adversely affecting sites 38FA330 and 38FA360, (2) project design and 

6 avoidance measures that SCE&G will undertake to avoid affects on sites 38FA366 and 

7 38FA349, (3) SCE&G’s reliance on inadvertent discovery procedures if ground-disturbing 

8 activities discover cultural or historic resources, and (4) the NRC’s and USACE’s cultural 

9 resources analysis and consultation, the NRC and USACE conclude a finding of no adverse 

10 effect to 38FA330 and 38FA360. In addition, the NRC and USACE conclude a finding of no 

11 effect to historic properties for 38FA366 (lithic scatter) and FA349 (tree carving), because these 

12 sites have not been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and the 

13 sites would be outside the areas to be disturbed. 

14 The General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution monument are 

15 examples of cultural resources located within the APE that would not be physically affected by 

16 the proposed action, but the potential visual impacts of the proposed action are sufficient to alter 

17 noticeably important attributes of the resources. The proposed action would alter noticeably the 

18 landscape and environment surrounding these cultural resources. The grading and excavation 

19 that would occur from preconstruction activities as well as the erection of various buildings to 

20 support the new reactor would modify the visual landscape that is considered to be an important 

21 attribute of these resources. Important attributes of these cultural resources include the 

22 following: 

23  context and landscape of the surrounding area 

24  relationship of the cemetery and landmark with regional history, settlement patterns, and 

25 use of the land 

26  the integrity of the site and the viewshed. 

27 Protective measures and avoidance plans are being developed in consultation with the SHPO 

28 so that these impacts can be minimized. The management agreement will mandate that these 

29 protective measures are formalized and enforceable. 

30 For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, based on the (1) protective measures 

31 that SCE&G would undertake to avoid adversely affecting 38FA330 and 38FA360, (2) project 

32 design and avoidance measures that SCE&G wouldundertake to avoid affects to 38FA366 and 

33 FA349, (3) SCE&G’s reliance on inadvertent discovery procedures should ground-disturbing 

34 activities discover cultural or historic resources, and (4) the review team’s cultural resources 

35 analysis and consultation, the review team concludes that the cultural and historic resources 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-68 April 2010 

1 impacts from construction and preconstruction activities would be MODERATE and no further 

2 mitigation beyond that described above would be warranted. 

3 Based on the above analysis, and because the visual impacts on the resources are primarily 

4 from preconstruction, and thus not part of the NRC action, the NRC staff concludes that the 

5 minor visual impacts from NRC-authorized construction activities on historic and cultural 

6 resources would be SMALL and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

7 4.6.2 Offsite Cultural and Historic Resource Impacts 

8 Visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the visual 

9 landscape within the geographic area of interest. Visual impacts on cultural resources could be 

10 unavoidable if significant cultural resources where the historic setting and character of the 

11 resource are important attributes associated with that resource are located within the 

12 geographic area of interest. Given the length of new transmission lines and the possibility of 

13 finding significant cultural resources along the transmission lines, some impacts on cultural 

14 resources may be unavoidable. The potential for visual impacts exists and in the absence of 

15 more detailed information, these impacts cannot be evaluated with certainty. 

16 SCE&G and Santee Cooper have indicated that they would work with the SHPO to complete 

17 cultural resources surveys once the transmission-line corridors are finalized (SCE&G 2009i, j, l). 

18 A management agreement between the SHPO, Santee Cooper, and SCE&G is being pursued 

19 to formalize how these cultural resource investigations and possible mitigations would be 

20 carried out in consultation with the SHPO (SCE&G 2009m; NRC 2010). The review team has 

21 reviewed impacts related to installation of the proposed transmission lines. The review team 

22 has considered the communications between the SHPO, SCE&G, and Santee Cooper and the 

23 agreement, discussed above, among the parties to pursue a management agreement to 

24 formalize the cultural resources review process prior to installation of the transmission lines. 

25 For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, based on the (1) commitment made by 

26 SCE&G and Santee Cooper to pursue a management agreement with the SHPO, as described 

27 above and (2) the review team’s cultural resources analysis, preconstruction impacts associated 

28 with transmission lines have the potential to impact cultural resources. Impacts could be 

29 SMALL if there are no significant alterations to the cultural environment. If these activities result 

30 in significant alterations to the cultural environment, the impact could be greater. 

31 For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, the USACE has considered the impacts related to 

32 the installation of the proposed transmission lines. Because the cultural resource studies for the 

33 transmission lines are not completed, the USACE cannot provide an official finding of effect 

34 conclusion for this portion of the project. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-69 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 According to 10 CFR 50.10 (a) (2) (vii), transmission lines are not included in the definition of 

2 construction and are not an NRC authorized activity. Therefore, the NRC considers the 

3 transmission lines outside the NRC’s APE and therefore not part of the NRC’s consultation. 

4 4.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts 

5 Sections 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 describe the meteorological characteristics and air quality at the 

6 VCSNS site. The primary impacts of the building two new units on local meteorology and air 

7 quality would be from dust from land clearing and building activities, open burning, emissions 

8 from equipment and machinery, concrete batch-plant operations, and emissions from vehicles 

9 used to transport workers and materials to and from the site. 

10 4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities 

11 Development activities planned for the VCSNS site would result in temporary impacts on local 

12 air quality as a result of emissions associated with construction and preconstruction activities. 

13 Similar to any large-scale construction project, dust particle emissions would be generated 

14 during ground-clearing, grading, and excavation activities. Fugitive dust particles would be 

15 generated from the movement of machinery and materials by wind blowing over recently 

16 disturbed or cleared areas. In addition to the fugitive dust emissions associated with grading 

17 and the movement of construction vehicles, there would be fugitive dust emissions associated 

18 with the operation of a concrete batch plant. 

19 The SCDHEC regulates air quality control for the State of South Carolina as set forth in Section 

20 48-1-110, 1976 Codes of South Carolina and in the South Carolina Air Quality Control 

21 Regulation 61-62.1, Section II. A permit for dust generated by building activities may be 

22 required and the need for it would be determined on a case-by-case basis (SC Code Regs. 61-

23 62.1). SCE&G stated in its ER (SCE&G 2009a) that it would develop a dust-control plan that 

24 would include specific dust-mitigation measures. The plan would include techniques such as 

25 imposing speed limits on unpaved construction roads, minimizing material handling, covering 

26 haul trucks, wetting potential source areas during dry periods, limiting grading and excavation 

27 activities during high winds or periods of poor air quality, and revegetation of road medians and 

28 slopes (SCE&G 2009a). A permit from the SDCHEC may also be required for operation of the 

29 batch plant.

30 Exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would also generate smaller 

31 amounts of particulate matter. These emissions would contain carbon monoxide, oxides of 

32 nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. As discussed in Section 2.9.2, Fairfield County is 

33 considered to be in attainment for all criteria pollutants for which NAAQSs have been 

34 established (40 CFR 81.341). On April 8, 2008, the EPA changed the NAAQS for ozone from 

35 0.08 to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The State of South Carolina has recommended that parts of 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-70 April 2010 

1 Lexington and Richland Counties (which are in the Columbia Intrastate Air Quality Control 

2 Region [AQCR]) be designated as nonattainment (SCDHEC 2009). On September 16, 2009, 

3 the EPA indicated that the new ozone standard of 0.075 ppm would be reconsidered and final 

4 designation would be made in August 2011 (EPA 2009a). These changes could result in 

5 additional restrictions of nitrogen oxide emissions within Fairfield County and the need for 

6 additional permits. 

7 Preoperational activities would also result in greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon 

8 dioxide (CO2). Assuming a 7-year construction period and typical construction practices, the 

9 review team estimates that the total construction equipment CO2 emission footprint for building 

10 two nuclear power plants at the VCSNS site would be of the order of 70,000 metric tons, as 

11 compared to a total United States annual CO2 emission rate of 6,000,000,000 metric tons (EPA 

12 2009b). Appendix J provides the details of the review team estimate for a reference 1000-

13 MW(e) nuclear power plant. Based on its assessment of the relatively small construction 

14 equipment carbon footprint as compared to the United States annual CO2 emissions, the review 

15 team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from construction and 

16 preconstruction activities would not be noticeable and additional mitigation would not be 

17 warranted. 

18 In general, emissions from construction and preconstruction activities (including greenhouse 

19 gases) would vary based on the level and duration of a specific activity, but the overall impact is 

20 expected to be temporary and limited in magnitude. In its ER, SCE&G lists several strategies 

21 that could be used to limit the impact further, including staggering the use of equipment and 

22 keeping equipment in good working order. The review team concludes that the impacts from 

23 VCSNS Unit 2 and 3 construction and preconstruction activities on air quality would not be 

24 noticeable because appropriate mitigation measures would be adopted. 

25 4.7.2 Transportation 

26 This EIS assesses the three impacts of transporting workers and materials to and from the 

27 VCSNS site: the socioeconomic impacts, potential health impacts from additional traffic-related 

28 accidents, and the air quality impacts of dust and gaseous emissions released into the air by 

29 vehicle traffic. Only the air quality impacts are discussed in this section. The socioeconomic 

30 impacts are described in Section 4.4.1.3, and health effects from accidents are described in 

31 Section 4.8.3. 

32 In the ER, SCE&G estimated that during the period of peak development there would be 3600 

33 workers split equally among four shifts, or 900 workers per shift (SCE&G 2009a). Using a 

34 conservative assumption of one worker per vehicle in its transportation analysis, SCE&G 

35 estimated that an additional 1800 vehicles (900 leaving and 900 arriving) would be added to the 

36 roadway system during a shift change. In addition to the construction workers, SCE&G 

37 estimated increased traffic from approximately 100 daily truck deliveries that would occur at the 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-71 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 site (SCE&G 2009a). As described in Section 2.9, Fairfield County is currently an attainment 

2 area for all criteria pollutants. The impact of emissions from an additional 1800 vehicles 

3 (900 per shift) would be localized and temporary and have little impact on the regional air 

4 quality. Some communities near the construction site, such as Jenkinsville, would experience 

5 significant increases in traffic and associated increases in the amount of particulate and 

6 gaseous emissions. SCE&G has committed to developing a project-management traffic plan 

7 that includes a number of potential mitigation measures, including a centralized parking area 

8 away from the site and shuttling construction workers to the site in buses or vans, encouraging 

9 carpools, staggering construction shifts, and/or establishing a shuttle service from the Columbia 

10 area (SCE&G 2009a). 

11 Construction workforce transportation would also result in greenhouse gas emissions, 

12 principally CO2. Assuming a 7-year construction period and a typical workforce, the review 

13 team estimates that the total construction workforce CO2 emission footprint for building two 

14 nuclear power plants at the VCSNS site would be of the order of 300,000 metric tons; again, this 

15 is compared to a total United States annual CO2 emission rate of 6,000,000,000 metric tons 

16 (EPA 2009b). Appendix J provides the details of the review team estimate for a reference 1000-

17 MW(e) nuclear power plant. Based on its assessment of the relatively small construction 

18 workforce carbon footprint as compared to the United States annual CO2 emissions, the review 

19 team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from construction workforce 

20 transportation would not be noticeable and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

21 Based on SCE&G’s commitment to developing a construction traffic-management plan and the 

22 potential mitigation measures listed in the ER, the review team concludes that the impact on the 

23 local air quality (including the effects of greenhouse gas emissions) from the increase in 

24 vehicular traffic related to construction and preconstruction activities would be temporary and 

25 minimal because appropriate mitigation measures would be adopted. 

26 4.7.3 Summary 

27 The review team evaluated potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 

28 and greenhouse gas emissions during VCSNS site-development activities and determined that 

29 the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

30 VCSNS site development on air quality from emissions of criteria pollutants and CO2 emissions 

31 are SMALL and that no further mitigation is warranted. Because NRC-authorized construction 

32 activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff concludes that the air 

33 quality impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities would also be SMALL; the NRC staff 

34 also concludes that no further mitigation, beyond the applicant’s commitments, would be 

35 warranted.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-72 April 2010 

1 4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

2 SCE&G indicated that the physical impacts of construction and preconstruction, including public 

3 health, occupational health, and noise, would be minimal and discussed them qualitatively in 

4 Sections 4.4.1 and 4.7 of its ER (SCE&G 2009a). This section focuses primarily on the area 

5 near the VCSNS site; however, preconstruction activities would also occur in the transmission6 line corridors (the exact locations of which are not determined at this time). 

7 The nonradiological impacts on health are described in the following sections, including impacts 

8 on public and occupational health (Section 4.8.1), the impacts of noise (Section 4.8.2), and the 

9 impacts of transporting construction materials and personnel to and from the proposed site 

10 (Section 4.8.3). Nonradiological health impacts are summarized in Section 4.8.4. 

11 4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health 

12 This section includes a discussion of the impacts of construction and preconstruction activities 

13 on public health and on VCSNS site worker health. Section 2.10 provides background 

14 information on the affected environment and nonradiological health at and within the vicinity of 

15 the VCSNS site. 

16 4.8.1.1 Public Health 

17 The physical impacts on the public from construction and preconstruction activities at the 

18 VCSNS site (including associated transmission-line corridors) would include dust and vehicle 

19 exhaust (including exhaust from haul vehicles) as sources of air pollution during site preparation 

20 (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G stated that operational controls would be imposed to mitigate dust 

21 emissions, using methods such as watering unpaved roads and exposed soils (when surface is 

22 dry), stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, and phasing grading activities and ceasing 

23 them during high winds and/or during extreme air pollution episodes (SCE&G 2009a). 

24 Engine exhaust would be minimized by maintaining fuel-burning equipment in good mechanical 

25 order and by phasing activities to minimize daily emissions. SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a) stated 

26 that applicable Federal, State, and local emission requirements would be followed as they relate 

27 to open burning or the operation of fuel-burning equipment. The appropriate Federal, State, and 

28 local permits and operating certificates would be obtained as required. VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

29 would be located in Fairfield County, South Carolina, which is part of the Columbia Intrastate 

30 AQCR (40 CFR 81.108 and 81.341). The Clean Air Act establishes NAAQSs, and Fairfield 

31 County is classified as an attainment area under these criteria (SCE&G 2009a). 

32 The public would not be allowed close to the proposed plant site. The nearest publicly 

33 accessible area is approximately 0.5 mi from the work site (other than transmission lines), and 

34 the nearest residence is approximately 1 mi from the Units 2 and 3 site (SCE&G 2009a). Given 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-73 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the fugitive dust suppression and vehicle exhaust emission mitigation measures discussed 

2 above and the general public’s distance away from the VCSNS site, the review team concludes 

3 that the impacts on nonradiological public health from construction and preconstruction activities 

4 would be negligible. No further mitigation beyond that discussed above would be warranted. 

5 4.8.1.2 Construction Worker Health 

6 In general, human health risks to construction workers and other personnel working onsite are 

7 dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, asphyxiation, and burns). SCE&G 

8 has an industrial safety program and a Safety Services Department that uses procedures and 

9 provides training to all employees and contractors to make sure that all workers onsite are 

10 trained in all appropriate safety requirements (SCE&G 2009a). 

11 In addition to onsite construction and preconstruction activities, SCE&G has planned for six new 

12 transmission lines. Most of the transmission lines would be built within or adjacent to existing 

13 transmission-line corridors, but three would require the creation of new corridors and two new 

14 associated switchyards, one onsite and one offsite. The transmission lines and associated 

15 switchyards would be built in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code and 

16 applicable construction standards and codes (SCE&G 2009a). 

17 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the construction industry continues to 

18 have the greatest number of fatalities of industries in the private sector. In 2008, most fatalities 

19 in South Carolina were due to falls, exposure to harmful substances or environments, and 

20 transportation incidents (BLS 2008c). Nonfatal injury and illness rates from 2007 for 

21 construction workers, including specialty trade contractors, averaged 5.4 percent (BLS 2008b). 

22 The maximum construction workforce for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and related facilities 

23 would be 3600 during an expected period from 2008 through completion of the project in 2019 

24 (SCE&G 2009a). 

25 Based on mitigation measures identified by SCE&G in its ER, permits and authorizations 

26 required by State and local agencies, safety training that would be conducted by SCE&G and its 

27 contractors, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

28 nonradiological impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on construction worker 

29 health would be minimal. No further mitigation beyond that discussed above would be 

30 warranted. 

31 4.8.2 Noise Impacts 

32 Development of a nuclear power plant project is similar to other large industrial projects, and it 

33 involves many noise-generating activities. Regulations governing noise from construction and 

34 preconstruction activities are generally limited to worker health. Federal regulations governing 

35 noise are found in 29 CFR Part 1910 and 40 CFR Part 204. The regulations in 29 CFR Part 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-74 April 2010 

1 1910 deal with noise exposure in the construction environment, and the regulations in 40 CFR 

2 Part 204 generally govern the noise levels of construction equipment including compressors. 

3 Neither Fairfield County nor the State of South Carolina has regulations or guidelines for noise 

4 (SCE&G 2009a). 

5 The ER indicates that activities associated with building of two new units at the VCSNS site 

6 would have peak noise levels as high as 108 dBA up close and 82 dBA at 100 ft away (SCE&G 

7 2009a). A 10-dBA decrease in noise level is generally perceived as cutting the loudness in half. 

8 At a distance of 50 ft from the source, these noise levels would generally decrease to the 73- to 

9 102-dBA range, and at a distance of 400 ft, the noise levels would generally be in the 55- to 73-

10 dBA range (SCE&G 2009a). For context, Tipler (1982) lists the sound intensity of a quiet office 

11 as 50 dBA, normal conversation as 60 dBA, busy traffic as 70 dBA, and a noisy office with 

12 machines or an average factory as 80 dBA. Construction noise (at 10 ft) is listed as 110 dBA, 

13 and the pain threshold is 120 dBA. 

14 The ER states that the exclusion area boundary of the VCSNS site would be greater than 0.5 mi 

15 in all directions from the center of construction and preconstruction activities for Units 2 and 3 

16 (SCE&G 2009a). A 100-dBA noise level at 50 ft from an activity would be expected to decrease 

17 to less than 55 dBA at the exclusion area boundary (SCE&G 2009a). There are no major roads, 

18 public buildings, or residences within the exclusion area. Similarly, a 100-dBA noise level would 

19 be expected to decrease to less than 55 dBA at the nearest residence, which is approximately 1 

20 mi from the development area (SCE&G 2009a). These estimates do not include the noise 

21 attenuation associated with vegetation and topography. 

22 Construction and preconstruction activities would be expected to take place 24 hours per day, 

23 7 days per week during peak activity periods. However, the ER (SCE&G 2009a) lists a number 

24 of measures that could be taken to mitigate the potential adverse effects of noise. Among the 

25 mitigation measures are compliance with Federal and State regulations, use of hearing 

26 protection, inspection and maintenance of equipment, restriction of noise-related activities to 

27 daylight hours, and restriction of delivery times to daylight hours. 

According to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996),(a) 28 noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are considered to be 

29 of small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in NUREG-0586, 

30 Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The criterion for assessing the level of significance was not 

31 expressed in terms of sound levels but was based on the effect of noise on human activities and 

32 on threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is stated 

33 as follows: 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999 (NRC 

1999a). All references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-75 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The noise impacts of decommissioning...are considered detectable if sound 

2 levels are sufficiently high to disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. 

3 The noise impacts...are considered destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently 

4 high that the affected area is essentially unsuitable for normal human activities, 

5 or if the behavior or breeding of a threatened and endangered species is 

6 affected. 

7 Considering the anticipated low noise levels, the temporary nature of construction and 

8 preconstruction activities, and the location and characteristics of the VCSNS site, the review 

9 team concludes that the noise impacts from construction would be minimal, and additional 

10 mitigation beyond the actions identified above would not be warranted. 

11 4.8.3 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction 

12 Personnel to the Proposed Site 

13 This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and construction materials to and from the 

14 proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites from the perspective of three areas of impact: the 

15 socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of dust and particulate matter emitted by vehicle 

16 traffic, and the potential health impacts due to additional traffic-related accidents. The human 

17 health impacts are addressed in this section, while the socioeconomic impacts are addressed in 

18 Section 4.4.1.3, and the air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7.2. 

19 The general approach used to calculate the nonradiological impacts of fuel and waste 

20 shipments (see Section 6.2 of this EIS) is the same as that used for the transportation of 

21 construction materials and construction personnel to and from the VCSNS site and alternative 

22 sites. However, preliminary estimates are the only data sources available to estimate the 

23 demand for these transportation services. The assumptions made to fill in reasonable estimates 

24 of the parameters needed to calculate nonradiological impacts are discussed below. 

25 Construction material requirements are based on information taken from the ER (SCE&G 

26 2009a). SCE&G (2009a) estimated that constructing one new Westinghouse Electric Company, 

27 LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor unit requires 

up to 75,000 yd3 28 of concrete, 23,000 T of structural steel and rebar, 6,500,000 linear ft of cable, 

29 and 137,500 linear ft of piping. These quantities would be doubled to account for a two-unit 

30 plant. Additional information needed to develop the nonradiological impact estimates are as 

31 follows: 

 It was assumed that maximum shipment capacities are ~13 yd3 32 of concrete, 11 T of 

33 structural steel, and 3300 linear ft of piping and cable per shipment. It was assumed that 

34 these materials would be transported to the site in levelized annual quantities over a 5-year 

35 period, based on the estimated construction schedule given in the ER (SCE&G 2009a). 

36 (Operation costs are frequently expressed as levelized cost of electricity, which is the price 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-76 April 2010 

1 per kWh of producing electricity, including the amounts needed to cover operating costs and 

2 annualized capital costs.) 

3  The number of construction workers was estimated to peak at 3600 (SCE&G 2009a). This 

4 value represents the peak workforce for construction of two units simultaneously. For a 

5 single plant, the peak construction workforce was estimated to be 1800 workers per year. 

6 Conservatively assuming that each vehicle carries one worker to the site, there would be 

7 about 1800 vehicles per day per unit. Each person was assumed to travel to and from the 

8 VCSNS site 250 days per year. 

9  Average shipping distances for construction materials were assumed to be 50 mi one way. 

10 The average commute distance for construction workers was assumed to be 20 mi one way. 

11  Accident, injury, and fatality rates for construction materials were taken from Table 4 in 

12 ANL/ESD/TM-150 State-level Accident Rates for Surface Freight Transportation: A 

13 Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Rates for the State of South Carolina were 

14 used for construction material shipments, typically conducted in heavy-combination trucks. 

15 The data provided by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) are representative of heavy-truck 

16 accident rates and do not specifically address the impacts associated with commuter traffic 

17 (i.e., workers traveling to and from the site). However, a single source that provided all three 

18 rates to estimate the impacts from worker transportation to and from the site was not 

19 available. A South Carolina-specific fatality rate for all traffic for the years 2003 to 2007 was 

20 used to develop representative commuter traffic impacts (DOT 2009a). The average fatality 

21 rate for the 2003 to 2007 period in South Carolina was used as the basis for estimating 

22 South Carolina-specific commuter injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were 

23 developed using the national traffic accident statistics in National Transportation Statistics 

24 2007 (DOT 2007). The adjustment factors are the ratio of the national injury rate to the 

25 national fatality rate and the ratio of the national accident rate to the national fatality rate. 

26 These adjustment factors were multiplied by the South Carolina-specific fatality rate to 

27 approximate the injury and accident rates for commuters in the State of South Carolina. 

28  The Saricks and Tompkins (1999) accident rates were taken from the Motor Carrier Safety 

29 Administration. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

30 Administration evaluated the data underlying these rates and determined that they were 

31 under-reported. To account for the under-reported accident, injury, and fatality rates from 

32 Saricks and Tompkins (1999), the review team adjusted them using factors derived from 

33 data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI 

34 2003). The UMTRI data indicate that accident rates for 1994 to 1996, the same data used 

35 by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 percent. Injury and 

36 fatality rates were under-reported by 16 percent and 36 percent, respectively. As a result, 

37 the accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, 

38 respectively, to account for the under-reporting. These adjustments were applied to the 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-77 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 construction materials that are transported by heavy-truck shipments similar to those 

2 evaluated by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) but not to commuter traffic accidents. 

3 The estimated nonradiological impacts of transporting construction materials to the proposed 

4 VCSNS site and of transporting construction workers to and/or from the site are shown in 

5 Table 4-5. Round-trip distances were used in the assessment. The estimates would be 

6 approximately doubled for construction of two units at the VCSNS site but because two units are 

7 being constructed simultaneously, the peak construction worker demands for the two units 

8 occur in different years. As discussed above, the peak construction workforce would be 3600 

9 workers, so the peak nonradiological impact estimates would be double the estimates listed in 

10 Table 4-5. Note that the nonradiological impacts are dominated by the transportation of 

11 construction workers to and/or from the VCSNS site. The estimated total annual construction 

12 fatalities represent less than a 3-percent increase above the average 14 traffic fatalities per year 

13 that occurred in Fairfield County, South Carolina, between 2003 and 2007 (DOT 2009b). This 

14 represents a small increase relative to the current traffic fatality risks in the area surrounding the 

15 proposed VCSNS site. Nonradiological impacts for the alternative sites range from less than a 

16 1-percent increase for the Cope alternative site to about a 7-percent increase in nonradiological 

17 fatalities for the Saluda alternative site relative to the average traffic fatalities in their respective 

18 counties from 2003 to 2007 (DOT 2009c, 2009d, 2009e, 2009f). Because these increases are 

19 small relative to the baseline traffic fatalities (that is, before the plants are constructed) in the 

20 counties where SCE&G has proposed to build the new plants, the review team concludes that 

21 the impacts of transporting construction materials and personnel to the proposed VCSNS site 

22 and alternative sites would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

23 Table 4-5. Annual Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Workers and Construction 

24 Materials to and/or from the VCSNS Site for a Single AP1000 Reactor 

Accidents per Year

Per Unit

Injuries per Year 

Per Unit

Fatalities per Year 

Per Unit

Workers 5.5 x 10+1 2.5 x 10+1 3.8 x 10−1

Materials 

 Concrete 8.6 x 10−2 6.1 x 10−2 4.8 x 10−3

 Rebar, Structural Steel 3.1 x 10−2 2.2 x 10−2 1.7 x 10−3

 Cable 3.0 x 10−2 2.1 x 10−2 1.6 x 10−3

 Piping 6.3 x 10−4 4.4 x 10−4 3.5 x 10−5

Total – Construction 5.5 x 10+1 2.5 x 10+1 3.8 x 10−1

25 4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts 

26 The review team assessed the information in the SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2009a) and concludes 

27 that nonradiological health impacts on construction workers at the VCSNS site, operations 

28 workers at the VCSNS site, and the local population from fugitive dust, occupational injuries, 

29 noise, and transport of materials and personnel would be SMALL, and additional mitigation 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-78 April 2010 

1 beyond the actions identified above would not be warranted. Based on the above analyses, and 

2 because NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed 

3 activities, the NRC staff concludes that the nonradiological health impacts of NRC-authorized 

4 construction activities would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that further mitigation 

5 beyond that stated above would not be warranted. 

6 4.9 Radiological Health Impacts 

7 The sources of radiation exposure for construction workers include direct radiation exposure, 

8 exposure from discharges of liquid radioactive waste, and exposure from gaseous radioactive 

9 effluents from existing VCSNS Unit 1 during the construction phase, the impacts of which are 

10 described in the following sections and summarized in Section 4.9.5. For the purposes of this 

11 discussion, construction workers are assumed to be members of the public; therefore, the dose 

12 estimates are compared to the dose limits for the public, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 20, 

13 Subpart D. SCE&G noted that all major construction and preconstruction activities are expected 

14 to occur outside of the VCSNS Unit 1 site protected area boundary, but inside the restricted 

15 area boundary (SCE&G 2009a).

16 4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures 

17 In its ER (SCE&G 2009a), SCE&G identified three sources of direct radiation exposure from 

18 nuclear facilities within the VCSNS site: (1) the reactor building for existing Unit 1, (2) a planned 

19 independent spent-fuel storage installation (ISFSI), and (3) the old steam generator recycle 

20 facility. In addition, there may be direct radiation to workers finishing construction of Unit 3 from 

21 Unit 2 when it begins operation. The staff did not identify any additional sources of direct 

22 radiation during the site visit or during document reviews. 

23 Direct radiation from either Unit 1 or the old steam generator recycle facility was determined to 

24 not be a significant source of dose to the construction workers (SCE&G 2009a). The planned 

25 ISFSI would be more than 600 ft from the construction sites, and, according to SCE&G, would 

26 provide negligible direct radiation (SCE&G 2009a). 

27 SCE&G indicated the planned ISFSI would be more than 600 ft from the construction site for 

28 Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G concluded the direct radiation dose to construction 

29 workers from the ISFSI would be negligible based on experience at operating ISFSIs at nuclear 

30 power plants (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G did not provide the estimated source term or dose 

31 calculations to support this conclusion. The NRC staff agrees that the direct radiation dose rate 

32 to construction workers from the ISFSI would be low, but may not be negligible. NRC and EPA 

33 regulations would limit the dose rates to 25 mrem/yr. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-79 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 SCE&G used fenceline thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and environmental TLDs to 

2 measure direct radiation levels at locations in and around the VCSNS site protected area 

3 (SCE&G 2009a). Environmental TLDs are located at the exclusion area boundary around the 

4 VCSNS Unit 1 site, at an inner ring near the site boundary, and at locations at various distances 

5 from the plant (SCE&G 2007). The TLDs are read quarterly and measure the contribution to 

6 dose from any source, including natural background, the current reactor building, and the old 

7 steam generator recycle facility. The TLD monitoring system includes locations that are 

8 representative of the proposed construction site. The environmental TLD results at the old 

9 steam generator recycle facility (the location closest to proposed Units 2 and 3) were 

10 comparable to TLD results at control locations. 

11 SCE&G estimated the maximum direct radiation dose for continuous occupancy would be 

12 1 mrem/yr from Unit 1, and an additional maximum of 1 mrem/yr from Unit 2 after it begins 

13 operation. Adjusting for a 2000-hour work year gives a maximum estimate of 0.46 mrem/yr to a 

14 construction worker. 

15 The staff reviewed the potential locations for exposures and recent records of dose rates, the 

16 locations of the TLDs, and the method to estimate doses to construction workers from direct 

17 radiation. Based on that review, the NRC staff concludes the direct radiation dose rate to 

18 construction workers would be low. 

19 4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents 

20 Gaseous radioactive effluents from VCSNS Unit 1 are released from the plant stack (SCE&G 

21 2009a). They consist of effluents from the main plant vent, the reactor building purge line, the 

22 waste-gas storage tank, and the oil incinerator (SCE&G 2006). SCE&G estimated a dose to a 

23 maximally exposed individual (MEI) using 2005 gaseous effluent data, which are representative 

24 of recent years. The MEI is assumed to be located 1.2 mi east of Unit 1, and 0.2 mi east of the 

25 Unit 1 exclusion area boundary. Assuming that the total effective dose equivalent to a 

26 construction worker from gaseous effluent from Unit 1 is the same, it would be 0.036 mrem. 

27 This is an overestimate of potential dose to construction workers because the workers would be 

28 south of Unit 1 where gaseous effluents produce lower doses. SCE&G (2009a) used the 

29 0.036 mrem to estimate a maximum dose of 1.2 mrem annually to someone who was 

30 continuously present; correcting for a 2000-hour work year, the annual dose to a construction 

31 worker becomes 0.27 mrem. The NRC staff concludes this estimate of the dose to construction 

32 workers from the gaseous effluents from Unit 1 would be bounding. 

33 Using 1 year’s meteorological data and the XOQDOQ (Sagendorf et al. 1982) and GASPAR II 

34 (Strenge et al. 1987) codes, SCE&G estimated that the dose to a Unit 3 construction worker 

35 from gaseous effluent from Unit 2, once it begins operation, would be 0.43 mrem to the total 

36 body. The staff reviewed SCE&G’s calculation and determined that the method used to 

37 estimate dose from gaseous effluents was acceptable. Using 2 years’ meteorological data, the 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-80 April 2010 

1 staff estimated that these dose estimates are unchanged. Combining 0.27 mrem from Unit 1 

2 and 0.43 mrem from Unit 2, SCE&G gave a bounding estimate of the dose to construction 

3 workers on Units 2 and 3 of 0.70 mrem for a year from gaseous effluents. 

4 4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents 

5 Liquid radioactive effluents are discharged from Unit 1 to Monticello Reservoir, and SCE&G 

6 estimated the maximum dose to a construction worker due to liquid radioactive effluents from 

7 Unit 1 to be 0.001 mrem to the total body (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G used the LADTAP II code 

8 (Strenge et al. 1986) to calculate the total body radiation dose to a maximally exposed 

9 construction worker due to liquid radioactive effluents from Unit 2 after it begins operation to be 

10 0.012 mrem/yr to the total body (SCE&G 2009a). Adding the doses from Units 1 and 2 results 

11 in a dose of 0.013 mrem/yr to the total body. 

12 Therefore, the dose to construction workers from liquid effluents would be negligible compared 

13 to the dose from direct radiation exposure.

14 4.9.4 Total Dose to Construction Workers 

15 The maximum annual dose to a construction worker was estimated by SCE&G to be 1.2 

16 mrem/yr, which is the sum of three pathways: (1) direct radiation (0.46 mrem), (2) gaseous 

17 effluents (0.70 mrem), and (3) liquid effluents (0.013 mrem) (SCE&G 2009a). This maximum 

18 dose assumes an occupancy of 2000-hr/yr. The NRC has established an annual dose limit to 

19 an individual member of the public of 100 mrem total effective dose equivalent. The NRC staff 

20 concludes the dose to construction workers would be well below the 100-mrem annual limit, 

21 even if the dose from the planned ISFSI may be higher than expected by SCE&G. 

22 SCE&G estimates a peak loading of 3600 construction workers before Unit 2 startup and a peak 

23 loading of 3500 construction workers after Unit 2 begins operations. The total estimated 

24 collective dose for the maximum dose year would be 4.3 person-rem (SCE&G 2009a). The 

25 maximum annual dose to a construction worker is much smaller than the approximately 

26 311 mrem/yr that U.S. residents receive on average from background radiation (NCRP 2009). 

27 4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts 

28 The NRC staff concludes that the estimate of doses to construction workers during building of 

29 the proposed Units 2 and 3 are well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem) 

30 designed to protect the public health. Based on information provided by SCE&G and the NRC 

31 staff’s independent evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological health impacts on 

32 workers for proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

33 warranted. Radiation exposure from all NRC-licensed activities, including operation of VCSNS 

34 Unit 1, is regulated by the NRC. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the radiological health 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-81 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 impacts for NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

2 would be warranted. 

3 4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts 

4 The following sections provide descriptions of the potential environmental impacts from the 

5 generation, handling, and disposal of nonradiological waste during the building activities for 

6 VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Potential types of nonradioactive wastes expected to be generated, 

7 handled, and disposed of include construction debris, spoils, stormwater runoff, municipal and 

8 sanitary waste, dust, and air emissions. The assessment of potential impacts resulting from 

9 these types of wastes is presented in the following sections. 

10 4.10.1 Impacts on Land 

11 Building activities related to the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 could result in solid waste 

12 materials like construction debris from excavation, land clearing, and dredge spoils. SCE&G 

13 plans to use excess excavation as backfill as needed during construction onsite. Remaining 

14 construction debris from excavation and land clearing would be disposed in one of the several 

15 construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfills in the surrounding counties. SCE&G stated 

16 that there is adequate capacity at these C&D landfills to handle the additional generated waste 

17 (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 Spoils generated as a result of dredging the Monticello and Parr reservoirs for building activities 

19 associated with the intake and discharge structure for the new units, would be placed in a 5.5-ac 

20 upland spoils area near the discharge structure access road. The review team anticipates that 

21 disposal of all spoils resulting from dredging would comply with the DA Clean Water Act Section 

22 404 permit. 

23 SCE&G plans to minimize construction debris during building activities. One way is by ordering 

24 appropriate quantities of materials and returning any excess to the vendor (SCE&G 2009a). 

25 Other types of solid waste generated such as office waste, cardboard, and aluminum cans 

26 would be recycled (SCE&G 2009a). 

27 Based on SCE&G plans to manage solid wastes in accordance with all applicable State, and 

28 local requirements and standards, and implement recycling and minimizing waste practices, the 

29 review team expects the impacts on land from nonradioactive wastes generated during the 

30 building activities of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be 

31 warranted. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-82 April 2010 

1 4.10.2 Impacts on Water 

2 Surface water and groundwater have the potential to be affected due to the building activities of 

3 VCSNS Units 2 and 3. SCE&G will have to obtain a NPDES General Permit for Stormwater 

4 Discharges from Large and Small Construction Activities to minimize potential impacts on 

5 surface water and groundwater. As part of the permit, a SWPPP will be required. In addition, 

6 an erosion and sediment control plan would be a component of the NPDES permit. Water-use 

7 impacts and water-quality impacts during the development of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are further 

8 discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3. 

9 Onsite sanitary wastes generated during the building activities would be accommodated with a 

10 temporary sanitary waste-treatment plant. This treatment plant would serve workers in the 

11 support area while onsite workers would be served by portable toilet facilities (SCE&G 2009a). 

12 The discharge location for the temporary sanitary waste-treatment plant would be finalized as 

13 part of the NPDES permitting process; proposed locations are Mayo Creek, Parr Reservoir, or 

14 the Broad River (SCE&G 2009a). If additional sanitary waste provisions are necessary during 

15 building activities, SCE&G plans to provide restroom trailers units. Wastes associated with 

16 these units would be disposed of and transported according to local and State regulations and 

17 standards (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 The public wastewater-treatment systems serving the four-county area (Fairfield, Lexington, 

19 Newberry, and Richland) have the excess capacity to meet the increased generation of 

20 wastewater by the in-migrating project workforce. The influx of workforce for construction of the 

21 proposed Units 2 and 3 is expected to reside in these four counties. 

22 Currently, SCE&G has no plans to use groundwater during the construction phase. However, if 

23 the need for water in remote construction areas onsite becomes necessary, SCE&G plans to 

24 comply with local and State regulations and standards (SCE&G 2009a). 

25 Based on the regulated practices for managing liquid discharges, including wastewater, and the 

26 NPDES permit with an approved SWPPP, SCE&G plans to implement for managing surface 

27 and groundwater, the review team expects that impacts on water from nonradioactive effluents 

28 when building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be 

29 warranted 

30 4.10.3 Impacts on Air 

31 As discussed in Section 4.4.1, 4.5.2, and 4.7.1, fugitive dust and other generated emissions 

32 during site-development activities are to be managed. SCE&G plans to control these emissions 

33 through a dust control plan or similar document. Possible mitigation measures in this dust 

34 control plan would include: stabilizing construction roads and spoils piles, covering haul trucks, 

35 and watering unpaved construction roads to control dust. Equipment and vehicles used for site 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-83 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 preparation and the increase in vehicle traffic of construction workers involved in building 

2 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would result in increased emissions. Possible mitigation measures that 

3 would be used to limit these emissions are phase construction and performance maintenance 

4 on construction vehicles and equipment (SCE&G 2009a). 

5 Based on the regulated practices for managing air emissions from construction equipment and 

6 temporary stationary sources, the review team expects that impacts on air from nonradioactive 

7 emissions during the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further 

8 mitigation would be warranted. 

9 4.10.4 Summary of Impacts 

10 Solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes generated when building VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

11 handled according to county, State, and Federal regulations. County and State standards and 

12 regulations for handling and disposal of solid waste would be obtained and implemented. An 

13 NPDES permit that would include a SWPPP for surface-water runoff and groundwater quality, 

14 and the use of temporary facilities for sanitary waste systems during the construction period 

15 would ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and the State of South Carolina standards. 

16 Based on this information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

17 the review team concludes that nonradiological waste impacts on land, water, and air would be 

18 SMALL and that additional mitigation would not be warranted. Because NRC-authorized 

19 construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the NRC staff 

20 concludes that the nonradioactive waste impacts of NRC-authorized construction activities 

21 would be SMALL. The NRC staff also concludes that no further mitigation would be warranted. 

22 Cumulative impacts on water and air from nonradioactive effluents and emissions are discussed 

23 in Sections 7.2 and 7.6, respectively. For the purposes of Chapter 9, the review team expects 

24 that there would be no substantive differences between the impacts of nonradioactive waste for 

25 the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the alternative sites and no substantive cumulative 

26 impacts that warrant further discussion beyond those discussed for the alternative sites in 

27 Section 9.3. 

28 4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

29 Construction 

30 A number of measures and controls are described by SCE&G (2009a) to limit the adverse 

31 impacts during construction, many of which are planned for incorporation into a Construction 

32 Environmental Controls Plan. The plan would include the following: 

33  a summary matrix of environmental requirements for project permits, including the titles of 

34 the individuals responsible for confirming compliance with each permit 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-84 April 2010 

1  a training program for construction personnel that would be based on the specific 

2 requirements for each project. The training would include, but may not be limited to, general 

3 site maintenance, erosion and sediment control, the protection of sensitive areas, hazardous 

4 material and/or waste handling, spills prevention/response, and how to respond to such 

5 unanticipated discoveries as contaminated soils, archaeological artifacts, or tanks. 

6  periodic discussions of current and future construction activities and how to maintain 

7 environmental compliance during these activities 

8  field inspections to confirm adherence to environmental requirements for the project. 

9 Table 4-6 summarizes the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts when building 

10 proposed Units 2 and 3 based on Table 4.6-1 in the ER (SCE&G 2009a) and other information 

11 provided by the applicant. Some measures apply to more than one impact category. 

12 Many of the specific controls in the Construction Environmental Controls Plan would be based 

13 on measures prescribed by applicable Federal, State, and local ordinances, laws and 

14 regulations, existing permits and licenses for VCSNS Unit 1, and the incorporation of conditions 

15 of environmental permits for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 into construction contracts. Table 4.6-1 of 

16 the ER (SCE&G 2009a) lists specific measures and controls to be applied during construction at 

17 the site and vicinity relevant to land-use impacts, water-related impacts, ecological impacts, 

18 socioeconomic impacts, impacts from radiation exposure to construction workers, and 

19 nonradiological health impacts. 

20 Table 4-6. Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts when Building Proposed VCSNS 

21 Units 2 and 3 

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Land-Use Impacts 

Site and Vicinity Implement stormwater-management systems, groundwater monitoring wells, 

and spill-containment controls. 

Permanently disturbed locations would be stabilized and contoured in 

accordance with design specifications. 

Comply with applicable laws, regulations, permits, good engineering and 

construction practices, and recognized environmental BMPs. 

Follow South Carolina Storm Water Management Best Management Practices 

handbook and industry guidance. 

Locate all but intake and discharge structures outside of 100- and 500-year 

floodplains. 

22 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-85 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 4-6. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Transmission 

Corridors and 

Offsite Areas

Incorporate recommendations of Federal and State agencies into route 

selections, including the recommendations of the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, South Carolina Department of Archives & History, U.S. EPA, US 

Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Site new corridors to minimize or avoid critical or sensitive habitats or species as 

much as possible. 

Site new corridors to avoid historical properties 

Before site disturbance, conduct archaeological and ecological surveys as 

needed and determine site-specific erosion control measures. 

Water-Related Impacts

Hydrologic 

Alterations

Comply with applicable laws, regulations, permits, sound engineering and 

construction practices, and recognized environmental BMPs. 

Follow BMPs for erosion control. Install drainage system to divert dewatering 

runoff to settling basin before discharge through a permitted NPDES outfall. 

Install cofferdams and turbidity curtains to minimize suspended sediment 

impacts in surface waters. 

Continue conducting hydrological monitoring to determine baseline hydrological 

conditions and detect changes. 

Implement BMPs for erosion and sedimentation control during installation of new 

transmission lines. 

Water-Use Impacts Obtain FERC authorization for construction water use. 

Water-Quality 

Impacts

Develop an erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control plan. Use BMPs, 

including structural (e.g., slit fences and sediment retention basins) and 

operational controls, to prevent movement of pollutants (including sediments) 

into wetlands and waterbodies. 

Obtain and comply with NPDES stormwater permit; conduct monitoring as 

required by the permit. Use NPDES monitoring program for Unit 1 to detect 

water-quality changes due to construction activities. 

Obtain and comply with Department of the Army permit. 

Develop and comply with approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and 

spill response plan. Quickly clean up any spilled fuel or oil. Follow South 

Carolina Storm Water Management Best Management Practices handbook and 

industry guidance. 

Install stormwater-drainage system and stabilize disturbed soils.
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-86 April 2010 

Table 4-6. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Conduct shoreline construction when pool level of Parr Reservoir is low, to the 

extent practicable. 

Ecological Impacts

Terrestrial and 

Wetland 

Ecosystems 

Site structures to minimize impacts on wildlife habitat and wetlands. Site new 

transmission-line corridors to avoid sensitive habitats. 

Clear land according to Federal and State regulations and permits, SCE&G 

procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs. 

Develop and comply with spill response plan. Schedule equipment maintenance 

procedures to minimize emissions and spills. 

Minimize fugitive dust by watering. 

Obtain and comply with Department of the Army permit; determine mitigation 

measures for impacted wetland areas in consultation with USACE. 

Install silt fencing or other controls to protect wetlands. 

Aquatic 

Ecosystems 

Obtain and comply with NPDES stormwater permit; conduct monitoring as 

required by the permit. Use NPDES monitoring program for Unit 1 to detect 

water-quality changes due to construction activities. Develop and implement a 

construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 

Prepare and implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan for 

construction activities. Restrict activities using petroleum products and solvents 

to designated areas that are equipped with spill containment. 

Avoid wetlands, waterbodies, and sensitive areas when possible; plan 

transmission route to minimize impacts on wetland and waterbodies that must be 

crossed and use equipment specifically designed for work around wetlands and 

streams; install erosion controls; and implement BMPs to minimize impacts on 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Stabilize upslope and adjacent areas to shoreline construction sites with erosioncontrol devices and after construction, reseed the areas. Follow South Carolina 

Forestry Commission BMPs manual and SCDHEC handbook and field manual 

BMPs to prevent sediment loading and minimize soil disturbance. 

Before transmission-line construction, conduct surveys, as needed, and 

determine site-specific erosion control measures. 

If there is potential for construction of a new transmission line that could degrade 

habitat of a listed aquatic species, work closely with the State agency to develop 

a construction schedule and construction techniques that are protective of the 

habitat and species in question. Preserve vegetation in stream buffer zones to 

minimize disturbance of aquatic habitats. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-87 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 4-6. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts Train and appropriately protect construction workers to reduce the risk of 

potential exposure to noise, dust, and exhaust emissions. Regularly inspect and 

maintain equipment to include exhaust and noise aspects. 

Make public announcements or prior notification of atypically loud construction 

activities. 

Phase construction to minimize daily emissions. Restrict extreme noise-related 

activities to daylight hours. Restrict delivery times to daylight hours. 

Develop and implement a dust control plan that includes mitigation measures 

such as watering unpaved roads, stabilizing construction roads, phasing grading 

activities and ceasing them during high winds, limit speeds on unpaved roads, 

minimizing material handling, etc. 

Develop construction-management traffic plan before the start of construction. 

Post signs near construction entrances and exits to make the public aware of 

potentially high construction traffic areas. 

Minimize waste by using excavated material where fill is needed, ordering 

materials in appropriate quantities and returning overage to the vendor, and 

recycling scrap metal. 

Social and 

Economic Impacts

Develop a construction-management traffic plan before the start of construction. 

Regularly communicate with local school authorities regarding construction 

worker influx. 

Coordinate with job-training institutions. 

Environmental 

Justice Impacts

Provide mitigating measures as for socioeconomic impacts. 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Properties Impacts 

Consult State Historic Preservation Office (South Carolina Department of 

Archives and History). Develop management agreement. 

Before site disturbance, conduct archaeological surveys. 

Conduct awareness training for procedures associated with inadvertent 

discoveries. 

Develop and implement a procedure for construction activities that includes 

actions to protect cultural, historic, or paleontological resources. 

Continue to have a fence barrier around Pearson Cemetery. 

Continue any applicable mitigation measures for any National Register-eligible 

sites. 

Air Quality Impacts Implement dust-control plan. 

Stagger use of equipment and keep equipment in good working order. 

Transportation Develop project traffic-management plan. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-88 April 2010 

Table 4-6. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Controls

Nonradiological 

Health Impacts

Train contractors on safety requirements to ensure contractors arriving onsite 

are adequately trained with regard to VCSNS safety requirements. 

Require construction contractors and subcontractors to develop and implement 

safety procedures. 

Implement noise mitigation to include restricting noise-related activities to 

daylight hours. 

Provide onsite services for emergency first aid, and conduct regular health and 

safety monitoring. 

Radiological Health 

Impacts

None proposed (estimated exposure would be well below established limits to 

workers and members of the public) 

1 4.12 Summary of Construction and Preconstruction Impacts 

2 The impact levels determined by the review team in the previous sections are summarized in 

3 Table 4-7. The impact levels for NRC-authorized construction as evaluated in this chapter are 

4 denoted in the table as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a measure of their expected 

5 adverse environmental impacts, if any. Combined construction and preconstruction impact 

6 levels are similarly noted. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue from SCE&G for 

7 the local economies, are likely to be beneficial impacts to the community. 

8 Table 4-7. Summary of Impacts from Construction and Preconstruction of Proposed VCSNS 

9 Units 2 and 3 

Category Comments

NRC-Authorized 

Construction 

Impact Level 

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level 

Land-Use Impacts Construction and preconstruction impacts on land 

use would be limited. Preconstruction impacts on 

land use would be noticeable in the immediate 

vicinity of new transmission-line corridors but 

limited in the region 

SMALL SMALL for onsite; 

MODERATE for 

transmission lines

SMALL for other 

offsite areas 

 

 

Water-Related Impacts 

Water Use – Surface Water Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

surface water use would be negligible. 

SMALL SMALL 

Water Use – Groundwater Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

groundwater use would be negligible. 

SMALL SMALL 

10 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-89 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 4-7. (contd) 

Category Comments

(NRCAuthorized 

Construction 

Impact Level 

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level 

Water Quality – Surface 

Water 

Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

surface and groundwater quality would be 

negligible. 

SMALL SMALL 

Water Quality – Groundwater Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

groundwater quality would be negligible 

SMALL SMALL 

Ecological Impacts 

Terrestrial and Wetland 

Ecosystems 

 

Construction and preconstruction activities would 

have minimal impact on terrestrial ecological 

resources and habitat on the VCSNS site, but 

terrestrial habitats are expected to be noticeably 

altered where new transmission-line corridors are 

established. 

SMALL SMALL for onsite; 

MODERATE for 

transmission lines

Aquatic Ecosystems Construction and preconstruction activities would 

have minimal impact on onsite and offisite aquatic 

ecological resources and habitat. 

SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomic Impacts 

Physical Impacts Construction and preconstruction physical impacts 

are minimal; unavoidable impacts would be limited 

by mitigation measures 

SMALL SMALL 

Demography Construction and preconstruction demographic 

impacts on the communities nearest VCSNS are 

expected to be small and temporary. 

SMALL SMALL 

Economic Impacts on the 

Community 

Construction and preconstruction economic and 

tax revenue impacts on the communities nearest 

VCSNS are expected to be small and temporary. 

SMALL SMALL 

Infrastructure and Community 

Services 

Construction and preconstruction traffic impacts 

would be noticeable but not destabilizing; other 

infrastructure and community services impacts are 

expected to be limited. 

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community 

service impacts 

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community 

service impacts 

Environmental Justice Construction and preconstruction traffic-related 

impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing 

to the Jenkinsville community. The review team 

expects impacts related to all categories except 

traffic to be minimal. 

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts; 

SMALL for other 

environmental 

justice impacts 

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts; 

SMALL for other 

environmental 

justice impacts 

Health and Environmental Construction and preconstruction impacts could 

be adverse, but would not be disproportionate. 

SMALL SMALL 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-90 April 2010 

Table 4-7. (contd) 

Category Comments

(NRCAuthorized 

Construction 

Impact Level 

Construction 

and 

Preconstruction 

Impact Level 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources

NRC-authorized construction activities represent 

only a part of the analyzed activities; nearly all 

impacts would be attributable to preconstruction 

activities. The NRC staff concludes that the 

potential impacts on historic and cultural 

resources from NRC-authorized construction 

activities would be SMALL. Construction and 

preconstruction activities would noticeably alter 

the resources within the Area of Potential Effect. 

SMALL MODERATE 

Air-Quality Impacts Construction and preconstruction impacts on air 

quality would be limited.

SMALL SMALL

Nonradiological Health 

Impacts

Construction and preconstruction impacts on 

nonradiological human health are expected to be 

minimal. 

SMALL SMALL 

Radiological Health 

Impacts

Exposures would be below NRC annual 

occupational and public dose limits. 

SMALL SMALL 

Nonradiological Waste 

Impacts 

Impacts to land, water and air are expected to be 

minimal. 

SMALL SMALL 

1 4.13 References 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 Protection against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

6 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 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

9 Safety and Health Standards.”

10 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

11 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

12 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

13 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-91 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 40 CFR Part 204. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 204, 

2 “Noise Emission Standards for Construction Equipment.” 

3 40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

4 “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.” 

5 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. "Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants." 

6 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

7 73 FR 16436. March 27, 2008. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.” Federal 

8 Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

9 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 USC 2011 et seq. 

10 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 16 USC 668-668c. 

11 Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2003. Broad River Aquatic Resources Inventory 

12 Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South 

13 Carolina. Accessed September 30, 2009, at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadriver2001-

14 2002.pdf. 

15 Bettinger, J., J. Crane, and J. Bulak. 2006. Piedmont Stream Survey – Broad River Basin 

16 Completion Report. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), Columbia, 

17 South Carolina. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fwfi/broadrivertributaries2003-2005.pdf. 

18 Accession No. ML090650713. 

19 Brown, W.M. 1993. Avian Collisions with Utility Structures: Biological Prospectives. In 

20 Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility Structures, International Workshop, Miami, Florida, 

21 September 13-16, 1992, EPRI TR-103268, prepared by Electric Power Research Institute, Palo 

22 Alto, California. 

23 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008a. May 2008 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area 

24 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Columbia, South Carolina – Construction and 

25 Extraction Occupations. Accessed September 21, 2009 at 

26 http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_17900.htm. Accession No. ML093360688. 

27 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008b. Table 1. Incidences Rates of Nonfatal Occupational 

28 Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007. Accessed September 15, 2009 at 

29 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.t01.htm. Accession No. ML100481291. 

30 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008c. Table 6. Incidences Rates of Nonfatal Occupational 

31 Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2007. South Carolina. Available at 

32 http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/pr076sc.pdf. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-92 April 2010 

1 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009a. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Parr Reservoir 

2 and Lake Monticello Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric 

3 and Gas Company, Fairfield County, South Carolina. April 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina 

4 Electric and Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, 

5 South Carolina. Accession No. ML092230226. 

6 Carnagey Biological Services (CBS). 2009b. Macroinvertebrate Assessment of Mayo Creek 

7 Near the VC Summer Nuclear Station Operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

8 Fairfield County, South Carolina. January 2009. Submitted To: South Carolina Electric and 

9 Gas Company. Submitted by: Carnagey Biological Services, LLC, Lexington, South Carolina. 

10 Accession No. ML092050188. 

11 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

12 Act [FWPCA]). 

13 Dames and Moore. 1985. Environmental Monitoring Report January 1983 through December 

14 1984 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the South Carolina Department of Health and 

15 Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

16 Accession No. ML090630369. 

17 Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

18 Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

19 Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

20 (SCE&G). Accession No. ML082680277. 

21 Forman R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. "Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects." Annual

22 Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 

23 Francingues, N.R. and M.R. Palermo. 2005. Silt Curtains as a Dredge Project Management 

24 Practice. DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOER-E21). U.S. Army Engineer 

25 Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Available at 

26 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doere21.pdf. 

27 Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data

28 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

29 Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 2006. High Conservation Priority – Piedmont Species. 

30 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

31 Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

32 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/Piedmont.pdf. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-93 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Larkin R.P. 1996. Effects of Military Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. U.S. Army Corps 

2 of Engineers Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois. Available at 

3 http://nhsbig.inhs.uiuc.edu/bioacoustics/noise_and_wildlife.pdf. Accession No. ML051150109. 

4 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

5 Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

6 Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275. 

7 Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, 

8 and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation. Bird 

9 Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight 

10 Conference 2002, eds. C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical 

11 Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California: 1051-1064. 

12 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 16 USC 703 et seq. 

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

14 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq. 

15 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

16 Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, NCRP Publications, 

17 Bethesda, Maryland. 

18 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

19 Surveys: Draft Final Report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

20 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2008. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

21 Surveys: Summer Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

22 Accession No. ML091050699. 

23 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

24 Surveys: Winter Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

25 Accession No. ML092050189. 

26 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the 

27 Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-94 April 2010 

1 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009. Amended Order Approving 

2 Applied Application − Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a 

3 certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Pubic Convenience and Necessity and for a Base 

4 Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in Jenkinsville, 

5 South Carolina. Docket No. 2008-196-E; Order 2009-104A, p. 123. Available at 

6 http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/orders/5E3440FB-FC31-8115-18C5057D060BF8EF.pdf. 

7 Quattlebaum, M. 2008a. Fish Community Assessment of Parr Reservoir 2007-2008. SCANA 

8 Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830397. 

9 Quattlebaum, M. 2008b. Limited Fish Community Assessment of Mayo Creek 2007-2008. 

10 SCANA Services Inc., Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830320. 

11 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 Section 403. 33 USC 403 as amended. 

12 Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

13 Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. 

14 Sagendorf J.F., J.T. Goll., and W.F. Sandusky. 1982. XOQDOQ: Computer Program for the 

15 Meteorological Evaluation of Routine Effluent Releases at Nuclear Power Stations. 

16 NUREG/CR-2919; PNL-4380, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

17 Saricks C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

18 Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

19 Illinois. Available at http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=12051. 

20 SC Code Ann. 48-1-110. 2008. “Permits Required for Construction or Alteration of Disposal 

21 Systems; Classification; Unlawful Operations or Discharges.” South Carolina Codes Annotated. 

22 SC Code Ann. 58-33-20. 2009. “Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection.” South 

23 Carolina Code Annotated. 

24 Self, R.L. and J. Bettinger. 2006. Highest Conservation Priority – Big River Species. 

25 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. South Carolina Department of Natural 

26 Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed August 30, 2009, at 

27 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdfhigh/BigRiverSpecies.pdf. Accession No. ML100110572. 

28 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2002. Standards 

29 for Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Regulation 72-300 thru 72-316. June 28, 

30 2002. Available at http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/regs/r72-300.pdf. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-95 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. Sediment, 

2 Erosion, and Stormwater Management Program. Available 

3 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/swerfmain.htm. 

4 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009. South 

5 Carolina Ozone Nonattainment Boundary Recommendations. Available at 

6 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/docs/OzoneBoundaries/Ozone%20Boundary%20Reco

7 mmendations%203-12-09%20Final.pdf. 

8 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005a. The 100 Largest Public 

9 Water Supplies in South Carolina–2005. Water Resources Report 37. Available at 

10 https://www.dnr.state.sc.us/water/hydro/.../Abs_dnr_R37.htm. Accession No. ML091050724. 

11 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006a. South Carolina Rare, 

12 Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory County Selection from List. Accessed 

13 September 8, 2009 at https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map. 

14 Accession No. ML093280967. 

15 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006b. Species Description -- 

16 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at 

17 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html. 

18 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006c. Common Aquatic Plant 

19 Management Problems: Alligator Weed. Available 

20 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/aquaff/alligatorweed.html. 

21 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2008. South Carolina Aquatic 

22 Invasive Species Management Plan. Prepared in coordination with the South Carolina Aquatic 

23 Invasive Species Task Force. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/invasiveweeds/. 

24 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. Rare, Threatened, and 

25 Endangered Species and Communities Known to Occur in Richland County, Available at 

26 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#C. August 24, 2009. Accession No. ML100110575. 

27 South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009. South Carolina Strategic 

28 Corridor System Plan. Available at 

29 http://www.dot.state.sc.us/inside/multimodal/corridorplan.shtml. Accession No. ML093421433. 

30 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2002. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Application 

31 for Renewed Operating License Appendix E - Environmental Report. South Carolina Electric 

32 and Gas Company Docket No. 50-395, License No. NPF-12. August 2002. Available at 

33 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/summer.html. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-96 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated 

3 April 28, 2006, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

4 License No. NPF-12, Annual Effluent and Waste Disposal Report.” Accession No. 

5 ML061220346. 

6 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

7 Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Revision 26, 

8 Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML081280582 and ML072910571. 

9 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 

10 Project No. 743. Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear Station 

11 Units 2 and 3. Revision 0, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

12 ML081300460. 

13 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

14 3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

15 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

16 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

17 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

18 1, 2009 in response to letters from Manny Comar (NRC) dated March 1, 2009, "Subject: Virgil 

19 C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application (COLA) – 

20 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 

21 (RAI) Letter No. 041." NND-09-0109. Accession No. ML091270890. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

23 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

24 21, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

25 dated February 13, 2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

26 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

27 Information Needs: GW-1, 2, 3, 9, and 10, and SE-5." NND-09-0139. Accession No. 

28 ML091480009. 

29 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

30 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

31 11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

32 dated February 13, 2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

33 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

34 Information Needs: ACC-11, ALT-3, AQ-5, AQ-6, GW-11, LU-3, and SW-12." NND-09-0126. 

35 Accession No. ML091350104. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-97 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 June 9, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

4 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

5 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

6 Information Needs: ACC-5 (Item 1), AQ-9, BC-1, GW-7 (Item 3) and SE-S1.” NND-09-0158. 

7 Accession No. ML091630212. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

9 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

10 July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

11 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3. Docket 

12 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

13 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

14 GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2." NND-09-0184. Accession No. ML092010266. 

15 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

16 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

17 June 1, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

18 dated February 13, 2009, "Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

19 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

20 Information Needs: G-3, GW-4, HP-6, HP-10, HP-11, LU-4, and SE-1." NND-09-0148. 

21 Accession No. ML091550479. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

23 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

24 August 7, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

25 Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

26 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

27 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): BenCost-1 and 

28 SEcon-4.” NND-09-0237. Accession No. ML092230779. 

29 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009i. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

30 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

31 May 11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

32 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

33 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

34 Information Needs: CR-2, 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 22.” NND-09-0125. Accession No. 

35 ML091350104. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-98 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 July 21, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

4 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

5 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

6 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-4, 5, 7,,8,9,and 10, 

7 and TLine-1.” NND-09-0204. Accession No. ML092040676. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

9 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

10 July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

11 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

12 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

13 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-1 and 11, AqEco-5, 6, 

14 and 8, TerEco-2 and 3, GW-4, 5, 7, and 8, LU-2, SEcon-1, 5, and 7, and BenCost-2 and 3.” 

15 NND-09-0183. Accession No. ML092020357. 

16 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009l. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

17 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

18 June 8, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

19 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

20 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

21 Information Needs: CR-6, 8, and 11.” NND-09-0153. Accession No. ML091660292. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009m. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

23 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

24 July 30, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

25 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

26 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

27 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-2 and 6, LU-1 and 

28 AqEco-1.” NND-09-0209. Accession No. ML092160247. 

29 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009n. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

30 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

31 August 6, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

32 Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

33 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

34 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): USACE-2, 3, 4, and 5.” 

35 NND-09-0236. Accession No. ML092230165. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-99 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009o. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

2 3 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South 

3 Carolina. Accession No. ML092170463. 

4 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009p. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

5 President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 

6 20, 2009 in response to letter from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. 

7 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

8 License Application – Supplemental Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) Information 

9 Needs NP-1, AQ-11 and AQ-13.” NND-09-0320. Accession No. ML093310245. 

10 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009q. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

11 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

12 May 18, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

13 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

14 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

15 Information Needs: CR-5 and CR-9.” NND-09-0136. Accession No. ML091480622. 

16 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009r. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

17 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

18 May 7, 2009, in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008, and Ronald B. Clary 

19 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

20 Numbers 52-027 and 42-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

21 Information Needs: G-9 Part 1.” NND-09-0122. Accession No. ML91480622. 

22 South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC). 1994. South Carolina’s BMP: Best 

23 Management Practices for Forestry. Columbia, South Carolina. 

24 Strenge D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User 

25 Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

26 Strenge D. L., T. J. Bander, J. K. Soldat, and J. K. Swift. 1987. GASPAR II – Technical 

27 Reference and User Guide. NUREG/CR-4653, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

28 Washington, D.C. 

29 Taylor C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. SiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs, 

30 H.W. Robinson, C.E. Skelton, and R.F. Thoma. 2007. “A Reassessment of the Conservation 

31 Status of Crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ Years of Increased Awareness.” 

32 Fisheries 32(8):372-389. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-100 April 2010 

1 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2007. Mayo Creek Aquatic Survey V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 

2 Combined Construction/Operating License Project. Prepared for South Carolina Electric & Gas 

3 Company by Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082830320. 

4 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009a. Mayo Creek Quarterly Fish Surveys: Winter and Spring 2009 

5 V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 Combined Construction/Operating License Project. Prepared for 

6 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

7 Accession No. ML092160245. 

8 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009b. Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report. Prepared for South 

9 Carolina Electric & Gas Company by Tetra Tech NUS Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. Accession 

10 No. ML090270990. 

11 Tipler, P.A. 1982. Physics. Worth Publishers, New York. 

12 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the 

13 Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI 2003-6, 

14 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available at 

15 http://www.umtri.umich.edu/content/UMTRI_2003_6.pdf. 

16 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2009. Letter from Richard Darden (Biologist, U.S. 

17 Army Corps of Engineers) to F. David Haddon dated June 29, 2009, “Re: SAC 2007-1852, 

18 Fairfield County.” Accession No. ML093380013. 

19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USACE and NRC). 

20 2008. Memorandum of Understanding Between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. 

21 Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Environmental Reviews Related to the Issuance of 

22 Authorizations to Construct and Operate Nuclear Power Plants. Accession No. ML082540354. 

23 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 2008. Visual Resource Management VRM System 1986. 

24 Available at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html. 

25 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007.

26 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Available at 

27 http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/. 

28 U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009a. Traffic Safety Facts, South Carolina, 2003-

29 2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd30 30/ncsa/STSI/45_SC/2007/45_SC_2007.htm. Accession No. ML093360621. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 4-101 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009b. Traffic Safety Facts, Fairfield County, South 

2 Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www3 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Fairfield%20County_2007.htm. 

4 Accession No. ML093360600. 

5 U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009c. Traffic Safety Facts, Barnwell County, 

6 South Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www7 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Barnwell%20County_2007.htm. 

8 Accession No. ML093360596. 

9 U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009d. Traffic Safety Facts, Aiken County, South 

10 Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www11 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Aiken%20County_2007.htm. 

12 Accession No. ML093360588. 

13 U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009e. Traffic Safety Facts, Orangeburg County, 

14 South Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www15 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd16 3...nties/South%20Carolina_Orangeburg%20County_2007.htm. Accession No. ML093360609. 

17 U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009f. Traffic Safety Facts, Saluda County, South 

18 Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www19 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Saluda%20County_2007.htm. 

20 Accession No. ML093360617. 

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Ground-level Ozone – Ozone Standards. 

22 Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#stand. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Global Greenhouse Gas Data, 

24 Accessed December 15, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. 

25 Accession No. ML100221499. 

26 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

27 Washington, D.C. Available at 

28 http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagl

29 eManagementGuidelines.pdf. 

30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. South Carolina Distribution Records of 

31 Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern, July 2008. Available at 

32 http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/etcountylist_3_08.pdf. Accession No. ML093270525. 
Construction Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 4-102 April 2010 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

2 the Operation of Fermi, Unit 2. NUREG-0769, Washington, D.C. 

3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

4 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

6 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols 1 and 

7 2, Washington, D.C. 

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Notes taken at Robust Redhorse 

9 Conservation Committee Meeting, September 16, 2009, Garnett, South Carolina. Accession 

10 No. ML100600774. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. E-mail dated August 6, 2009 from 

12 Jennifer Davis (NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation [NRR]) to South Carolina Electric 

13 and Gas (SCE&G) and South Carolina Department of Archives & History, “Subject: Re: 

14 Process for Completing Section 106 Consultation.” Accession No. ML092400382. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Summary of Conference Calls 

16 Concerning Section 106 Consultation and the NRC Environmental Review of the VC Summer 

17 Units 2 and 3 COL Application, March 9, 2010. Accession No. ML100660003. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun, 

19 Project Manager, to Ryan Whited, Branch Chief, dated March 18, 2010, Subject: “Summary of 

20 the Environmental Site Audit and Alternative Site Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

21 License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3.” Accession No. 

22 ML100480082. 

23 
April 2010 5-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.0 Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

2 This chapter examines environmental issues associated with operation of the proposed new 

3 nuclear Units 2 and 3 at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site for an initial 40-year 

4 period as described by South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). As part of its application for 

5 combined construction permits and operating licenses (COLs), SCE&G submitted an 

6 Environmental Report (ER) that discussed the environmental impacts of station operation 

7 (SCE&G 2009a). In its evaluation of operational impacts, the review team composed of U.S. 

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, its contractor staff, and U.S. Army Corps of 

9 Engineers (USACE) staff, relied on operational details supplied by SCE&G in its ER, SCE&G 

10 responses to NRC Requests for Additional Information (RAIs), and the review team’s own 

11 independent review. Also consulted were permitting correspondences between SCE&G and the 

12 USACE, a cooperating agency in this action. 

13 This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.11 discuss the potential 

14 operational impacts on land use, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, 

15 environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, meteorology and air quality, 

16 nonradiological and radiological health effects, postulated accidents, and measures and controls 

17 that would limit the adverse impacts of station operation during the 40-year operating period. In 

18 accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, impacts have been 

19 analyzed and a significance level of potential adverse impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or 

20 LARGE) has been assigned to each analysis. In the area of socioeconomics related to taxes, 

21 the impacts may be considered beneficial and are stated as such, as appropriate. The NRC 

22 staff’s determination of significance levels is based on the assumption that the mitigation 

23 measures identified in the ER or activities planned by various State and county governments, 

24 such as infrastructure upgrades, as discussed throughout this chapter, are implemented. 

25 Failure to implement these upgrades might result in a change in significance level. Possible 

26 mitigation of adverse impacts is also presented, where appropriate. A summary of operational 

27 impacts is presented in Section 5.13. The references cited in this chapter are listed in 

28 Section 5.14. 

29 5.1 Land-Use Impacts 

30 This section contains information about the land-use impacts associated with operation of 

31 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Section 5.1.1 discusses land-use impacts at the VCSNS site 

32 and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 discusses land-use impacts with respect to offsite 

33 transmission-line corridors and offsite areas. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-2 April 2010 

1 5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 

2 Onsite land-use impacts from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are expected to be minimal. 

3 The proposed units would use two mechanical draft cooling towers for each unit. As discussed 

4 in Sections 5.3.1.1 and 5.7.1 of this chapter, operation of the cooling system would have 

5 minimal impacts on vegetation, and fogging, icing, and drift impacts on land use also are 

6 expected to be minimal. Occasional dredging around the discharge diffuser pipe in the Parr 

7 Reservoir and the intake structure in Monticello Reservoir may be required during operations. 

8 SCE&G would follow generally accepted best management practices (BMPs) and all applicable 

9 regulations and permit conditions for disposal of dredging spoils at an onsite upland location. 

10 Some offsite land-use changes can be expected as a result of operational activities. Possible 

11 changes include the conversion of some land in surrounding areas to housing developments 

12 (e.g., recreational vehicle parks, apartment buildings, single-family condominiums and homes, 

13 manufactured home parks) and retail development to serve plant workers. Property tax revenue 

14 from the addition of two new units could also lead to additional growth and land conversions in 

15 Fairfield County and surrounding counties as a result of infrastructure improvements (e.g., new 

16 roads, utility services). Additional information about operations-related infrastructure impacts is 

17 provided in Section 5.4. However, the review team assumes that any induced residential 

18 growth would be managed because the four counties in the economic impact area have 

19 comprehensive land-use plans in place. Fairfield County allows low-density residential 

20 development in the vicinity of the site, in accordance with its Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 

21 (see Section 2.2.1). Based on the existence and projected implementation of land-use plans, 

22 the information provided by SCE&G, and the NRC’s own independent review, the review team 

23 concludes that the land-use impacts of operation would be SMALL, and additional mitigation 

24 would not be warranted. 

25 5.1.2 Transmission-Line Corridors and Offsite Areas 

26 Most land-use impacts would occur during installation of the planned new 230-kV transmission 

27 lines. SCE&G and Santee-Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, formally called 

28 the South Carolina Public Service Authority) provide easements to allow agricultural activities 

29 under their transmission lines. Transmission-line corridor management practices are discussed 

30 in Section 5.3.1.2. Therefore, the review team concludes that the offsite land-use impacts of 

31 operations would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

32 5.2 Water-Related Impacts 

33 This section discusses water-related impacts on the surrounding environment from operation of 

34 the VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 
 Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Managing water resources requires understanding and balancing the tradeoffs between various, 

2 often conflicting, objectives. At the VCSNS site, these objectives include recreation, visual 

3 aesthetics, reservoir ecology, and a variety of beneficial consumptive uses of water. 

4 Water-use and water-quality impacts involved with operation of a nuclear plant are similar to the 

5 impacts associated with any large thermoelectric power generation facility. Accordingly, 

6 SCE&G must obtain the same water-related permits and certifications as any other large 

7 thermoelectric power generation facility. These include: 

8  Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification. This certification would be issued by the South 

9 Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and would confirm that 

10 operation of the plant would not conflict with State water-quality management programs. 

11  Clean Water Act Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

12 Discharge Permit. This permit would be issued by the SCDHEC and would regulate limits of 

13 pollutants in liquid discharges to surface water. 

14  Clean Water Act Section 316(a). This section regulates the cooling-water discharges to 

15 protect the health of the aquatic environment. The scope will be covered under the NPDES 

16 permit with the SCDHEC. 

17  Clean Water Act Section 316(b). This section regulates cooling-water intake structures to 

18 minimize environmental impacts associated with location, design, construction, and capacity 

19 of those structures. The scope will be covered under the NPDES permit with the SCDHEC 

20 Section 5.2.1 discusses the expected hydrologic alterations in surface water and groundwater 

21 related to operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Water-use impacts are discussed in Section 5.2.2 

22 for surface water (5.2.2.1) and groundwater (5.2.2.2). Water-quality impacts are discussed in 

23 Section 5.2.3 for surface water (5.2.3.1) and groundwater (5.2.3.2). Water monitoring is 

24 discussed in Section 5.2.4 for surface water (5.2.4.1) and groundwater (5.2.4.2). 

25 5.2.1 Hydrologic Alterations 

26 The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be positioned on a hilltop with natural drainage away 

27 from the facilities. Modifications of the land surface made during construction and 

28 preconstruction activities would alter the local hydrology. Specifically, surface water would be 

29 routed away from the nuclear plant through ditches described in the site layout plan. In addition, 

30 groundwater infiltration areas would be significantly different because of the large number of 

31 impervious surfaces and the use of stormwater-retention basins. The aquifer beneath the 

32 VCSNS site is likely to be affected by the new hydrology for a period shortly after construction 

33 and preconstruction, but it should eventually stabilize into a predictable pattern consistent with 

34 the conditions of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations. The aquifer may also be locally affected to a 

35 small extent by the altered surface hydrology, although these impacts are not likely to have a 

36 significant impact on other adjacent permitted users. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-4 April 2010 

1 The impact of the consumptive use of surface water by proposed Units 2 and 3 is evaluated in 

2 terms of the estimated reduction in flow in absolute and percentage terms for normal and 

3 maximum modes of operation and for long-term average flows and low flows in the Broad River. 

4 These flows are discussed in Section 5.2.2.1. 

5 The quantitative measures used to assess the level of impact on water use are twofold: (1) the 

6 ability to discern the reduced flow from the historical flows using current U.S. Geological Survey 

7 (USGS) methods, and (2) the decreased ability of a hypothetical small downstream reservoir to 

8 serve hypothetical water users. These measures are discussed in Section 5.2.2.1. 

9 SCE&G stated that “groundwater would not be withdrawn for operational use by Units 2 and 3” 

10 (SCE&G 2009a). The hydrologic alterations of groundwater due to construction and 

11 preconstruction activities (e.g., site grading, changes in recharge, fill materials, excavation 

12 dewatering) are discussed in Section 4.2.1 of this environmental impact statement (EIS). 

13 Localized dewatering during operations may be required to reduce the water table to minimize 

14 seepage for below-grade portions of buildings. As mentioned by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a), the 

15 pumping rates would be low due to the low permeability of the aquifers in this area (see 

16 Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this EIS). Based on the low amount of groundwater pumping 

17 that may occur if dewatering is required, the review team concluded that any groundwater 

18 alterations at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be localized to the site. 

19 5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts 

20 A description of water-use impacts on surface water and groundwater is presented in the next 

21 sections. The water resource usage by VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations is limited to the 

22 Monticello Reservoir and the Broad River/Parr Reservoir. The impacts of surface-water and 

23 groundwater use are discussed in Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2, respectively. Surface water 

24 would be used by VCSNS Units 2 and 3 for cooling and all other plant water needs. No local 

25 groundwater use is proposed. Information presented in the ER (Revision 1) for VCSNS Units 2 

26 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a), as well as other information obtained by the review team, and 

27 independent analysis performed by the review team were used to assess water-use impacts. 

28 5.2.2.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Use 

29 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir, which comes from Frees 

30 Creek and indirectly from the Broad River via the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility (FPSF). 

31 Some of the water supplied to these units would be used consumptively (e.g., through 

32 evaporation). The Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir are hydrologically 

33 connected by the FPSF. Cooling water blowdown would be discharged to Parr Reservoir. The 

34 VCSNS Unit 2 and 3 water treatment facility would discharge to Monticello Reservoir. A 

35 diagram showing the direction and magnitude of flows between the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, 

36 Monticello Reservoir, VCSNS Unit 1, and the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is shown in 

37 Figure 5-1. 
Station Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-5 Draft NUREG-1939 1 Figure 5-1. Diagram of the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir System (SCE&G 2009a) 2 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-6 April 2010 

1 Some water would be consumptively used by VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Operational surface-water 

2 withdrawals for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are estimated to be between 83 cfs (normal 

3 operation) and 137 cfs (maximum use). Of these totals, between 62 cfs (normal operation) and 

4 69 cfs (maximum use) of water would be consumptively used due to evaporation and drift 

5 related to the operation of the proposed cooling towers, while between 21 cfs (normal operation) 

6 and 68 cfs (maximum use) of water would be discharged to the Parr Reservoir just upstream of 

7 the Parr Shoals Dam. For comparison purposes, the long-term annual and lowest annual mean 

8 flows are reported for the Alston gauging station (nearest station downstream of VCSNS) as 

9 6300 cfs and 2150 cfs, respectively. The estimated surface-water withdrawals for the proposed 

10 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be between 1 and 4 percent of the long-term annual mean of 

11 Broad River flows, while the actual surface-water consumptive use of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

12 would be around 1 percent of the long-term annual mean. For the lowest annual mean flow, the 

13 withdrawal percentages increase to between 2 and 6 percent, while consumptive use increases 

14 to around 3 percent. The consumptive surface-water use impacts of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

15 operations on Broad River flow are summarized in Table 5-1. 

16 Table 5-1. Impacts of Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Water Use on Broad River Flow 

Broad River 

Flow at Alston 

(cfs) 

Normal (max) 

Consumptive Use for 

Units 2 and 3 (cfs) 

Difference in Broad River 

Flow Under Normal (max) 

Operating Conditions 

(Percent) 

Long-term annual mean flow 6300 62 (69) 1 (1.1) 

Lowest annual mean flow 2150 62 (69) 2.9 (3.2) 

7Q10 flow 853 62 (69) 7.3 (8.1) 

17 The 7Q10 flow (lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade) is also 

18 used to assess the impacts of alteration to flow during low-flow periods. The 7Q10 was 

19 reported by SCE&G to be 853 cfs in the absence of accounting for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

20 consumptive uses. Including the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 consumptive use would 

21 reduce the 7Q10 to 791 and 784 cfs under normal and maximum use modes of operation or 

22 between a 7 to 8 percent reduction in 7Q10 flow. 

23 When surface-water flow is at or above either the long-term annual or lowest annual mean 

24 flows, the percent reduction in the Broad River flow due to consumptive use related to the 

25 operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (1-6 percent) would be minimal. Due to the 

26 seasonality of the Broad River flow, it is expected that the impacts would be larger in the 

27 summer than during the remainder of the year. At lower Broad River flows, SCE&G has 

28 suggested that, as a mitigative measure, some of the water-supply needs could be met by 

29 drawing from Monticello Reservoir storage instead of relying fully on the Broad River. The 

30 useable storage within Monticello Reservoir is 45,000 ac-ft. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The review team assessed the impact of the estimated maximum consumptive use of water of 

2 the proposed Units 2 and 3 (69 cfs) to assess the ability of the Broad River to satisfy current and 

3 likely future water demands. Based on a combination of existing historical flow records at the 

4 USGS Alston and Richtex gauges, the maximum consumptive use represents about 1 percent 

5 of the average annual flow (6155 cfs) and 1.6 percent of the flow during the lowest month 

6 average flow (4300 cfs) of the entire period of record (1925 to 1983). The consumptive water 

7 use of proposed Units 2 and 3 would fall within the range of uncertainty in typical streamflow 

8 measurements of a stream this size. Given the minor fractional reduction due to consumptive 

9 use, the review team determined that the impact of proposed Units 2 and 3 on the water 

10 resources’ ability to meet current water demands would be minimal. 

11 The review team also assessed the impact of consumptive water use of the proposed plant with 

12 water demands that might occur toward the end of the plant’s operating life in 2060. Because 

13 no precise method exists to project water demands out to 2060, the review team relied on 

14 population projections for 2060 for the primary counties in the Broad River basin (Cherokee, 

15 Chester, Fairfield, Greenwood, Richland, Spartanburg, Union, and York Counties). Based on 

16 the combined population growth for 2060 (discussed in Section 2.5.1.1, Table 2-23) and the per 

17 capita water-use requirements derived from annual South Carolina Water Use Reports 

18 (SCDHEC 2002, 2003a, b, 2004, 2005a, 2006, 2007), the review team postulated a water 

19 requirement of 251,508 ac-ft/yr (350 cfs), assuming a linear relationship between growth in 

20 population and increase in surface-water use. 

21 To confirm that a reliable water supply will continue to meet the postulated demand given the 

22 expected seasonal and annual variability of streamflows, the review team postulated a 

23 hypothetical off-stream reservoir sized to ensure that a steady future water demand would be 

24 reliably delivered. For the purposes of this analysis, streamflow withdrawals were limited in the 

25 critical months of July, August, and September so the median Broad River flows would not 

26 change. Withdrawals from the river were limited to 700 cfs (as a water-supply design 

27 parameter) and further limited to 479 cfs (to maintain a required minimum flow in the Broad 

28 River). These limitations represent a postulated set of requirements designed to allow for 

29 transfer of water from the Broad River to the hypothetical reservoir only under excess river flow 

30 conditions. The modeled reservoir size needed to satisfy the postulated steady future water 

31 demand was 55,000 ac-ft. The reliability of this reservoir to meet future water requirements (as 

32 identified above) was reduced from 99.65 percent to 99.61 percent when VCSNS consumptive 

33 use was removed from the available supply. Based on the magnitude of the change the review 

34 team concluded that the impact of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operation on future water-supply 

35 reliability would not be noticeable and mitigation would not be warranted. 

36 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operation would consumptively use only a small proportion of Broad River 

37 flow, and the review team’s independent water-supply reliability analysis found that this 

38 consumptive use would not noticeably alter long-term regional water supply reliability even 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-8 April 2010 

1 when considering potential future supply reduction because of climate change. Therefore, the 

2 review team concludes that the impacts of surface-water use by VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

3 operations would be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

4 5.2.2.2 Impacts on Groundwater Use 

5 As described in Section 5.2.1, groundwater would not be used for operation of proposed 

6 VCSNS Units 2 and 3, but some dewatering may be necessary to reduce below-grade seepage 

7 in buildings. Dewatering is currently used to reduce below-grade seepage in buildings around 

8 Unit 1 (using two wells at a combined rate of about 26 gpm as described in Section 2.3.2.2 of 

9 this EIS). 

10 As stated in Section 2.3.2.2, the closest water-supply well to the site is currently at a private 

11 residence approximately 1 mi east of the site. The nearest groups of wells, used for residences 

12 and stores, are located 1.5 mi east of the VCSNS site and 2.5 mi southeast of the site (SCE&G 

13 2009a). The closest water-supply well that could potentially be located near the facility is 

14 approximately 0.75 mi to the southeast at the site boundary (SCE&G 2009b). As discussed in 

15 Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.2.2 of this EIS, yields from groundwater wells, both regionally and 

16 locally, are generally less than 30 gpm. 

17 Similar to VCSNS Unit 1, a potable-water treatment plant that draws water from Monticello 

18 Reservoir would provide the potable water for Units 2 and 3 during operations (SCE&G 2009a, 

19 b). SCE&G stated that they will not use water from a municipal system for operations (SCE&G 

20 2009a). Therefore, water usage at the VCSNS site during operations would not affect municipal 

21 water suppliers who may draw water from groundwater sources. 

22 Based on the low groundwater pumping rates needed for dewatering due to the generally low 

23 permeability of the aquifers in this area; relatively large distances to local groundwater supply 

24 wells; and the site location that is partially isolated from offsite users by surface waterbodies 

25 (Parr Reservoir, Mayo Creek, and Monticello Reservoir); the review team concludes that the 

26 impacts on groundwater use during the operation of Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, and 

27 additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

28 5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts 

29 This section discusses the impacts on the quality of water resources from the operation of 

30 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Surface-water impacts include thermal, chemical, and 

31 radiological wastes, and physical changes in the Monticello Reservoir and the Broad River 

32 and/or Parr Reservoir resulting from effluents discharged by the proposed nuclear plants. 

33 Section 5.2.3.1 discusses the impacts on surface-water quality and Section 5.2.3.2 discusses 

34 the impacts on groundwater quality. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.2.3.1 Impacts on Surface-Water Quality 

2 Impacts to surface water quality could result from blowdown discharge and stormwater runoff. 

3 Cooling towers concentrate solids and solutes from the raw makeup water during the process of 

4 evaporative heat loss. Other materials are introduced to the makeup water to inhibit scale, 

5 biofilm formation, and corrosion. These solids and solutes are contained in blowdown. 

6 Blowdown for the two proposed units at the VCSNS site would be discharged to Parr Reservoir. 

7 Stormwater runoff would be managed through engineering controls (SCE&G 2009a) based on 

8 BMPs as detailed in a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). 

9 The water-treatment methods to be used at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are described in Section 3.4 

10 and are likely to be similar to those used for VCSNS Unit 1. In addition to the anti-scalants, 

11 biocides, and corrosion inhibitors described above, additional water treatment would be 

12 achieved through the use of algaecides, pH adjusters, and silt dispersants (see Table 3-5). The 

13 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling towers would operate by recycling cooling water two to four times, 

14 which would concentrate any material present in the makeup water. While the amount of these 

15 materials would not differ, the dissolved concentration in the blowdown discharge to Parr 

16 Reservoir would be two to four times the initial concentration in the makeup water. Intake 

17 concentrations are listed in Table 2-9 through Table 2-11; estimated concentrations in 

18 blowdown are provided in Table 3-4. An NPDES permit is required before blowdown effluent 

19 can be discharged, and discharges must be in compliance with the permit. When the blowdown 

20 discharge mixes with the much larger flow of the Broad River, the downstream Broad River 

21 concentration would approach that of the upstream concentrations. 

22 Temperature standards for fresh waters as well as guidelines for determining whether a mixing 

23 zone needs to be created around a thermal discharge are established in State Regulation 61-

24 68, “Water Classifications and Standards” as follows: “...water temperature of all freshwaters 

25 which are free flowing [or lakes] shall not be increased more than 5oF (2.8oC) above natural 

26 conditions and shall not exceed 90oF (32.2oC) as a result of the discharge of heated liquids 

27 unless a different site-specific temperature standard as provided for in C.12 has been 

28 established, a mixing zone as provided in C.10 has been established, or a Section 316(a) 

29 determination under the Federal Clean Water Act has been completed” (SCDHEC 2008, at 

30 E(12)(a) and (c)). If a mixing zone is to be created, then its size should be minimized (SCDHEC 

31 2008). For chronic mixing permit conditions, SCDHEC has established that a mixing zone be 

32 no larger than half the river width and extend a distance no further than twice the river width 

33 (SCDHEC 2005b). Based on the Parr Reservoir width of 600 ft, the largest mixing zone size 

34 could be 300 ft across the river and 1200 ft along the river. SCE&G focused on simulations 

35 where either the 90°F or the +5°F criterion could be exceeded. 

36 The blowdown discharge into Parr Reservoir would be, in most cases warmer than the ambient 

37 water. SCE&G used the Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX) modeling software, 

38 version 4.3, to estimate the thermal plume from the discharge in Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a; 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-10 April 2010 

1 Toblin 2007). The blowdown flow and temperature were estimated using meteorological data, 

2 cooling tower performance curves, and historical Parr Reservoir water temperatures (Toblin 

3 2007). The largest blowdown flow and the highest blowdown temperature that were estimated 

4 were 64 cfs and 91.75°F. 

5 The review team independently conducted a thermal plume analysis to estimate the thermal 

6 plume’s extent across the reservoir and to maximize the plume size estimate. The 7Q10 flow 

7 for the Broad River estimated at Parr Shoals Dam as 834 cfs (SCE&G 2009a) and when limited 

8 to the spring time period a higher low flow of 1469 cfs was reported (Toblin 2007). These flows 

9 (834 cfs for summer and 1469 cfs for spring) were used to estimate the blowdown thermal 

10 plume dimensions for the spring and summer conditions. The review team examined the 

11 temperature records computed using 3-month rolling temperature averages for spring and 

12 summer. From these averages, a conservatively low ambient temperature during the spring of 

13 43.3°F and a conservatively high summer ambient temperature of 84.0°F were used to 

14 maximize the estimated difference between ambient water and plume water temperatures (in 

15 spring) as well as plume temperature itself (summer). To make the estimates conservative, the 

16 review team analysis used the maximum effluent discharge flow rate (blowdown plus other 

17 liquid effluents) and highest blowdown discharge temperature, low flow through Parr Reservoir, 

18 low ambient water temperatures in spring, and high ambient water temperatures in summer. 

19 The review team’s thermal plume analysis is based on the estimation of the completely mixed 

20 water temperature within a prescribed fraction of the cross section of Parr Reservoir. While the 

21 assumption of complete and instantaneous mixing is physically implausible, this approach is 

22 based exclusively on the principle of conservation of energy, and provides a bounding estimate 

23 of the portion of the water that could be raised to a specified temperature differential. The well24 mixed assumption here extends the 5°F limit to be wider than it would actually be, because no 

25 accommodation is made for more of the heat to be stored at the core of the plume than at the 

26 edges. The NRC staff’s calculations are not designed to distinguish these plume features; 

27 estimated plume temperatures in the context of this discussion refer solely to the well-mixed, or 

28 average temperature within the plume. The analysis is based on the assumption that a portion of 

29 the cross section of the Parr Reservoir is significantly affected by the blowdown discharge. That 

30 is, a portion of the ambient flow is completely mixed with the blowdown discharge. That portion 

31 is based on specification of the fraction of affected width and depth. In all of the analysis, the 

32 plume is assumed to be mixed over one-half of the depth, meaning that the upper half of the 

33 water column will contain the thermal plume because of its buoyancy. A range of plume widths 

34 was examined (10 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent of the channel width). A fraction of the 

35 ambient flow is assumed to be entrained into the blowdown discharge flow and which, when 

36 mixed, adjusts to combined water temperature above the ambient water temperature and below 

37 the blowdown discharge temperature. The differences between the estimated plume water 

38 temperature and the ambient water temperature as well as the overall plume temperature were 

39 computed for these conditions and summarized in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 5-2. Estimated Spring and Summer Blowdown Plume Temperatures with Assumed 

2 Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth 

Plume Width 

Plume Temperature (°F) 

Spring (1469 cfs) Summer (843 cfs) 

Normal 

Operation 

Maximum 

Operation 

Normal 

Operation Max Operation 

10% of Channel Width 54 66 87 89 

25% of Channel Width 48 56 85 87 

50% of Channel Width 46 51 85 86 

3 

4 Table 5-3. Estimated Blowdown Plume Temperature Rise Above Ambient Water for Spring 

5 and Summer with Assumed Plume Thickness Equal to 50 Percent of Water Depth 

Plume Width 

Plume Temperature Above Ambient (°F) 

Spring (43.3°F ambient) Summer (84.0°F ambient) 

Normal 

Operation 

Maximum 

Operation 

Normal 

Operation 

Maximum 

Operation 

10% of Channel Width 11 23 3 5 

25% of Channel Width 5 13 1 3 

50% of Channel Width 3 8 1 2 

6 During spring conditions, the difference between the plume water temperature and ambient 

7 water temperature exceeds 5°F. The review team increased the width of the modeled plume 

8 area to 75 percent of the channel width and found that the temperature difference was reduced 

9 to 5°F. When the blowdown discharge was reduced to 40 cfs from the more conservative value 

10 of 68 cfs, a 5°F temperature difference was estimated for a plume width that was 50 percent of 

11 the channel width. 

12 The discharge velocity is estimated to be in the range 2.3 to 3.8 fps (four-cycle operation) or 6.9 

13 to 11.3 fps (two-cycle operation) at the diffuser ports (SCE&G 2009a). The ambient currents 

14 range from 0.2 to 0.6 fps for low and average flow conditions (SCE&G 2009a). The diffuser has 

15 an alternative port configuration to yield a net momentum balance of zero. SCE&G judged that 

16 the momentum would dissipate within a limited area estimated to be 0.3 acre adjacent to the 

17 diffuser (Toblin 2007). Within this zone some scouring of the reservoir bottom would be 

18 expected. Because Parr Reservoir is characterized as depositional, SCE&G determined that 

19 the scour caused by the diffuser would be minimal. 

20 The discharges to Parr Reservoir and the much smaller discharges from the water-treatment 

21 plant to Monticello Reservoir have low projected contaminant levels that would be controlled 

22 through the NPDES permitting process. As such, the impacts on the water quality of the Broad 

23 River, Monticello Reservoir, and Parr Reservoir from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 discharges 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-12 April 2010 

1 are expected to be minor enough to not alter the SCDHEC 303(d) designated use of the three 

2 water resources and would comply with SCDHEC maximum contaminant levels (SCDHEC 2008) 

3 and (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 Based on the review team’s independent analysis of the temperature of, and chemical 

5 constituents in, plant discharges to Parr Reservoir and Monticello Reservoir, the review team 

6 concludes the impacts of the proposed Units 2 and 3 discharges on surface-water quality would 

7 be SMALL, and mitigation would not be warranted.

8 5.2.3.2 Impacts on Groundwater Quality 

9 As discussed in Section 5.2.2.2, no groundwater would be used for the operation of VCSNS 

10 Units 2 and 3. Some localized dewatering may be necessary to reduce below-grade seepage in 

11 buildings. The small alterations of groundwater flow and usage during operations would not 

12 change groundwater quality. 

13 SCE&G referred to its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan and Facility 

14 Response Plan, as required by SCDHEC, that would “tend to mitigate impacts on local 

15 groundwater because spills are quickly attended to and not allowed to penetrate to 

16 groundwater” (SCE&G 2009a). Spills may include diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, and lubricants 

17 (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 Factors that limit the impacts of operations on groundwater quality in the area are (1) SCE&G’s 

19 BMPs for spill prevention and control as mentioned above; (2) the relatively large distances to 

20 local groundwater supply wells; and (3) the partial isolation of onsite groundwater from offsite 

21 users by surface waterbodies (Parr Reservoir, Mayo Creek, and Monticello Reservoir). 

22 Impacts on groundwater quality from the proposed operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

23 limited by the lack of groundwater use and the factors identified above. Based on all these 

24 factors, the review team concludes that groundwater quality impacts of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

25 operations would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

26 5.2.4 Water Monitoring 

27 SCE&G stated that “[w]hile specific requirements for radiological, hydrologic, and chemical 

28 monitoring programs for operation of Units 2 and 3 have not yet been established, they are 

29 expected to be similar to and tiered from or added to the ongoing Unit 1 monitoring programs...” 

30 (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G also provided a map showing wells from the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

31 subsurface investigation program (described in Section 2.3.1.2) that would remain available for 

32 groundwater monitoring (SCE&G 2009c). These wells are outside the footprint of the nuclear 

33 island. Additional groundwater monitoring wells would be installed “based on any needs 

34 determined during detailed design and discussions with SC Department of Health and 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Environmental Control during site activity permitting” (SCE&G 2009c). SCE&G also committed 

2 to following the requirements for additional groundwater monitoring wells as part of the voluntary 

3 Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative – Final Guidance Document (NEI 2007) (SCE&G 

4 2009d). Hydrologic monitoring of groundwater involves measuring groundwater levels in wells. 

5 The operational chemical monitoring program “...would be implemented to identify any changes 

6 in water quality that may result from the operation of the new units...” (SCE&G 2009a). 

7 5.3 Ecological Impacts 

8 This section describes the potential impacts on ecological resources from the operation of the 

9 two proposed new units at the VCSNS site and transmission-line operation, which includes 

10 transmission-line corridor maintenance. The impacts are discussed for terrestrial ecosystems, 

11 aquatic ecosystems, and threatened and endangered species. 

12 5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operation 

13 Impacts on terrestrial communities and species that could result from operation of the proposed 

14 units are generally related to either cooling-system operations or transmission-system 

15 operations. The operation of the cooling towers transfers heat to the atmosphere in the form of 

16 water vapor and can result in icing, fogging, increased humidity, increased noise levels, and the 

17 deposition of dissolved solids (i.e., cooling-tower drift). There is also a risk of avian collision 

18 mortality with permanent structures. 

19 5.3.1.1 Terrestrial Resources – Site and Vicinity 

20 The impacts of the operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 on the VCSNS site and vicinity would be 

21 associated with the operation of four circular mechanical draft cooling towers (two per unit) 

22 (SCE&G 2009a). As described in Chapter 3 of this EIS, the proposed circulating-water system 

23 (CWS) for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would return heated water from the heat exchangers to the 

24 cooling towers to transfer heat into the atmosphere. The cooling towers would each be 70 ft 

25 high with a base diameter of 275 ft (SCE&G 2009a). In this system, heat would be transferred 

26 to the ambient atmosphere in the form of water vapor and drift. Vapor plumes and drift may 

27 affect vegetation, such as native plant communities, ornamental vegetation, and crops, and 

28 water losses that cause reservoir draw-down could affect shoreline habitat. In addition, birds 

29 could collide with the mechanical draft cooling towers and other tall facility structures. 

30 Impacts of Cooling Tower Operations 

31 For each proposed unit, two mechanical draft cooling towers would be used to remove excess 

32 heat from the CWS by transferring it into the atmosphere. Through the process of evaporation 

33 followed by partial re-condensation, the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the CWS 

34 would increase. Operation of the CWS would be based on four cycles of concentration, which 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-14 April 2010 

1 means the TDS in the makeup water would be concentrated approximately four times before 

2 being released. A small percentage of the water in the CWS would be released into the 

3 atmosphere as fine droplets containing elevated levels of TDS that could be deposited on 

4 nearby vegetation. CWS water losses from drift would be minor in comparison to evaporation 

5 and blowdown discharge losses; the cooling-tower design drift rate would be 0.001 percent of 

6 the circulating-water flow (SCE&G 2009a). 

7 Depending on the source of makeup water, the TDS concentration in the drift can contain high 

8 levels of salts, which, under certain conditions and for certain species, can be damaging. 

9 Vegetation stress can be caused by drift with high levels of TDS deposition, either directly by 

10 deposition onto foliage or indirectly from the accumulation in the soils. Vegetation adjacent to 

11 the proposed cooling tower locations is a mix of recently harvested and forested communities 

12 (planted pine, mixed pine-hardwood, hardwood) (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G estimated the 

13 combined cooling-tower plumes to have a maximum deposition rate of 0.28 lb/ac/mo, and that 

14 maximum deposition would occur 3280 ft east of the towers and approximately 1000 ft east of 

15 the site boundary (SCE&G 2009q). General guidelines for predicting the effects of drift 

16 deposition on plants suggest that sensitive species have a threshold for visible leaf damage of 

8.9 lb/ac/mo on leaves during the growing season (NRC 1996).(a) 17 Because the maximum 

18 deposition for the proposed VCSNS is below the level that could cause leaf damage in many 

19 common species, the impacts would be negligible. No agricultural crops or silviculture in the 

20 region are expected to receive significant salt deposition from plume drift from proposed VCSNS 

21 Units 2 and 3. Where the maximum salt deposition is expected to occur, the maximum levels 

22 would be well below the levels known to cause adverse effects. In addition, the impact of drift 

23 on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plant communities was evaluated for existing 

24 nuclear power plants (including plants with more than one cooling tower) in the Generic 

25 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NUREG-1437) 

26 and was found to be of minor significance (NRC 1996). 

27 As described in Section 5.7.1, fogging and icing are not expected to occur from the operation of 

28 the four proposed mechanical draft cooling towers for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and therefore 

29 would not be expected to affect habitat or wildlife (SCE&G 2009q). In addition, the potential for 

30 impacts related to cloud shadowing and increased precipitation are estimated to be minimal, 

31 and no adverse effects on terrestrial species or habitats are expected. Thus, the potential 

32 impacts on native plant communities, ornamental vegetation, and crops from the operation of 

33 cooling towers for proposed Units 2 and 3 would be minimal. 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999 

(NRC 1999). Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Bird Collisions with Cooling Towers and Structures 

2 A potential for avian mortality due to collision with proposed nuclear power plant structures 

3 exists and could pose a threat to species in decline and to threatened or endangered species. 

4 The height of the cooling towers associated with proposed new VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

5 approximately 70 ft. The NRC previously concluded that the relatively low height of mechanical 

6 draft cooling towers causes negligible mortality (NRC 1996). In addition, the NRC concluded 

7 that avian collisions are unlikely to pose a biologically significant source of mortality due to the 

8 small fraction of total bird mortality that has been attributed to collision with nuclear power plant 

9 structures (NRC 1996). Thus, the review team concludes that the potential for impacts on bird 

10 species from collisions with cooling towers for proposed Units 2 and 3 would be minimal. 

11 Noise Impacts of Operation 

12 Simultaneous operation of the four mechanical draft cooling towers for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

13 would generate approximately 71 dBA at 200 ft and 55 dBA at 1000 ft for each cooling tower 

14 (SCE&G 2009a). This is below the 80- to 85-dBA threshold at which birds and small mammals 

15 are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). Noise from operating mechanical draft cooling 

16 towers would not likely disturb wildlife in habitats away from the planned facilities and would not 

17 be expected to affect wildlife beyond 1000 ft. Thus, the potential impact on wildlife posed by 

18 incremental noise resulting from the operation of the four mechanical draft cooling towers for the 

19 proposed Units 2 and 3 and other facilities on the VCSNS site would be minimal, and additional 

20 mitigation would not be warranted. 

21 Impacts of Increased Vehicle Traffic 

22 Increased traffic associated with operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 has the potential 

23 to increase wildlife mortality resulting from vehicle-wildlife interactions. An estimated 800 

24 additional workers would be employed to operate proposed Units 2 and 3 and SCE&G has not 

25 determined the exact routes for access to the site. The Unit 1 workforce of 635 would access 

26 the site via State Highway 215 (SC-215) (SCE&G 2009a). The additional work trips during peak 

27 hours would occur on the rural roads and highways in the vicinity. Local wildlife populations 

28 could suffer declines if road-kill rates were to exceed the rates of reproduction and immigration. 

29 However, although road-kills occur frequently in the United States, they reportedly have minimal 

30 effect on wildlife populations (Forman and Alexander 1998). The review team concludes that 

31 these impacts would not be detectable beyond the local vicinity and would not destabilize 

32 regional populations. 

33 Light Pollution During Facility Operation 

34 Light pollution during facility operation could potentially affect wildlife on the VCSNS site by 

35 altering behavioral patterns such as bird flight direction that are influenced by photoperiod 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-16 April 2010 

1 (period of daylight) (FWS 2008). Possible mitigation measures could include the use of lower2 wattage lights, hooded or down-turned lights, and turning unnecessary lights off at night to 

3 minimize potential impacts on wildlife (FWS 2008). If mitigation measures such as those noted 

4 above were implemented the impacts from light pollution would be expected to be minimal. 

5 5.3.1.2 Terrestrial Resources – Transmission Lines 

6 Electric power transmission systems have the potential to affect terrestrial ecological resources 

7 through corridor maintenance, bird collisions with transmission lines and structures, 

8 electrocution, and electromagnetic fields (EMFs). A total of six new offsite 230-kV transmission 

9 lines would be needed to distribute the power generated by proposed Units 2 and 3 at the 

10 VCSNS site. Santee Cooper would maintain two of the lines, and the other four lines would be 

11 maintained by SCE&G in three corridors (one double-circuit line and two single-circuit lines; see 

12 details about transmission lines in Table 4-1). Two of the SCE&G transmission-line corridors 

13 have been proposed as viable options, but the final routes have not yet been determined. 

14 Assuming that the proposed viable options would be the selected routes, there would be 

15 approximately 174 mi and 1916 ac of transmission-line corridor (SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

16 lines combined) that would be used to connect proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to the regional 

17 grid (SCE&G 2009u, FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008). 

18 Corridor Maintenance – Vegetation 

19 Vegetation control in the transmission-line corridors would be the primary source of potential 

20 impacts on terrestrial resources. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper have established 

21 maintenance procedures for power transmission systems (SCE&G 2006a; Sott 2006; MACTEC 

22 2008). Transmission-line corridors must be kept clear of woody growth through maintenance 

23 practices that prevent growth from becoming a safety hazard or potentially interrupting service. 

24 SCE&G and Santee Cooper have maintenance cycles for tree trimming that range from 1 to 

25 7 years depending on the activity. Both utilities use chemical and mechanical control methods 

26 appropriate for the location, terrain, and vegetation or habitat present. Chemical methods 

27 include the use of nonrestricted-use herbicides (only herbicides registered by the U.S. 

28 Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) to control any vegetation that may interfere with the 

29 transmission-line corridor. In general, both companies spray herbicides on a 3-year rotation. 

30 The consistent use of herbicides results in the growth of low-growing, non-woody vegetation 

31 such as grasses and other native plants. Mechanical methods of vegetation control include 

32 hand clearing, pruning, mowing, and felling (SCE&G 2006a; Sott 2006; MACTEC 2008). 

33 The impact of transmission-line corridor maintenance on wildlife and habitats, including 

34 floodplains and wetlands, was evaluated in the V.C. Summer supplement to the license renewal 

35 GEIS (NRC 2004a), and the impact was found to be of minimal significance at operating nuclear 

36 power plants with associated transmission-line corridors of variable widths (NRC 2004a). 

37 SCE&G and Santee Cooper have procedures in place that minimize adverse impacts on wildlife 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 and important habitats such as floodplains and wetlands (SCE&G 2009a). Corridor2 maintenance activities would be performed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G (in their respective 

3 corridors) in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit 

4 requirements. Therefore, the potential effects on terrestrial species and habitats from 

5 transmission-line maintenance in existing and new transmission-line corridors would be minimal, 

6 and mitigation beyond the use of standard BMPs would not be warranted. 

7 Avian Mortality Impacts from Power Transmission Lines 

8 Potential avian impacts from operation of transmission lines include bird injury or morality 

9 through collision or electrocution. Avian interactions with power transmission lines and 

10 structures are species- and site-specific. The NRC’s analysis in NUREG-1437 determined that 

11 bird collisions with transmission lines are of small significance at operating nuclear power 

12 plants, including transmission-line corridors with variable numbers of transmission lines 

13 (NRC 1996). In addition, the V.C. Summer supplement to the license renewal GEIS 

14 (NRC 2004a) stated that impacts from bird collisions were expected to be of small significance 

15 at all sites. SCE&G also stated that all new lines would be “raptor safe” under the guidelines 

16 recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (FP&S 2008). Thus, the addition of 

17 the proposed transmission lines along existing corridors would likely present few new 

18 opportunities for bird collisions. The addition of new corridors may lead to an additional number 

19 of collisions in that corridor; however, it would not be expected to cause a measurable reduction 

20 in bird populations. The review team concludes that the potential for impacts on birds due to 

21 collision with transmission lines for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and 

22 additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

23 Impacts of Electromagnetic Fields on Flora and Fauna 

24 EMFs are unlike many other agents that have an adverse impact (e.g., toxic chemicals, ionizing 

25 radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

26 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996, 2004a). The NRC reviewed biological and physical studies of 

27 EMFs but found no consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC1996, 

28 2004a). The NRC determined that EMFs produced by operating transmission lines for existing 

29 nuclear power plants up to 1100 kV were not linked to significant harmful effects on flora 

30 (NRC 1996, 2004a). Minor damage to plant foliage and buds can occur near strong electric 

31 fields, caused by heating of the leaf tips and margins. Damage does not appear within the stem 

32 and root systems of the plants and would not significantly affect growth (NRC 1996, 2004a). 

33 EMFs have been demonstrated to affect some fauna. Voltage buildup can affect the overall 

34 health of honeybee hives (NRC 1996, 2004a). Birds that nest within transmission-line corridors 

35 experience chronic EMF exposure, but lines energized at levels less than 765-kV do not affect 

36 terrestrial biota (NRC 1996, 2004a). Since 1997, over a dozen studies have been published 

37 that looked at cancer in animals that were exposed to EMFs for all or most of their lives 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-18 April 2010 

1 (Moulder 2003). These studies have found no evidence that EMFs cause any specific types of 

2 cancer in rats or mice (Moulder 2003). 

3 The conclusion presented in the GEIS for license renewal stated that the impacts of EMFs on 

4 terrestrial flora and fauna appear to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, 

5 including power transmission systems with variable numbers of transmission lines (NRC 

6 2004a). Therefore, the review team concludes that the increased EMF impact on flora and 

7 fauna posed by the operation of new 230-kV transmission lines proposed for the VCSNS project 

8 would be negligible, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

9 Floodplains and Wetlands in Transmission-Line Corridors 

10 The effects of maintaining transmission-line corridors on floodplains and wetlands were 

11 evaluated in the V.C. Summer supplement to the license renewal GEIS, and, although periodic 

12 vegetation control is necessary in wetlands under power lines, it can be carried out with minimal 

13 damage to the wetlands (NRC 2004a). In addition, SCE&G and Santee Cooper have 

14 procedures in place that minimize adverse impacts on important habitats such as floodplains 

15 and wetlands in transmission-line corridors and all maintenance activities would be performed in 

16 compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and permit requirements 

17 (SCE&G 2009a). Thus, the ecological impacts from maintenance operations on transmission 

18 line corridors were found to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, including 

19 those of variable widths. The review team concludes that the incremental effects of 

20 transmission-line corridor maintenance on floodplains and wetlands within the existing 

21 transmission-line corridors would be minimal, and mitigation beyond use of standard BMPs 

22 would not be warranted. 

23 5.3.1.3 Important Terrestrial Species and Habitats 

24 This section discusses the potential impacts of operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on 

25 Federally and State-listed species, on the ecologically important species and/or habitats 

26 (including wetlands), and on commercially important species. 

27 Important Terrestrial Species – Site and Vicinity 

28 The Federally and State-listed species that potentially occur on the VCSNS site and in the four29 county vicinity are described in Section 2.4.1 (Tables 2-17 and 2-18). Biologists conducted 

30 formal and informal surveys for species that could occur in terrestrial habitats or wetlands onsite 

31 as well as surveys of whether or not suitable habitat exists for species that may occur in those 

32 four counties. Surveys were conducted in 2002 (in support of license renewal), 2006, 2007, 

33 2008, and 2009. Nine Federally listed species were identified by the FWS that could potentially 

34 exist in the vicinity or that historically occurred onsite or in the vicinity of the proposed project: 

35 Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), pine barrens 

2 treefrog (Hyla andersonii), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Schweinitz's sunflower 

3 (Helianthus schweinitzii), rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia), and Canby’s 

4 dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi). The bald eagle was the only Federally listed species found on the 

5 VCSNS site during each survey. Although bald eagles were de-listed by the FWS in August 

6 2007, the species is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 

7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Operation of Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site would not be expected 

8 to affect the Federally listed or State-listed species that are not found on the site or in the 

9 vicinity. 

10 Game species, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wild turkey 

11 (Meleagris gallopavo), and a variety of waterfowl species, are common inhabitants of the 

12 VCSNS site. Increased noise levels near the cooling towers may cause these wildlife species to 

13 avoid the immediate area and increased activity and traffic would also cause wildlife to avoid the 

14 habitats immediately adjacent to the proposed units. Drift, fogging, and icing are expected to 

15 cause negligible or no impacts on habitats and would not be expected to affect important game 

16 species. Although animals may avoid habitats adjacent to the new units during operations, the 

17 VCSNS property and surrounding landscape contain large expanses of terrestrial and aquatic 

18 habitat to which these species could relocate. Thus, operational impacts on commercially and 

19 recreationally important species would be minimal, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

20 Important Terrestrial Habitats – Site and Vicinity 

21 No areas designated by the FWS as “critical habitat” for threatened or endangered species, or 

22 State or Federal parks, wildlife refuges, or preserves occur on or immediately adjacent to the 

23 VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009a). However, as described in Section 2.4.1.3, Parr Reservoir, which 

24 is adjacent to the VCSNS site, is managed for wildlife by the South Carolina Department of 

25 Natural Resources (SCDNR) as the Broad River Wildlife Management Area (BRWMA). 

26 Wetland habitat remaining on the site after development of the proposed units and associated 

27 facilities (see Chapter 4) would include a few emergent wetlands on the edge of Parr Reservoir 

28 (see EIS Sections 2.4.1 and 4.3.1), as well as several forested palustrine wetlands. None of the 

29 wetland habitats on the site or on the nearby BRWMA is likely to be adversely affected by salt 

30 deposition or fogging and icing as a result of drift from the mechanical draft cooling towers. 

31 Important Terrestrial Species – Transmission Lines 

32 The transmission lines associated with the proposed project do not travel through any areas 

33 designated by the FWS as “critical habitat” for endangered or threatened species (FP&S 2008; 

34 MACTEC 2008). However, Federally and State-listed species do inhabit portions of the 

35 transmission-line corridors that would be managed to transmit power from the proposed project. 

36 A complete list of Federally and State-listed species that are known to occur in counties crossed 

37 by transmission lines associated with the project is given in Chapter 2, Table 2-17. The list was 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-20 April 2010 

1 compiled from the SCDNR Natural Heritage Database (SCDNR 2006) and the FWS list (FWS 

2 2008). Because the exact routes are not yet determined by SCE&G, ground surveys have not 

3 yet been conducted. SCE&G stated that it would perform detailed ecological surveys to protect 

4 Federally and State-listed threatened and endangered species that may occur along the 

5 transmission lines as part of the permitting process prior to commencing any activity (FP&S 

6 2008). Once final routes are determined, FWS and SCDNR would be consulted. 

7 Transmission-line corridors that would transmit power generated from the proposed units would 

8 travel through a variety of habitats that support large and small game as well as waterfowl 

9 species. Because most of the new transmission lines would be constructed within or adjacent 

10 to existing corridors for operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, no significant additional 

11 impacts would be expected to occur on any commercially or recreationally important species as 

12 a result of vegetation maintenance activities in the corridors. 

13 No areas designated by the FWS as “critical habitat” for threatened or endangered species 

14 occur on or immediately adjacent to the proposed transmission-line corridors associated with 

15 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. None of the transmission lines crosses State or Federal parks, 

16 wildlife refuges, or preserves or wildlife management areas. The effects of transmission-line 

17 corridor maintenance on floodplains and wetlands were evaluated in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

18 The impacts were found to be of small significance at operating nuclear power plants, and these 

19 included transmission-line corridors of variable widths. Because SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

20 have procedures in place to minimize impacts on important species and habitats, the potential 

21 impacts of maintaining existing corridors would be minimal. 

22 5.3.1.4 Terrestrial Monitoring During Operation 

23 SCE&G has stated that there would be no preoperational or operational monitoring of 

24 terrestrial ecological resources at the VCSNS site or associated transmission-line corridors 

25 (SCE&G 2009a). The review team has not identified any preoperational or operational 

26 monitoring of terrestrial ecological resources necessary to prevent impacts on those resources. 

27 5.3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures for Operations-Related Terrestrial Impacts 

28 SEC&G has committed to employing mitigation measures for operations-related terrestrial 

29 impacts including the implementation of BMPs associated with transmission-line and corridor30 maintenance practices. As described in the above sections, these BMPs include the use of 

31 properly labeled herbicides in accordance with label instructions regarding the application rates, 

32 timing, and setting, as well as compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.3.1.6 Summary of Operational Impacts on Terrestrial Resources 

2 The potential impacts of operating proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on vegetation, birds, and 

3 terrestrial, wetland, and shoreline habitats are likely to be minimal. The potential impacts of 

4 transmission-line corridor maintenance and similar impacts on important habitats including 

5 floodplains and wetlands, birds, and biota because of EMFs are considered minimal assuming 

6 that BMPs are followed and State and Federal agencies are consulted, as appropriate. 

7 The review team assessed the potential terrestrial ecological impacts of operating two new 

8 nuclear power-generation facilities at the VCSNS site, including the associated heat-dissipation 

9 system, transmission lines, and associated corridor maintenance. Given the information 

10 provided in SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2009a), the response to RAIs (SCE&G 2009q), interactions 

11 with State and Federal agencies, the public scoping process, and the review team’s 

12 independent assessment, the review team concludes that the impacts from operation of the new 

13 facilities and associated transmission-line corridors would be SMALL, and additional mitigation 

14 beyond the BMPs mentioned above would not be warranted. 

15 5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operation 

16 The following sections discuss potential impacts resulting from the operation of proposed 

17 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on the aquatic ecosystem in the Broad River and Parr Reservoir, 

18 Monticello Reservoir, onsite streams, and water courses crossed by transmission lines. 

19 5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources – Site and Vicinity 

20 For aquatic resources, the primary concerns related to water intake and consumption are the 

21 impacts related to the relative amount of water drawn from the cooling-water source (Monticello 

22 Reservoir) and the potential for organisms to be impinged on the intake screens or entrained in 

23 the cooling-water system. Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the raw24 water intake screens by the force of the water passing through the intake structure used for 

25 cooling water (66 FR 65256). Aquatic biota subjected to impingement can experience 

26 starvation and exhaustion, asphyxiation (water velocity forces may prevent proper gill 

27 movement or organisms may be removed from the water for prolonged periods of time), and 

28 descaling (66 FR 65256). Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the raw29 water intake into the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling-water system. Organisms that 

30 become entrained are typically small benthic, planktonic, and nektonic (organisms within the 

31 water column) forms, including early life stages of fish and shellfish, which often serve as prey 

32 for larger organisms (66 FR 65256). As entrained organisms pass through a facility’s cooling 

33 system, they are subject to pressure, mechanical, thermal, and toxic stresses that are, in most 

34 cases, lethal. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-22 April 2010 

1 A number of factors, such as the type of cooling system, the design and location of the intake 

2 structure, and the amount of water withdrawn from the source waterbody, greatly influence the 

3 degree to which impingement and entrainment affect the aquatic biota. 

4 SCE&G indicated in its ER that a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system with mechanical 

5 draft cooling towers would be used for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a,). 

6 Closed-cycle recirculating cooling-water systems can, depending on the quality of the makeup 

7 water, reduce water withdrawals by 96 to 98 percent of the amount that the facility would use if it 

8 used a once-through cooling system (66 FR 65256). This significant reduction in water9 withdrawal rate results in a corresponding reduction in impingement and entrainment. 

10 Monticello Reservoir Intakes 

11 The intake design through-screen velocity greatly influences the rate of impingement of fish and 

12 shellfish at a facility. The higher the through-screen velocity, the greater the number of biota 

13 impinged. The EPA has established a national standard for the maximum design through14 screen velocity of no more than 0.5 fps (66 FR 65256). The EPA determined that species and 

15 life stages evaluated in various studies could endure a velocity of 1.0 fps, and subsequently 

16 applied a safety factor of two to derive the threshold of 0.5 fps. SCE&G (2009a) stated that both 

17 the CWS raw-water intake and the water-treatment plant intake associated with proposed 

18 Units 2 and 3 would have a design through-screen velocity of less than or equal to 0.5 fps at a 

19 minimum water elevation of 414 ft Northern American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) 

20 (SCE&G 2009a). 

21 Impingement and entrainment of aquatic biota are also influenced by the application and use of 

22 design and construction technologies aimed at minimizing impingement mortality and 

23 entrainment. The EPA indicated (66 FR 65256) that the optimal design requirement for the 

24 intake location is to place the inlet of the cooling-water intake structure (CWIS) in an area of the 

25 source waterbody away from areas with the potential for high productivity, where impingement 

26 and entrainment of organisms are minimized. Dames and Moore (1985) noted a high diversity 

27 and abundance of fish in the southwest portion of Monticello Reservoir and suggested these 

28 trends may have been linked to the delivery of nutrient-rich water from the Parr Reservoir via 

29 the FPSF. Since those data were collected, large fluctuations in the composition of fishes within 

30 the reservoir have been observed (Christie and Stroud 1997). Since the creation of Monticello 

31 Reservoir in 1977, the aquatic biota within the reservoir may have adapted to environmental 

32 factors (e.g., frequently fluctuating water surface elevation because of FPSF operation), biotic 

33 interactions (e.g., predator-prey, invasive species), or a combination of both. Based on the 

34 2006–2009 fishery data collection effort led by SCE&G (e.g., Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a) 

35 and the aquatic surveys conducted by SCDNR (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999), the community 

36 composition of fish within Monticello Reservoir consists of a diversity of species exhibiting an 

37 array of life-history requirements and habitat associations, such as shallow-water nesting for 

38 reproduction and benthic scavenging. The recent data documenting changes in fish community 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 composition and the diversity of fish present in the system do not indicate that the southwest 

2 portion of Monticello Reservoir is consistently more productive than any other part of the 

3 reservoir. 

4 Beginning in October 1983, after VCSNS Unit 1 commenced operations, a study was conducted 

5 for VCSNS Unit 1 discharge permitting where ichthyoplankton were collected during a 12-month 

6 study at several discrete locations within Monticello Reservoir to determine the types of larvae 

7 that would be subjected to entrainment at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake (Dames and Moore 1985). 

8 Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) accounted for 91 percent of the larval samples, followed 

9 by white bass (Morone chrysops) and perch species (Perca spp.), which accounted for 6 and 

10 2 percent of the collective samples, respectively. The remaining taxa encountered during the 

11 1983–1984 ichthyoplankton surveys included minnows (Cyprinidae), suckers (Catostomidae), 

12 centrarchids (Centrarchidae), and crappie species (Pomoxis spp.) with each accounting for less 

13 than 1 percent of the larvae sampled (Dames and Moore 1985). 

14 The results of a 2008–2009 ichthyoplankton study conducted by Normandeau (2009b) indicated 

15 a predominance of threadfin shad (D. petenense), whereas gizzard shad predominated in the 

16 1983–1984 Dames and Moore (1985) study. In addition, overall densities of larval fish were 

17 lower in the 2009 study. Dames and Moore (1985) reported that the highest densities of larvae 

occurred during May and June, with an average annual estimate of 53.9 larvae/100 m3 18 at the 

surface, and 11.8 larvae/100 m3 19 at mid-depth. While there are similarities in the temporal trends 

20 of abundance between the two studies, the 2009 ichthyoplankton study results indicate 

dissimilar trends in that total annual larval densities across depths were only 7.47 larvae/100 m3 21 

22 (Normandeau 2009b). Therefore, the overall abundance of fish near the southern portion of 

23 Monticello Reservoir appears to be lower than it was over 20 years ago. Differences in 

24 ichthyoplankton abundance may be attributed to a shift in the community composition within 

25 Monticello Reservoir such that blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) are now predominant (Christie 

26 and Stroud 1996; Normandeau 2009b). Furthermore, Normandeau (2009b) speculated that 

27 nutrients within the Monticello Reservoir may be lower than they were during the time period 

28 that coincided with the Dames and Moore (1985) study. In assessing VCSNS license renewal 

29 for Unit 1, NRC determined that although fish community composition had changed since 1985 

30 with the introduction of white perch (Morone americana) and blue catfish, the potential impacts 

31 from entrainment on fish populations in Monticello Reservoir would remain small. Survival of 

32 larval and juvenile fish is largely compromised by predation and competition and results in low 

33 percentages of fish that may survive to become reproducing adults (NRC 2004a). 

34 The projected annual entrainment of larval fish species for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 CWS is 

35 between 15.3 million for a normal pumping rate of 36,214 gpm (81 cfs) and 24.9 million for a 

36 maximum pumping rate of 58,800 gpm (131 cfs) with a through-screen velocity of less than or 

37 equal to 0.5 fps (Normandeau 2009b). It should be noted that no eggs for any species were 

38 collected during the 2008–2009 ichthyoplankton surveys. The dominant entrained species is 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-24 April 2010 

1 likely to be the threadfin shad, which is a prolific spawner, with females producing over 10,000 

2 eggs per fish and spawning in both spring and fall. Speculation as to the difference in 

3 population dynamics include a natural progression of community turnover, stabilization of 

4 reservoir water quality or alteration of incoming nutrients into the system, introduction of new 

5 species, and density-dependent interactions between predator-prey fish species (Normandeau 

6 2009b). 

7 VCSNS Unit 1 was designed as a once-through cooling plant to withdraw approximately 

8 767 Mgd (1190 cfs) from Monticello Reservoir (Geosyntec 2007). Units 2 and 3 are designed 

9 as a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers and would 

10 withdraw between 7 and 12 percent of the water needed for Unit 1 operations (SCE&G 2009a). 

11 Based on the small percentage of water withdrawn, the planned low through-screen intake 

12 velocity, the closed-cycle cooling system design, and the high fecundity of the most likely 

13 entrained fish species, the review team concludes that the impacts on the fish populations of the 

14 Monticello Reservoir from entrainment would be minor. 

15 Two impingement studies have been conducted at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake structure; the first 

16 occurred 10 months after Unit 1 began operation and the second study commenced during 

17 2005. In the first study, Dames and Moore (1985) collected a total of 5140 fish weighing 31 kg 

18 sampling at 2-week intervals between October 1983 and September 1984. The abundance of 

19 gizzard shad accounted for 82.6 percent of the impinged individuals and 51.8 percent of the 

20 overall impinged biomass. Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) accounted for 7.6 percent of the 

21 abundance and 8.0 percent of the overall biomass. However, numerically dominant taxa 

22 detected in the Dames and Moore (1985) study were not necessarily proportional to the 

23 biomass of impinged organisms. For example, white catfish (Ameiurus catus) accounted for 

24 2.4 percent of the abundance and 17.6 percent of the biomass. Species such as warmouth 

25 (Lepomis gulosus), white bass, and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) each accounted for less 

26 than 1 percent of the impinged taxa, yet these fish species each constituted approximately 

27 3 percent of the overall impinged biomass (Dames and Moore 1985). Assessment of 

28 impingement impacts during license renewal for VCSNS Unit 1 noted that non-benthic species 

29 such as gizzard shad, threadfin shad, white perch, and white bass are most susceptible to 

30 impingement and that overall impingement impacts are small based on the high reproductive 

31 and growth rates of these fish, particularly gizzard shad (NRC 2004a). 

32 As a result of EPA regulations stemming from Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, SCE&G 

33 implemented a 12-month impingement study, with bi-weekly sampling, at existing VCSNS Unit 1 

34 during 2005–2006. A total of 574 organisms weighing 7.9 kg were impinged between July 12, 

35 2005 and June 27, 2006 (Geosyntec 2007). The estimated annual impingement at the VCSNS 

36 Unit 1 during the 2005–2006 study period was 8042 organisms (Geosyntec 2007). Similar to 

37 the Dames and Moore (1985) impingement study, numerically dominant taxa detected in the 

38 Geosyntec study were not necessarily proportional to the biomass of impinged organisms 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 (Table 5-4). Threadfin shad were the most abundant, making up 50 percent of the impinged 

2 samples, yet these fish only made up 6.9 percent of the overall biomass. Blue catfish and 

3 channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) accounted for 12.2 and 11.8 percent of impinged samples 

4 while accounting for 16.1 and 12.5 percent of the biomass, respectively. White perch 

5 represented 9.4 percent of the abundance of impinged samples, and yielded the highest 

6 biomass (36.6 percent) of impinged species. Representing less than 5 percent of the impinged 

7 catch, gizzard shad and white catfish accounted for 12.9 and 7.4 percent of the impinged 

8 biomass, respectively (Geosyntec 2007). 

9 Table 5-4. Abundance and Biomass of Biota Sampled During the 2005-2006 Geosyntec 

10 (2007) VCSNS Unit 1 Impingement Study 

Common Name 

Percent of 

Total Catch 

Percent of 

Total 

Biomass 

Threadfin shad 50.2 6.9 

Blue catfish 12.2 16.1 

Channel catfish 11.8 12.5 

White perch 9.4 36.6 

Yellow perch 6.1 3.4 

Gizzard shad 4.4 12.9 

White catfish 2.6 7.4 

Bluegill 1 1.5 

Crayfish 0.7 0.2 

Flat bullhead 0.5 1.1 

Snail bullhead 0.3 0.6 

Flier 0.2 0 

Grass shrimp 0.2 0 

Hybrid sunfish 0.2 0.7 

Warmouth 0.2 0.1 

11 Both the Dames and Moore (1985) and the Geosyntec (2007) impingement studies detected 

12 similar patterns with regard to the size class of fish impinged at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake 

13 structure. The majority of impinged fish were of small size classes indicative of juvenile to 

14 subadult life stages (Dames and Moore 1985; Geosyntec 2007). Dames and Moore (1985) 

15 report that the majority of fish, such as gizzard shad, yellow perch, and bluegill 

16 (Lepomis macrochirus), were impinged as juveniles. However, the size classes of white catfish 

17 impinged during their study included juveniles as well as adult stages (Rohde et al. 2009). The 

18 overall size-class distribution of fish impinged during the Geosyntec (2007) study suggests the 

19 taxa typically subjected to impingement were relegated to small size classes (e.g., less than 

20 140 mm). Impinged fish ranged from 38 to 349 mm in total length (Geosyntec 2007), which, 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-26 April 2010 

1 depending on the particular species, can include a range of life stages (Rohde et al. 2009). 

2 While the majority of the impinged taxa were representative of juvenile or subadult life stages, 

3 an evaluation of the Geosyntec (2007) length frequency distributions indicated that impingement 

4 at the Unit 1 intake structure likely included adult threadfin shad, gizzard shad, white perch, and 

5 white catfish. 

6 Both impingement studies also noted similar patterns associated with impingement rates linked 

7 to seasonal changes. Impingement rates were greatest during winter months. Dames and 

8 Moore (1985) and Geosyntec (2007) attributed this pattern to cold water temperatures, which 

9 are thought to impose stress on some fish species (e.g., gizzard shad, threadfin shad), making 

10 them more susceptible to impingement. Dames and Moore (1985) also postulated that the high 

11 rates of occurrence of some species may be linked to schooling and migratory behavior 

12 (e.g., gizzard shad, yellow perch), or associations with habitat features near the intake structure 

13 (e.g., white catfish). 

14 Neither the Dames and Moore (1985) nor the Geosyntec (2007) study observed correlations 

15 between impingement rates and fluctuating elevations of the water surface in Monticello 

16 Reservoir resulting from the operation of the FPSF. While impingement rates were not linked to 

17 changing water-surface elevations, the size of the hydraulic zone of influence associated with 

18 the CWIS at Unit 1 was inversely correlated with the elevation of the reservoir water (Geosyntec 

19 2005). The hydraulic zone of influence was greatest during the lowest reservoir elevations, 

20 extending 555 ft from the CWIS and encompassing a surface area equal to 2.9 ac (Geosyntec 

21 2005). 

22 The fish most vulnerable to impingement include small size classes of fish that exhibit weak 

23 swimming capabilities, are particularly sensitive to cold water temperatures, demonstrate an 

24 affinity for habitats near the intake structure, and/or maintain life-history requirements that 

25 increase the likelihood of contact within the CWIS hydraulic zone of influence. Based on these 

26 criteria and the results of the Geosyntec (2007) impingement study, the most vulnerable fish 

27 include clupeids (gizzard shad, threadfin shad), ictalurids (blue, channel, and white catfish), and 

28 white perch. Collectively, these fish are commonly encountered and represent appreciable 

29 proportions of the standing stocks of fish in Monticello Reservoir (Christie and Stroud 1997). 

30 Furthermore, these fish are typically highly fecund and prolific spawners (Rohde et al. 2009). 

31 Of the fish most vulnerable to impingement, blue catfish and white perch are non-native to 

32 Monticello Reservoir. Impingement impacts from operation of VCSNS Unit 1 were determined 

33 to be small during license renewal assessment (NRC 2004a). Given that the impingement and 

34 entrainment rates for Unit 1 are based on a flow rate of 1190 cfs, and the CWS flow rates for 

35 Units 2 and 3 would require between 81 and 131 cfs, the reduced flow rates should result in 

36 lower impingement rates compared with Unit 1 (SCE&G 2009a). Based on the planned low 

37 through-screen intake velocity (less than or equal to 0.5 fps), flow rates that are at least 9 times 

38 less than those of existing Unit 1, and the high fecundity of the species sampled in the Unit 1 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 impingement studies the review team concludes that impacts from impingement of fish related 

2 to the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minor. 

3 Cooling-Water Discharge 

4 The effluent from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be discharged directly to the Parr 

5 Reservoir on the Broad River. Section 3.2 discusses the location and design of the discharge 

6 and outfall structures; Section 3.4 discusses the effluent discharge rates (Table 3-6). Discharge 

7 from VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations would be 21 cfs for normal operations (68 cfs maximum). 

8 As discussed in Section 5.2.2.1, this represents about 0.3 percent to 1 percent of the long-term 

9 average flow for normal and maximum operating conditions, respectively. 

10 Aquatic Thermal Impacts 

11 Heat Stress

12 Thermal conditions influence all aspects of aquatic ecology, which includes an array of 

13 processes: feeding, metabolic processes, growth, reproduction, development, distribution, and 

14 survival (Coutant 1976). In a general sense, biota are often able to persist (e.g., grow, 

15 reproduce, survive) under a range of thermal conditions. While many species exhibit similar 

16 tolerance for temperature regimes, growth and survival are linked to optimal thermal conditions 

17 that are driven by species-specific requirements (Kellog and Gift 1983). The thermal tolerance 

18 for aquatic organisms is defined in different ways. Some definitions relate to the temperature 

19 that causes fish to avoid the thermal plume, other definitions relate to the temperature that fish 

20 prefer for spawning, and others relate to the temperatures (upper and lower) that may cause 

21 mortality. The differing life stages of aquatic organisms often have different temperature 

22 tolerances and differing abilities to avoid temperature extremes. Spatially, thermal pollution may 

23 exist at the site or may include offsite waterbodies. Temporally, conditions that result in water 

24 temperatures that exceed ambient levels may be more pronounced during certain times of the 

25 year (i.e., winter). Finally, the consequences of thermal pollution within aquatic ecosystems 

26 may be confined to individuals or depending on ecosystem conditions, may result in a 

27 population-level response (Coutant 1976). 

28 SCE&G, using the CORMIX Version 4.3 model, discusses a mixing zone (where discharge 

29 effluent combines with Parr Reservoir water) of less than 25 percent of the Parr Reservoir 

30 channel width during a maximum heat discharge scenario (winter) to bound the maximum 

31 potential for plume temperatures and temperature differentials with the ambient water of Parr 

32 Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). In Section 5.2.3.1, the review team describes its independent 

33 assessment of the incremental impacts of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on the water 

34 temperatures in the Parr Reservoir. The review team used a range of mixing zone to channel 

35 width ratios (10, 25, and 50 percent) to independently assess thermal changes for comparison 

36 with SCE&G’s thermal analysis. The following review team analysis was based on the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-28 April 2010 

1 assumption that complete mixing occurs over the portion of the channel width that is specified 

2 (10, 25, or 50 percent) over the upper half of channel depth (Table 5-2 and Table 5-3). 

3 The 7Q10 flow rate during the summer season is used to assess potential extreme drought 

4 conditions, with only two cycles of concentration for a maximum discharge of 68 cfs. A mean 

5 low flow of 1469 cfs was calculated just for the months from November through April, analogous 

6 to a 7Q10 calculation (Toblin 2007) for flows relevant during the lowest ambient water 

7 temperatures through the beginning of spawning season. As noted in Table 3-6, blowdown and 

8 other liquid effluent would discharge to Parr Reservoir at a normal discharge flow rate of 21 cfs 

9 (assuming four cycles of concentration) and at maximum blowdown temperature of 91.8°F 

10 (SCE&G 2009a). Under normal operations with low flow conditions between November and 

11 April, the thermal plume would exceed the 5°F difference between ambient and plume 

12 temperature if the mixing zone occurs across 10 percent or less of the Parr Reservoir channel. 

13 If the mixing zone was extended to 25 percent, the thermal plume differential with ambient water 

14 would be less than 5°F. Under extreme 7Q10 conditions in the summer, none of the scenarios 

15 for mixing zone width violate criteria set by SCDHEC to not exceed 90°F, or be more than 5°F 

16 above ambient water temperature for the mixing zone (SCDHEC 2008). The flow reversal by 

17 FPSF operation is not expected to exceed the results presented above as representative of 

18 extreme flow conditions (Section 5.2.3.1).

19 Under the previous extreme assumptions used to assess the extent of the 5°F above ambient 

20 isotherm, a mixing zone that would occupy one-half of the Parr Reservoir channel width would 

21 still allow motile aquatic biota to avoid the affected mixing zone area. However, fish eggs and 

22 larvae would drift with the upstream or downstream current, depending on FPSF operation, and 

23 would not be able to avoid the 5°F above ambient isotherm. According to Schubel et al. (1977), 

24 some species of fish larvae may tolerate a temperature increase of up to 50°F above ambient 

25 for as much as 60 minutes, but no tested fish larval species has been documented to withstand 

26 increases of 68°F or more above ambient. These extreme temperature increases are not likely 

27 to occur within the mixing zone even under 7Q10 conditions during the spring season. One 

28 species present in abundance in Parr Reservoir, gizzard shad, is known to be particularly 

29 susceptible to mortality caused by sudden or extreme changes of temperature (Williamson and 

30 Nelson 1985). However, increases in temperature are generally more tolerated than decreases 

31 for this species as described below. 

32 Based on the estimated model simulations, the thermal plume may exceed the criterion (> 90°F) 

33 established by SCDHEC during specific time periods that are not concurrent to critical life34 history events of important aquatic biota (e.g., spawning, rearing). However, these 

35 exceedances may be very short in duration (<9 hr/yr), or may never occur (Toblin 2007). The 

36 most abundant fish in Parr Reservoir include gizzard shad, threadfin shad, bluegill, and white 

37 perch, all of which are prolific spawners (Dames and Moore 1985). Because at least three38 quarters of the width of the Parr Reservoir channel would be unaffected by thermal plume 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-29 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 impacts, it is not expected that these populations would see noticeable impacts in reductions of 

2 eggs and larvae. Based on the foregoing, the review team concludes that the thermal impacts 

3 on the fish populations from the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 discharge of waste heat to Parr Reservoir 

4 would be minor, and additional mitigation would not be warranted.

5 Cold Shock

6 Another factor related to thermal discharges that may affect aquatic biota is cold shock. Cold 

7 shock occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water, such as fish in 

8 a power plant’s discharge canal, are exposed to a sudden temperature decrease. This 

9 sometimes occurs when single-unit power plants shut down suddenly in winter. Cold shock 

10 mortalities at U.S. nuclear power plants have typically involved small numbers of fish and did 

11 not result in population-level effects (NRC 1996). Cold shock may also occur under extreme 

12 weather events and may adversely affect aquatic biota. For example, in January 1984 an 

13 extreme cold event resulted in the mortality of a large number of young-of-year gizzard shad 

14 within Monticello Reservoir (Dames and Moore 1985). 

15 Impacts on aquatic biota stemming from cold shock most often occur in winter months. Life16 history stages that can be particularly sensitive to perturbations in water temperature include 

17 larval and juvenile stages as well as spawning and egg development. Fish within the Parr 

18 Reservoir do not typically undergo these vulnerable life stages and life-history events during the 

19 winter months. Because there would be multiple units that are unlikely to shut down 

20 concurrently, the temperature decrease from shutting down one unit would be moderated by the 

21 heated discharge from the unit that continues to operate. In addition, gradual shutdown of plant 

22 operations generally precludes cold shock events (NRC 1996). Based on this analysis, the 

23 review team concludes that the thermal impacts on the fish populations due to cold shock would 

24 be minor and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

25 Invasive Organisms 

26 Invasive organisms found on the VCSNS site include two aquatic plant species (alligatorweed 

27 [Alternanthera philoxeroides] and water primrose [Ludwigia uruguayensis]), two fishes (blue 

28 catfish, white perch), and one mollusk (Asian clam [Corbicula fluminea]) (see Section 2.4.2.3). 

29 Neither these invasive organisms nor any other invasive species have been observed to have 

30 increased in numbers in the vicinity of the VCSNS Unit 1 thermal plume in Monticello Reservoir. 

31 Therefore, it is assumed that no large growths of invasive organisms are anticipated from the 

32 thermal plume for proposed Units 2 and 3 in Parr Reservoir. 

33 Based on this analysis of the potential for thermal impacts on the aquatic ecosystem of the Parr 

34 Reservoir, the review team concludes that the impacts on aquatic organisms from thermal 

35 discharges from the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minor. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-30 April 2010 

1 Chemical Impacts 

2 Another discharge-related impact includes the chemical treatment of the cooling water. The ER 

3 indicates that chemicals would be added to the circulating-water and service-water systems that 

4 would be discharged into the blowdown lines and ultimately into Parr Reservoir. Biofouling 

5 would be controlled using metered pumps that inject chemicals into the raw-water pipeline and 

6 into the service-water pump discharge (SCE&G 2009a). 

7 Chemical treatments proposed for use during the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

8 outlined in Table 3-5 in Section 3.4.4.1 of this EIS. These chemicals are the same that are in 

9 use for VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2009a). The water flow from the Parr Reservoir would further 

10 dilute the concentration of these chemicals occurring in the station blowdown discharge. 

11 The use of chemicals in the existing VCSNS Unit 1 is regulated by an NPDES permit, which is 

12 granted under permit number SC0030856. The chemical concentrations at the outfall for the 

13 existing units meet the NPDES limits (SCE&G 2009a). A new NPDES permit would likely be 

14 needed for the new discharge into Parr Reservoir. Sampling efforts in Monticello Reservoir 

15 since the operation of Unit 1 have not indicated any impacts associated with chemical toxicity 

16 (Christie and Stroud 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999; Normandeau 2007, 2008, 2009a). Therefore, the 

17 impacts resulting from chemical discharges from proposed Units 2 and 3 to the Parr Reservoir 

18 would likely be minor. 

19 Physical Impacts from Discharge 

20 Physical impacts can occur from discharge in the form of scouring, siltation, sediment transport, 

21 increased dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, and increased turbidity. The maximum discharge 

22 velocity at the diffuser ports is anticipated to range from 6.9 to 11.3 fps, during periods of two23 cycle operation (SCE&G 2009a). Discharge velocities are discussed further in Section 5.2.3.1. 

24 The diffuser line would be located near the bottom of the reservoir, approximately 10 ft below 

25 the normal minimum water surface (SCE&G 2009a). Riprap placed on the bottom of the 

26 reservoir to stabilize the diffuser would also likely reduce localized scouring. The maximum 

27 extent of scouring as a result of the discharge system is expected to encompass an area equal 

28 to 0.3 ac, or roughly one-sixth of the width of Parr Reservoir at the point of discharge (SCE&G 

29 2009a). Within this localized area, the benthic invertebrate community would likely be altered. 

30 Because this potential scouring is limited to such a small portion of Parr Reservoir, and would 

31 likely only result in only localized disturbance to benthic invertebrates, the review team 

32 concludes that the physical impacts on aquatic biota from thermal discharges from proposed 

33 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minor. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-31 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Stormwater Drainage 

2 During the period of operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, onsite streams (Mayo Creek 

3 and intermittent streams) as well as Monticello and Parr reservoirs could be affected by 

4 stormwater drainage. SCE&G has an existing SWPPP to manage stormwater prior to its 

5 discharge to Monticello Reservoir. SCE&G would revise the existing VCSNS Unit 1 SWPPP to 

6 reflect the addition of new paved areas and facilities and changes in drainage patterns (SCE&G 

7 2009a). The review team concludes that based on the use of a stormwater system comparable 

8 to the system currently used for the VCSNS Unit 1 site, the impacts on onsite streams (Mayo 

9 Creek and intermittent streams) as well as Monticello and Parr reservoirs from operation of 

10 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal. 

11 5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources – Transmission Lines 

12 Maintenance activities along the six new 230-kV transmission lines could lead to periodic 

13 temporary impacts on the waterways being crossed. However, it is assumed that the same 

14 vegetation-management practices currently used by SCE&G and Santee Cooper for their 

15 existing transmission-line corridors would be applied to the proposed new and upgraded 

16 transmission-line corridors (MACTEC 2008; FP&S 2008). SCE&G and Santee Cooper use 

17 practices and procedures developed to minimize impacts on aquatic ecosystems from operation 

18 and maintenance of transmission lines. Santee Cooper would continue to use its Right-of-Way 

19 Management Unit Plan, which addresses vegetation clearing or maintenance for stream buffer 

20 zones (MACTEC 2008). Methods include selective application of herbicides aimed at the 

21 removal of large woody vegetation that may ultimately interfere with the operation of 

22 transmission lines. Herbicides applied in wetlands are EPA-approved and their application 

23 would be aimed at controlling woody vegetation while still promoting low-growing, native 

24 vegetation. Low-growing vegetation along waterbody shorelines would be maintained as buffer 

25 zones (MACTEC 2008). Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper restrict the use of heavy equipment 

26 around stream crossings to prevent erosion and sedimentation (SCE&G 2009a). 

27 The review team concludes that the impacts of transmission-line corridor maintenance activities 

28 on aquatic resources would not adversely affect aquatic ecosystems, and additional mitigation 

29 beyond that described above would not be warranted. 

30 5.3.2.3 Important Aquatic Species and Habitats 

31 As described in Section 2.4.2.3, both Monticello and Parr reservoirs support a recreational 

32 fishery that consists mainly of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis 

33 spp.), and catfish (Ictalurus spp.). No Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic 

34 species are known to occur at the VCSNS site; however, six Federally protected threatened or 

35 endangered aquatic species occur within counties proposed for siting of new transmission lines 

36 (Table 2-20). Several aquatic taxa within Fairfield and Newberry Counties are State species of 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-32 April 2010 

1 concern (Table 2-20). In addition, some of the aquatic taxa encountered during onsite aquatic 

2 inventories have been identified as State conservation priority species, such as the robust 

3 redhorse (Moxostoma robustum), or are important recreational fish that are stocked to establish 

4 a self-sustainable fishery, such as the smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). These taxa 

5 (identified in Section 2.4.2.3) demonstrate a range of life-history attributes and habitat 

6 requirements. Particularly sensitive life stages include larvae and juveniles that are more 

7 sensitive to water quality. The intake and discharge structures and their subsequent impacts on 

8 aquatic environments would likely exclude habitat access or use in the vicinity of these localized 

9 areas in the southwestern portion of Monticello Reservoir and eastern nearshore area of Parr 

10 Reservoir. However, most of these species are motile and would likely move to adjacent habitat 

11 and would not be affected by operational activities. Impacts are not anticipated on the Federally 

12 and State-listed species identified in Section 2.4.2.3 from maintenance of the transmission-line 

13 corridors because of the BMPs that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would use during maintenance 

14 activities. 

15 Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species Summary 

16 Based on threatened and endangered species surveys, historical records, life-history 

17 information, known threatened and endangered species locations, and information provided by 

18 SCE&G in its ER and in responses to RAIs, the review team concludes that there would be no 

19 impacts on aquatic Federally listed species from operational activities on the VCSNS site and 

20 associated transmission-line corridors. More detailed analysis can be found in Appendix F in 

21 the biological assessments prepared for the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service in 

22 accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

23 5.3.2.4 Aquatic Monitoring During Operation 

24 SCE&G plans to perform operations-related monitoring for water quality as required by the 

25 NPDES permit (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G will also continue the voluntary monitoring program 

26 for water quality in Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). Monitoring associated with the 

27 SWPPP may also be implemented during operations (SCE&G 2009a), and SCDNR and 

28 SCDHEC may require specific monitoring activities as a part of their permitting process to 

29 assess potentially affected areas such as onsite waterbodies and transmission-line corridors.

30 5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts on Aquatic Resources 

31 With regard to aquatic ecosystems, operational impacts associated with proposed VCSNS Units 

32 2 and 3 are centered on the intake and discharge structures, but also include stormwater 

33 management as well as maintenance and operation of transmission-line corridors. The aquatic 

34 community in the vicinity of the VCSNS site consists of a diversity of biota with a range of life35 history requirements. Biota most vulnerable to entrainment and impingement include planktonic 

36 and nektonic life forms, respectively. As reviewed in Section 5.3.2.1, the low through-screen 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-33 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 intake velocity (less than or equal to 0.5 fps), the use of closed-cycle cooling, the population 

2 status, and reproductive potential of fish most vulnerable to impingement and entrainment would 

3 result in minimal adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem in Monticello Reservoir. The 

4 blowdown line would deliver effluent with thermal, chemical, and physical inputs to Parr 

5 Reservoir, which would be regulated by State and Federal agencies. With regard to thermal 

6 influence, a mixing zone that covers approximately 50 percent of the Parr Reservoir channel 

7 width would result in a thermal plume that would not exceed the maximum criteria established 

8 by SCDHEC. Furthermore, the temporal occurrence of such infrequent events (i.e., exceeding 

9 SCDHEC discharge criteria) is not concurrent to critical life-history events of important aquatic 

10 biota (e.g., spawning, rearing). Based on the foregoing, the review team concludes that the 

11 impacts on the aquatic resources of Monticello and Parr reservoirs and onsite streams from the 

12 operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated transmission-line corridors would be SMALL. 

13 5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 

14 Operations activities can affect individual communities, the surrounding region, and minority and 

15 low-income populations. This section assesses the impacts of operations-related activities and 

16 of the operations workforce on the region. Unless otherwise specified, the primary source of 

17 information for this section is the ER (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 Although the review team considered the 50-mi region when assessing socioeconomic impacts, 

19 the primary geographic region for physical impacts is the four most local counties (Fairfield, 

20 Lexington, Newberry, and Richland). As described in EIS Section 2.5, the review team also 

21 uses these counties for the economic impact area when discussing economic impacts such as 

22 employment, income, and output impacts from operations. 

23 The socioeconomic impacts of operating two new Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

24 (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water nuclear units at the 

25 VCSNS site include the activities and demands of the 800-person operating workforce 

26 supplemented by as many as 1000 outage workers onsite for about 45 to 90 days every 18 

27 months (SCE&G 2009a). 

28 Construction at the site is planned to span a total of 123 months or 10.25 years, with 30 months 

29 dedicated to site clearing and preparation and 93 months for construction of Units 2 and 3, with 

30 Unit 3 construction starting 24 months after the start of Unit 2 operation. According to SCE&G’s 

31 most recent Integrated Resource Plan (SCE&G 2009a), SCE&G expects to bring Unit 2 online 

32 in 2016 and Unit 3 online in 2019. 

33 5.4.1 Physical Impacts 

34 The potential physical impacts of operating the two nuclear units include noise, odors, exhausts, 

35 thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. The review team expects these impacts to be 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-34 April 2010 

1 mitigated by operating the facility in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local 

2 environmental regulations without significantly affecting the region surrounding the VCSNS site. 

3 The following sections assess the potential operations-related physical impacts of two new units 

4 on specific segments of the population, the plant, and nearby communities. 

5 5.4.1.1 Impacts on Workers and the Local Public 

6 This section discusses potential air quality and noise impacts on workers and the local public 

7 from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The VCSNS site is located in western Fairfield County, 

8 South Carolina, in an attainment area for ozone and for carbon monoxide. A description of 

9 baseline air quality characteristics is included in Section 2.9.2. Once the two new reactors have 

10 begun operation, they are not expected to produce any known air pollutants, except for (1) 

11 some combustion-related air emissions during the periodic testing and operation of the standby 

12 diesel generators and auxiliary power systems, (2) particulate matter created by commuter 

13 vehicle dust and exhaust, (3) odors from operations, and (4) operations-based noise. Because 

14 certificates to operate diesel generators require that air emissions comply with all applicable 

15 regulations, and because the operation of the generators would be intermittent and brief, the 

16 review team expects that the impact of the operations of the two units on air quality would be 

17 minimal. By enforcing access road maintenance and speed limits, dust generated by 

18 commuting workers can be minimized. The review team expects that during normal plant 

19 operation, proposed Units 2 and 3 would not use chemicals in amounts that would generate 

20 odors exceeding Federal and State limits. If these practices are followed, the review team 

21 expects that the addition of two new reactors to the site would have only a minimal impact on air 

22 quality. 

23 Most equipment would be located inside structures, thereby reducing the outdoor noise level. In 

24 addition, because Unit 1 is already located at the VCSNS site, SCE&G does not expect impacts 

25 to be significantly greater than current background levels (SCE&G 2009a). Ambient noise 

26 heard by recreational users at local parks under normal conditions typically does not include 

27 noise from the operation of Unit 1 because of the distance from the site, attenuation by the lake, 

28 vegetation, and topography. Units 2 and 3 would be located even farther away from the public 

29 than Unit 1. Noise levels below 60 to 65 dB are not considered to be significant (NRC 1996). 

30 The maximum sound level generated by the operation of Units 2 and 3 at a distance of 1000 ft 

31 would not exceed 60 dB, would not affect residents or the usage of nearby recreational areas, 

32 and would not warrant mitigation. 

33 The baseline level of traffic noise on SC-213 and SC-215 is relatively low and includes tractor 

34 trailers and other heavy trucking equipment. The annual average daily traffic (AADT) for the 

35 routes near the plant is as much as 2400 vehicles. SCE&G estimated the incremental noise 

36 from VCSNS-related traffic on these routes would not be significant and would not occur outside 

37 of traditional operations shift changes. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-35 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.4.1.2 Impacts on Buildings 

2 Operations activities would not affect offsite buildings. Onsite buildings have been constructed 

3 to safely withstand any possible impact, including shock and vibration, from operations activities 

4 associated with the generation of electricity at a nuclear power plant (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 

5 A). Except for VCSNS site structures, no other industrial, commercial, or residential structures 

6 would be affected. 

7 5.4.1.3 Impacts on Transportation 

8 This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and materials to and from the VCSNS site 

9 from three perspectives: the socioeconomic impacts, the air quality impacts of dust and 

10 particulate matter put into the air by vehicle traffic, and the potential health impacts from 

11 additional traffic-related accidents. The socioeconomic impacts are addressed here and in 

12 Section 5.4.4.1. The air quality impacts are addressed in Section 5.7.2, and human health 

13 impacts from traffic-related accidents are addressed in Section 5.8.6. 

14 Public roads and railways would transport workers, construction materials, and equipment to the 

15 site during operations. During plant operations, roads in the vicinity of the site would experience 

16 an increase in traffic over baseline levels, but a reduction from the levels at peak construction. 

17 Peak road use would occur at the end of each operations shift and at the beginning and end of 

18 each outage support shift. All of the access roads are paved, which reduces both noise and 

19 dust. No new public roads would be constructed or be subject to major modifications due to the 

20 operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Railroad deliveries during the operation phase would be 

21 less frequent than during construction. 

22 5.4.1.4 Impacts on Aesthetics 

23 As discussed in Sections 2.5 and 4.4, the existing 520-ft-tall Unit 1 containment building on the 

24 VCSNS site and the transmission line and towers leading into and out of the site are visible from 

25 a number of vantage points in the vicinity of the VCSNS site and have already aesthetically 

26 altered the area. The additional visual impact from operations compared with the construction 

27 phase would result from the steam plumes from the cooling towers, which would resemble 

28 cumulus clouds. The plumes would be most visible during cooler weather, and from on and 

29 around Monticello Reservoir (see Figure 5-2). The cooling towers and plumes would be most 

30 prominent to those using the Monticello Reservoir who could directly view the operation areas. 

31 Other recreation areas in the vicinity may also be aesthetically altered during weather conditions 

32 that increase plume size. Section 5.7.1 describes the effects of the plume in more detail. 

33 Because low-profile cooling towers would be used and weather conditions would vary the 

34 visibility of the cooling-tower plumes, the review team concludes that the marginal aesthetic 

35 impact of the new reactors and plumes would not be significant, and would be naturally 

36 mitigated by topography. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-36 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 5-2. Artist Rendering of Proposed VCSNS Unit 2 and Unit 3 Cooling-Tower Plumes as 

3 Viewed from Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009e) 

4 5.4.1.5 Summary of Physical Impacts 

5 Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the review team’s interviews with local public 

6 officials, and the review team’s independent assessment of the physical impacts on workers and 

7 the local public, buildings, transportation and aesthetics, the review team concludes that the 

8 physical impacts of operations at the two new proposed units would be SMALL and additional 

9 mitigation would not be warranted. 

10 5.4.2 Demography 

11 This section evaluates the demographic, economic, infrastructure, and community impacts on 

12 the region as a result of the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, with a particular focus on the 

13 four-county economic impact area and the communities in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. 

14 5.4.2.1 Demographic Impacts 

15 The baseline population of the four most local counties is estimated to increase steadily over the 

16 40 years of operation under the license (see Table 2-23). SCE&G projects a Units 2 and 3 

17 workforce of 800 operations workers, who would start arriving onsite during site development, 

18 as discussed in Section 4.4. The operations workforce is projected to increase from 635 

19 workers currently operating Unit 1 to about 1435 workers for all three units. The review team 

20 estimates that the majority of the new operations workforce, up to 600 workers (75 percent), 

21 would come from within the economic impact area. The review team expects that up to 200 

22 (25 percent) of the new operations workforce would be highly specialized and would relocate to 

23 the economic impact area because the needed skill sets would not be readily available in the 

24 greater Columbia area. The remainder of the operations workforce would be recruited from 

25 within the 50 mi region. Based on these assumptions and because the review team assumes 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-37 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 that impacts outside of the economic impact area would be minimal, even if all 800 operations 

2 workers migrated into the area, they would constitute less than half a percent increase over the 

3 baseline population of the four-county economic impact area. Therefore, the review team 

4 concludes that the demographic impact of operations workers on the local area would be 

5 minimal. 

6 In addition to the operations workers, each new unit would require an outage workforce of 1000 

7 temporary employees who would be onsite for periods of approximately 30 days for scheduled 

8 refueling outages every 18 months. The review team expects that outage workers would 

9 typically migrate to the area from all over the country and stay only during the outage period at 

10 temporary lodging as close to the site as possible. Having three units at the VCSNS site would 

11 increase the frequency of the refueling outages; however, the temporary nature of the work 

12 would generate only a minimal impact on the economic impact area, with little or no effects felt 

13 in the larger region. 

14 5.4.2.2 Summary of Demographic Impacts 

15 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review, the 

16 review team concludes that operations workers and their families would be expected to have a 

17 SMALL beneficial impact on the local communities and governmental entities in Fairfield County 

18 and the economic impact area, and a SMALL beneficial impact on the region. 

19 5.4.3 Economic Impacts on the Community 

20 This section evaluates the social and economic impacts on the four-county economic area 

21 expected as a result of operating proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. The evaluation 

22 assesses the impacts of the jobs, wages, project purchases, and tax payments on the local 

23 communities and surrounding region over the estimated 40-year duration of the nuclear power 

24 plant operating license. 

25 5.4.3.1 Economy 

26 The primary economic impacts of nuclear power plant operation result from jobs created, wages 

27 paid, regional purchases, and tax payments made in the course of operating the power plant. 

28 The impacts of plant operation on the local and regional economy depend on the region’s 

29 economy and population at that time and will be influenced by how the affected communities 

30 have responded to the impacts of the construction phase. Although future impacts cannot be 

31 predicted with certainty, consideration of historical patterns, projected economic and 

32 demographic trends, and consultation with local planners can provide some insight into the 

33 qualitative nature of these impacts over the 40-year period of plant operation. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-38 April 2010 

1 Section 2.5 of this EIS presents a detailed description of local and regional employment trends 

2 and workforce characteristics. The economic impact area has a relatively diverse and stable 

3 economy, ranging from agricultural and manufacturing on the peripheries to health care and 

4 research in Columbia. The 800 new jobs at the VCSNS site during operations are expected to 

5 constitute only a very small percentage increase over baseline income in the economic impact 

6 area. 

7 The jobs of operations and outage workers would have a multiplier effect in the local and 

8 regional economy, similar to that described in Section 4.4 for the construction phase workforce. 

9 The applicable Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) employment multiplier 

10 provided to SCE&G from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis is 

11 3.13 (SCE&G 2009g). This means that about 1704 indirect jobs would be supported by VCSNS 

12 Units 2 and 3 operations in the economic impact area, increasing the total number of jobs 

13 supported to about 2504 (not counting outage workers and their temporary effects). The review 

14 team expects that only a minimal number of jobs would be created in the wider region. Because 

15 the review team expects that 25 percent of the operations workforce would migrate to the 

16 economic impact area, only 25 percent of the total employment effects would represent a net 

17 impact on the area. Employment effects representing upgraded employment for in-area 

18 workers also would count as impacts. However, the review team expects most of the 

19 operations workforce and associated indirect and induced employment would come from within 

20 the economic impact area. Therefore, the review team concludes that the new jobs would not 

21 increase the local baseline employment significantly. Because the indirect jobs typically would 

22 be service-related and not highly specialized, the review team expects that they would be filled 

23 primarily by residents of the region and would not induce new migration to the region. 

24 Based on additional information supplied by SCE&G, total first-year operations costs for the new 

25 units are projected to be $668 million. This represents new spending in the economic impact 

26 area. The new expenditures would result in an income multiplier impact felt in the economic 

27 impact area. The applicable income multiplier provided from RIMS II is 0.33 (SCE&G 2009g). 

28 This means that for each dollar of new expenditure for output from the power generation 

29 industry, 33 cents of new income is generated in the economic impact area. Using that number 

30 as a basis, the resulting income impact would be $220 million in annual income attributable to 

31 the annual expenditures in at VCSNS Units 2 and 3, in addition to incomes received by new 

32 operations workers, which are part of the $668 million annual expenditure. Similar to the 

33 employment impact, this is not significant in the context of the greater Columbia area. 

34 Based on information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s own independent review, the 

35 review team concludes that slight beneficial economic impacts would be experienced in the 

36 four-county economic impact area. The region also would expect minimal but beneficial 

37 impacts. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-39 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.4.3.2 Taxes 

2 The tax structure of the region is discussed in Section 2.5. Several types of taxes would be 

3 generated during the operational life of proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Employees 

4 would pay sales, use, personal property, and income taxes; and vendors selling materials and 

5 services to the facility would pay a variety of State, Federal, and local taxes. The VCSNS site 

6 would be subject to property taxes paid to Fairfield County. 

7 Sales, Use, Income, Property, and Corporate Taxes 

8 To the extent that new operations employees move into the area from outside the state to work 

9 at the plant, the States, counties, and communities within the region would experience an 

10 increase in sales and use taxes and income tax revenues. This increase in revenue would 

11 come from both the taxes paid by VCSNS employees on their personal incomes, sales taxes on 

12 goods they purchase within the region, and from SCE&G for property taxes on the VCSNS site. 

13 Upon completion and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, based on additional information 

14 provided by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009f), the review team expects that SCE&G would enter an 

15 agreement with Fairfield County to pay from $13 to $31 million annually in property taxes over 

16 the 40-year operating life of the new units. Taxes in the new units would be in addition to 

17 existing taxes being collected by Fairfield County on Unit 1 operations. Table 5-5 provides more 

18 detailed information. Santee Cooper also contributes a minor amount of fee-in-lieu-of-property19 taxes to Fairfield County, but this amount represents only a negligible source of revenue. 

20 Table 5-5. Expected Property Tax Payments to Fairfield County from Operation of VCSNS 

21 Units 2 and 3

Operation Years 

SCE&G Average Annual Fee-in-Lieuof-Taxes Payments to Fairfield County 

2017–2019 $ 18,644,400 

2020–2034 $ 31,144,600 

2035–2044 $ 20,342,300 

2045–2056 $ 13,928,900 

Sum over 40 yr $ 861,265,100 

Source: SCE&G 2009f 

(a) Dollars are nominal 2007 dollars; 

(b) Assumes SCE&G’s portion of construction costs amounts to 

$3404/kW, excluding transmission costs. 

22 The review team does not expect significant growth in the Fairfield County tax base between 

23 now and the start of operations that could otherwise diminish the scale of the VCSNS tax impact 

24 on county revenue. The VCSNS-attributable contribution to the total property tax revenue for 

25 Fairfield County would increase by 150 percent to an amount that is more in each year than the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-40 April 2010 

1 current overall total property tax revenue of the county. Therefore, the review team concludes 

2 that property tax revenue impacts would be substantial and beneficial for Fairfield County. 

3 In addition to the property taxes paid on the value of the plant itself, the economic impact area 

4 would experience an increase in property tax revenues on new homes if the influx of workers 

5 results in any new residential construction and/or increases in existing home prices. This 

6 overall impact likely would not be noticeable because the operations workforce that is new to 

7 the community and their families would make up only a slight proportion of the property tax base 

8 in any county in the region. 

9 The current South Carolina sales tax rate is 6 percent for most goods and services and each of 

10 the counties in the economic impact area adds a 1-percent use tax to the State sales tax 

11 (SCDOR 2009). However, impacts in the state would occur only to the degree that construction 

12 and operations workers would be relocating from out of state or otherwise significantly upgrading 

13 their disposable income compared to previous in-state employment. The review team concludes 

14 that, when viewed in the context of total sales tax revenue to the State of South Carolina, the net 

15 impact on sales tax revenue caused by potential relocations to South Carolina, or from the effect 

16 of upgrading disposable income through better employment, would be minimal. 

17 SCE&G would be subject to Federal and State corporate income taxes on income generated 

18 from the new units (SCE&G 2009f). Table 5-6 lists the expected revenues from these sources. 

19 Santee-Cooper also would pay fee-in-lieu of income tax to Fairfield County. In all cases, when 

20 viewed in the context of the all income tax revenues received by Federal, State and County 

21 sources, these annual amounts would not be significant at any level of government. 

22 Table 5-6. Expected Corporate Income Tax Payments to Affected Jurisdictions from 

23 Operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3

Operations Years 

Annual SCE&G Federal 

Income Tax Liability 

Annual SCE&G State 

Income Tax Liability 

Annual Santee-Cooper 

Portion of Sum-in-Lieu 

of (Income) Tax Paid to 

Fairfield County 

2017-2030 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,030,000 

2031-2040 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,270,000 

2041-2050 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,520,000 

2051-2056 $ 89,490,000 $ 15,004,500 $ 1,780,000 

Sum over 40 yr $3,579,580,000 $600,180,000 $56,000,000 

Source: SCE&G 2009f 

(a) Dollars are nominal 2007 dollars. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-41 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.4.3.3 Summary of Economic and Tax Impacts 

2 Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the review team interviews with local public 

3 officials, and the review team’s review of the data on regional economy and taxes, the review 

4 team concludes that the economic and fiscal impacts of operations at the two new proposed 

5 units would be SMALL and beneficial for the region and LARGE and beneficial for Fairfield 

6 County. 

7 5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Services 

8 Infrastructure and community services include transportation, recreation, housing, public 

9 services, and education. The operation of two new units at the VCSNS site would affect the 

10 transportation network because the additional workforce would use the local roads to commute 

11 to and from work and possibly additional truck deliveries would be made to support operation of 

12 the new units. These same commuters potentially could affect recreation in the area. As the 

13 workforce migrates to and settles in the region, there may be impacts on housing, education, 

14 and public sector services. These impacts are discussed further below. 

15 5.4.4.1 Transportation 

16 Based upon the SCE&G traffic analysis, the review team expects that even if there is only one 

17 employee per vehicle, traffic would remain within the capacity of the access roadways, except 

18 for brief periods during shift changes. SCE&G anticipates some congestion, lasting between 10 

19 and 15 minutes, to occur during these shift changes. SCE&G has indicated that it would work to 

20 mitigate transportation impacts where they occur with possible alternate routes that can be 

21 made available in the future. However, if some employees carpool, the review team expects 

22 operations-related traffic to have a lesser impact on traffic congestion at the regional, county, 

23 and local levels. In any case, there are few residents along access routes to the site, which 

24 further limits the socioeconomic impacts of operations-related traffic. 

25 During refueling and other outages, about 1000 additional workers would be commuting to and 

26 from the site for approximately 30 days at a time. SCE&G stated that it would implement 

27 measures to stagger road use and reduce the number of vehicles by scheduling shift changes 

28 at times other than traditional high-traffic periods and minimizing drive time overlap with 

29 operations personnel. Mandatory carpooling, providing buses to transport employees, or other 

30 measures also may be warranted, particularly if the work schedule puts workers on these 

31 access roads during nighttime hours. Based on information from SCE&G and the review team’s 

32 independent review, the review team concludes that if the mitigation measures discussed here 

33 are implemented, transportation impacts resulting from operation of Units 2 and 3 would not be 

34 significant, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-42 April 2010 

1 5.4.4.2 Recreation 

2 Recreational activities in the area include many outdoor activities such as recreational boating 

3 and fishing on Monticello Reservoir, as well as hiking, camping, and hunting. Several State and 

4 county parks in the region provide facilities and recreational opportunities as do a number of 

5 lakes and forests in the area, as discussed in Section 2.5.2.4. The review team expects 

6 impacts on area recreation resources to be minimal during operations because the operations 

7 would not affect recreational opportunities. The aesthetic impacts of the plant operations from 

8 the vantage point of local recreational areas also would not be significant. 

9 5.4.4.3 Housing 

10 Regional housing characteristics and availability are described in Section 2.5.2.5. The proximity 

11 of a number of population centers to the VCSNS site, including the City of Columbia, offers a 

12 variety of available housing types. The other urban areas in the vicinity include West Columbia, 

13 Lexington, Irmo, and Cayce, which are all within reasonable commuting distances of the site. 

14 The operations workers who start work during the construction phase would not likely 

15 experience housing shortages as a consequence of the large increase in demand initially 

16 created by the onsite workforce due to the high growth rate of the area. The review team 

17 expects the majority of operations workers to come from within the region, and consequently, 

18 they would not represent new net demand for housing. The review team also expects Richland 

19 and Lexington Counties to receive the greatest number of operations workers and their families, 

20 and therefore, the greatest portion of the benefits and costs attributable to operations of Units 2 

21 and 3. Richland and Lexington Counties would also experience the majority of the impacts from 

22 outage workers for Units 2 and 3. Outage workers typically find temporary housing as close as 

23 possible to the VCSNS site, although SCE&G anticipates that most outage workers would also 

24 come from within the region and may commute to the VCSNS site during maintenance. 

25 The review team expects the loss of jobs after construction is completed would result in only a 

26 minimal decline in population or housing demand because the majority of construction and 

27 operation workers would come from within the area. For workers that do move into the area, a 

28 wide selection of housing is available throughout the area. Because the region continues to 

29 grow at a steady pace and is constantly developing new housing to meet the increased need, 

30 operations workers would have a minimal impact on housing in both the economic impact area 

31 and the region. 

32 5.4.4.4 Public Services 

33 This section describes the available public services and discusses the impacts of the operation 

34 of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 on water supply and waste treatment; police, fire-protection 

35 and medical services; education; and social services in the region. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-43 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Water-Supply Facilities 

2 Section 2.5.2.6 describes the water-supply systems and facilities in the vicinity of the VCSNS 

3 site. Potable water would be supplied to Units 2 and 3 by the onsite VCSNS water-treatment 

4 plant operated by SCE&G. Units 2 and 3 would use the Monticello Reservoir as their source of 

5 water. Monticello Reservoir does not supply any industrial, municipal, commercial, or 

6 agricultural organizations other than VCSNS Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3. As discussed 

7 in Section 4.4.4.4, the local water systems in the four-county area are expected to be able to 

8 meet the demand for water from the peak population during construction. Therefore, because 

9 the planned operations workforce is less than a quarter of the expected construction workforce, 

10 the review team expects local water systems would have no difficulty meeting water demand 

11 during the operations phase. 

12 Local water systems have already begun projects to expand capacity or are in the early stages 

13 of planning expansions in response to the population growth, especially in the area surrounding 

14 the VCSNS site. Based on information provided in Section 2.5.2.6, these water systems are 

15 generally not operating at or near capacity, and the system managers have been able to provide 

16 adequate water to their service territories and expand their systems when necessary. Because 

17 the overall population impact from the VCSNS site would not be a significant portion of the 

18 projected population growth, the VCSNS site is unlikely to cause water managers to implement 

19 their current water-supply plans. Consequently, because demand during the operations phase 

20 of the project would be substantially below the demand derived from peak construction levels, 

21 the review team expects the impacts of plant operation on municipal water suppliers would be 

22 minimal, and mitigation would not be needed. For additional discussion of water-resource 

23 impacts, see Section 4.2. 

24 Wastewater-Treatment Facilities 

25 As described in Sections 2.5.2.6 and 3.2.2, the VCSNS site has a wastewater-treatment facility 

26 onsite near Unit 1 and SCE&G proposes to construct another one to serve Units 2 and 3 

27 (NRC 2004a; SCE&G 2009a). The five wastewater-treatment systems in the surrounding 

28 counties have demonstrated an ability to expand when necessary. Because local planners 

29 expect the demand for wastewater treatment to grow during the period of construction as a 

30 result of natural regional population growth, any needed facility expansion would already have 

31 been put in place when operations begin at Units 2 and 3. Therefore, the local wastewater32 treatment systems would have excess capacity sufficient to meet the new demand from in33 migrating operations workers. 

34 Police, Fire-Protection, and Medical Facilities 

35 Based on analysis provided in Section 2.5.2, the review team expects that current levels of law 

36 enforcement and fire-protection personnel would be adequate to meet the need of the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-44 April 2010 

1 communities throughout the construction phase, as discussed in Section 4.4.2. Therefore, even 

2 without adding capacity during the construction phase, the impact on law enforcement and 

3 firefighting services from the operation of Units 2 and 3 would not be significant. A similar 

4 analysis applies to medical services, where the impact of plant operations on medical services 

5 for the region would be minimal. 

6 Social Services 

7 The review team anticipates that demands placed on social services related to operations would 

8 occur in proportion to the settlement pattern of the operations workforce. Based on the 

9 expected settlement proportions, no single county would experience greater per capita 

10 increases in demand for social services than any other. The review team believes the fact that 

11 Fairfield County is the host county of the VCSNS site does not imply that Fairfield County would 

12 receive any more impact on its social services infrastructure than any other county in the 

13 economic impact area. 

14 Once the transition to operations occurs, the review team expects the demands on social 

15 services during the operations phase to be less than during the construction phase. 

16 Consequently, because the construction phase impacts on social services were not significant, 

17 the review team expects the operations phase impacts also would not be significant. 

18 5.4.4.5 Education 

19 To meet the growing demands resulting from continued growth in the region, larger local 

20 districts already have begun to build and renovate schools. Because there would be relatively 

21 few new students coming from operations families, the review team believes the impact of plant 

22 operations on public schools would not be significant. The review team expects that school-age 

23 children typically would not accompany outage workers commuting temporarily into the area to 

24 work at the VCSNS site. 

25 5.4.4.6 Summary of Impacts on Infrastructure and Community Services 

26 The review team has reviewed information provided by SCE&G, visited the site and its environs, 

27 and performed its own independent review of potential infrastructure and community services 

28 impacts of operations on the local area and region of the VCSNS site. In all cases, the 

29 compelling argument in support of the review team’s conclusions is that the operations 

30 workforce would be less than a quarter of the size of the workforce at VCSNS construction and 

31 preconstruction peak employment. Therefore, any impacts derived from operations must 

32 necessarily be less than the same impact derived from construction. The review team 

33 concludes that expected operations impacts on transportation, recreation, housing, public 

34 services, and education would be SMALL and require no mitigation. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-45 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts 

2 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations would have no physical impacts on any non-SCE&G-owned 

3 buildings onsite or offsite and would have a SMALL impact on the physical characteristics of 

4 public roads and transportation in the vicinity of the nuclear plant. Given the plant’s location and 

5 the presence of Unit 1, impacts on visual aesthetics would be SMALL at both the local and 

6 regional level and, with adherence to BMPs for controlling dust and emissions, impacts on air 

7 quality also would be SMALL. Noise from plant operations is expected to be limited to the site. 

8 Noise from truck and worker traffic is addressed in Section 5.8.2. Consequently, the review 

9 team concludes that the physical impacts of plant operations would be SMALL, and additional 

10 mitigation would not be warranted. 

11 The presence of workers and their accompanying family members in the region and the 

12 economic impact area for operations would represent a SMALL impact on the economic 

13 characteristics of the region. The review team concludes that the social and economic impacts 

14 of plant operations would be SMALL at the regional level and SMALL on communities in the 

15 vicinity of the plant with the exception of economic and fiscal impacts, which would be LARGE 

16 and beneficial to Fairfield County. Community services and infrastructure impacts would be 

17 SMALL in the economic impact area and SMALL to those communities closest to the site. 

18 Traffic noise and congestion impacts would be SMALL and would not warrant additional 

19 mitigation beyond the commitments SCE&G has already made. 

20 5.5 Environmental Justice 

21 Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy under which each Federal agency identifies and 

22 addresses, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

23 effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. The NRC 

24 has a policy on the treatment of environmental justice matters in licensing actions 

25 (69 FR 52040). Section 2.6 discusses the locations of minority and low-income populations 

26 around the VCSNS site, vicinity, and region. 

27 The review team evaluated whether the health or welfare of minority or low-income populations 

28 at the census blocks identified in Section 2.6 of this EIS could be disproportionately affected by 

29 the potential impacts of operating two new reactors at the proposed site. To perform this 

30 assessment, the review team used the same process applied in Section 4.5. Figure 2-17 

31 identifies minority populations within the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site. Several 

32 minority and low-income census block groups were identified in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. 

33 Therefore, the review team concluded that more detailed analysis of these populations, 

34 communities, and pathways was warranted. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-46 April 2010 

1 5.5.1 Health Impacts 

2 The results of normal operation dose assessments (see Section 5.9) indicate that the maximum 

3 individual dose was found to be insignificant; i.e., well below the NRC and EPA regulatory 

4 guidelines in Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 and the regulatory standards of 10 CFR Part 20.. 

5 Section 5.9 further concludes that radiological health impacts to the operational staff and the 

6 public for the proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL. Section 5.8 of this EIS assesses the 

7 nonradiological health effects on the public from operation of the cooling system, noise 

8 generated by unit operations, EMFs, and transporting operations and outage workers. In 

9 Section 5.8, the review team concludes that the potential impacts of nonradiological effects 

10 resulting from the operation of two proposed additional units would be SMALL. The review 

11 team did not identify evidence of unique characteristics or practices in minority or low-income 

12 population that may result in different radiological or non-radiological health impacts compared 

13 to the general population.Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse 

14 impact on minority or low-income members of the operational staff or the general public as a 

15 result of operations. 

16 5.5.2 Physical Impacts 

17 5.5.2.1 Soil-Related Impacts 

18 As discussed in Section 5.8, the review team does not expect there to be operations-related 

19 environmental impacts on soils at the VCSNS site that would affect nearby residents, and there 

20 are no populations living on the site. Because soil impacts attenuate rapidly with distance, the 

21 review team expects that there would not be soil-related disproportionate and adverse impact 

22 on minority or low-income populations. Land-use impacts in the transmission-line corridors from 

23 operation of new units would be minimal and is not expected to have adverse effects on the 

24 population. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.5.3.1 of this EIS, the review team did not 

25 identify evidence of unique characteristics or practices that may result in different soil-related 

26 impacts compared to the general population. Based on information from SCE&G and the 

27 review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that the operations-related 

28 marginal impact from pathways related to soils from Units 2 and 3 would not impose 

29 disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

30 5.5.2.2 Water-Related Impacts 

31 As discussed in Section 5.2, the review team determined that operating VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

32 would create a volume of cooling-tower blowdown that would not be significant when compared 

33 to the river flow and would comply with the existing NPDES permit and applicable State water34 quality standards. These impacts would be regulated and monitored, and additional mitigation 

35 would not be warranted. As discussed in Section 2.6.2 of this EIS, the review team found 

36 evidence of some subsistence fishing in the site vicinity, but did not identify an operational 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-47 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 pathway that could result in different water-related impacts compared to the general population. 

2 The review team did not identify evidence of unique characteristics or practices in minority or 

3 low-income population that may result in different water-related impacts compared to the 

4 general population. Therefore, the review team expects no disproportionate and adverse 

5 impacts on identified minority or low-income populations. 

6 Based on Section 5.2, the review team concludes that Units 2 and 3 water use would have little 

7 or no effect on the availability of water for other uses. Based on Section 5.3.2, Units 2 and 3 

8 water use would have minimal impacts on the fish population of Monticello Reservoir or the 

9 Broad River. Therefore, the impacts would not warrant mitigation or cause disproportionate and 

10 adverse impact on identified minority and low-income populations. 

11 Based on information from SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review 

12 team concludes that given the relatively minimal impact on water quantity and quality in 

13 Monticello Reservoir, and the small consumptive water use of Units 2 and 3, there would be no 

14 operations-related disproportionate and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low15 income populations. 

16 5.5.2.3 Air Quality-Related Impacts 

17 As discussed in Section 5.9, the total liquid and gas effluent doses from the new units would be 

18 well within the regulatory limits of the NRC and EPA. The primary air emissions from a nuclear 

19 power plant such as VCSNS are water vapor and salt, which do not pose health dangers to the 

20 general public. In addition, air quality impacts attenuate rapidly with distance from the source. 

21 As described in Section 5.7 the review team concludes that the potential impacts from sources 

22 of air emissions would be SMALL. Other than their location within the site vicinity, the review 

23 team did not identify any evidence of unique characteristics or practices that may result in 

24 different air-related impacts compared to the general population. Given that the total effluent 

25 doses from the new units would be well within regulatory limits and given that airborne 

26 pollutants released from the new units would rapidly disperse to near background levels, the 

27 review team concludes that the potential impacts from operations-related sources of air 

28 emissions would not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low29 income populations within the site vicinity. 

30 5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts 

31 The review team determined that the addition of 800 new operations employees would have 

32 minimal impacts on local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; 

33 housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and 

34 schools). In terms of environmental justice, and as discussed in Section 2.6.1, the review team 

35 identified several census blocks that meet the criteria for minority populations of interest within 

36 the vicinity of the VCSNS site and the site access roads. Further investigation by the review 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-48 April 2010 

1 team also revealed a high percentage of low-income families within the same region (NRC 

2 2010a). The review team determined these areas may have a greater potential for 

3 disproportionate and adverse operations impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

4 Consequently, the review team further analyzed these areas of potential impact to determine 

5 whether or not such impacts would be significant. 

6 As discussed in Section 5.4.4.1, based upon the SCE&G traffic analysis, the review team 

7 expects operations-related traffic would remain within the capacity of the access roadways. 

8 SCE&G anticipates some shift-change congestion, lasting between 10 and 15 minutes and has 

9 indicated that it would work to mitigate transportation impacts where possible. Other than their 

10 location along access roads that may become congested, the review team did not identify 

11 evidence of any other unique characteristics or practices in the environmental justice community 

12 that may result in different impacts compared to the general population. Based on 1) the 

13 analysis presented in Sections 2.6.2, 4.5.4 and 5.4.4.1 of this EIS, 2) the intermittent nature of 

14 the operations-related traffic impacts, 3) the continued use of mitigation measures implemented 

15 by SCE&G to reduce construction-related traffic impacts, and 4) the lower traffic volume of 

16 operations in comparison to the volume associated with construction and preconstruction 

17 activities (i.e., hundreds of additional workers rather than thousands of workers), the review 

18 team determined that the operations-related impact from traffic would be less than the 

19 construction- and preconstruction-related impacts of traffic. Therefore, the review team 

20 concludes the traffic impacts of operations on minority and low-income populations would be 

21 minor, but not disproportionate. 

22 5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions 

23 This segment of the review team’s environmental justice analysis was performed using the 

24 same methodology as described in Section 4.5 of this EIS. 

25 As part of its visits to the site and region, the review team interviewed public officials and 

26 community leaders of the minority populations within the socioeconomic impact area in relation 

27 to subsistence practices. The review team heard anecdotal information about local subsistence 

28 fishing by the members of the communities of Jenkinsville, Dawkins, and Blair, South Carolina. 

29 During scoping, the community submitted informal survey data to the record (see Appendix D). 

30 The data give anecdotal evidence of isolated subsistence fishing in the Broad River and 

31 Monticello Reservoir. The review team reviewed these accounts and determined that there 

32 were no operations-related disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or low-income 

33 populations related to subsistence. Because adverse health impacts from the operation of the 

34 new units are not expected, potential subsistence fishing activity on Monticello Reservoir or in 

35 the Broad River would not have either a radiological or nonradiological adverse health effect 

36 (see Sections 5.8 and 5.9). The review team also determined that the impacts from chemical 

37 discharges to the Broad River would be minimal (see Section 5.3.2), and no additional 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-49 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 mitigation would be warranted. Therefore, minority or low-income individuals who may be 

2 engaged in subsistence fishing would not experience disproportionate and adverse impacts. 

3 The review team also identified other subsistence and income-supplementing uses such as 

4 hunting and vegetable gardening taking place in the rural areas of the region (NRC 2010a). 

5 Potential sources of radiological or nonradiological impacts from operations on these activities 

6 have been analyzed as part of the air, soil, and water pathways, which have been discussed 

7 separately in this EIS section. The review team determined these physical pathways to have no 

8 potential for a disproportionate and adverse impact on minority or low-income populations. 

9 5.5.5 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts 

10 As discussed in Section 2.6.1, the review team identified several census blocks that meet the 

11 criteria for minority populations within the site vicinity. The review team determined these areas 

12 may have a greater potential for disproportionate and adverse operations impacts on minority 

13 and low-income populations. Consequently, the review team further analyzed these areas of 

14 potential impacts to determine whether or not such impacts would be significant. 

15 Based on information provided by SCE&G, the review team interviews with local public officials, 

16 the team’s own independent assessment of the underlying assumptions of the analysis 

17 discussed in Section 2.6, and the analyses presented in the preceding sections, the review 

18 team did not find environmental pathways that would lead to disproportionate and adverse 

19 impacts on minority and low-income populations. Therefore, the review team concludes 

20 environmental justice impacts of operations would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

21 be warranted beyond that discussed in the ER. 

22 5.6 Historic and Cultural Resource Impacts from Operation 

23 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires that Federal 

24 agencies take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural 

25 environment, which includes archaeological sites, historic buildings, and traditional places 

26 important to local populations. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as 

27 amended, also requires Federal agencies to consider impacts on those resources if they are 

28 eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register) (such 

29 resources are referred to as “Historic Properties” in NHPA). As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, 

30 “Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” the NRC is coordinating 

31 compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA. Operating 

32 new power units can affect either known or potential historic properties that may be located at 

33 the site. In accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the NRC and the USACE are 

34 required to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties in the areas of 

35 potential effect and, if such properties are present, determine whether or not significant impacts 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-50 April 2010 

1 are likely to occur. Identification of historic properties is to occur in consultation with the State 

2 Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American Tribes, interested parties, and the public. 

3 If significant impacts are possible, then efforts should be made to mitigate them. As part of the 

4 NEPA/NHPA integration, even if no historic properties (i.e., places eligible for listing on the 

5 National Register of Historic Places) are present or affected, then NRC is still required to notify 

6 the SHPO before proceeding. If historic properties are present, then the NRC and the USACE 

7 are required to assess and resolve adverse effects of the undertaking. 

8 For a description of the historic and cultural resource information about the VCSNS site, see 

9 Section 2.7 of this EIS. As explained in Section 2.7, the applicant conducted several cultural 

10 resource identification efforts resulting in the identification of a total of 39 archaeological sites 

11 within the VCSNS site Area of Potential Effect (APE), most of which have been recommended 

12 as ineligible for listing in the National Register. Four archaeological sites have either been 

13 recommended as National Register eligible, 38FA330 (General Pearson Cemetery) and 

14 38FA360; potentially eligible, 38FA366; or recommended for preservation, despite not being 

15 considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register, 38FA349. 

16 These four archaeological sites are located within the project APE but outside of the proposed 

17 footprint of disturbance identified by SCE&G (2009f). SCE&G currently has protective 

18 measures in place for these resources, including fencing at the Pearson Cemetery, temporary 

19 fencing at 38FA360, and delineation of all four sites as sensitive areas on management maps 

20 and plant layout and design drawings (SCE&G 2009i, j). Proposed signage would read 

21 “Environmentally Sensitive Area, Do Not Disturb” (SCE&G 2009j). These protective measures 

22 would be identified and added to SCE&G’s Environmental Management Plan for VCSNS Units 2 

23 and 3 (SCE&G 2009j). In addition, SCE&G would provide cultural awareness training for all 

24 workers including awareness of signage and inadvertent discovery procedures for Unit 1, which 

25 would also be applied to Units 2 and 3 and described in SCE&G’s Environmental Management 

26 Plan (SCE&G 2009i, j, k). These procedures indicate that work would stop and SHPO would be 

27 contacted if inadvertent discovery of cultural resources occurs (SCE&G 2009j, k). 

28 The South Carolina SHPO concurred with a finding of no adverse effect on archaeological sites 

29 38FA330 and 38FA360 based on protective and avoidance measures being implemented by 

30 SCE&G, but would like to see the protective and avoidance measures formalized in a 

31 Programmatic Agreement (SCE&G 2009q). The SHPO also indicated that if archaeological site 

32 38FA366 cannot be avoided, additional archaeological testing would need to occur to evaluate 

33 this site for National Register eligibility. The SHPO also concurred with a finding of no historic 

34 properties affected for the 35 archaeological sites that are not eligible (SCE&G 2009q). 

35 To address the SHPO’s request for a Programmatic Agreement, SCE&G has agreed to enter 

36 into a management agreement with the SHPO to formalize avoidance and protective measures 

37 listed above as well as any updates made to the Environmental Management Plan regarding 

38 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-51 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 cultural resources awareness training and inadvertent discovery procedures (SCE&G 2009j). 

2 Consultation between SCE&G and the SHPO regarding the management agreement is ongoing 

3 (NRC 2010b). 

4 The review team has reviewed the construction and preconstruction activities related to building 

5 the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and the potential cultural and historic resources impacts. 

6 The review team has also considered the communication between the SHPO, NRC, USACE, 

7 and SCE&G and the consensus among all parties to pursue a management agreement that will 

8 formalize the protection and avoidance measures being undertaken by SCE&G to ensure 

9 protection of the onsite cultural resources (NRC 2009, 2010b). 

10 For the purposes of NHPA 106 consultation, the NRC and USACE do not expect any significant 

11 impacts on cultural and historic resources during the operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 based 

12 on the commitment by the applicant to pursue a management agreement with the SHPO, which, 

13 once finalized and signed, will formalize protective measures and inadvertent discovery 

14 procedures so that they are enforceable. Therefore, the NRC and USACE conclude a finding of 

15 no adverse effect on historic properties. 

16 For the purposes of the USACE NHPA 106 consultation regarding operation and maintenance 

17 activities in the transmission line corridors, because the cultural resource studies have not been 

18 completed for the transmission line corridors, the USACE cannot provide an official finding of 

19 effect conclusion for this portion of the project because the NHPA Section 106 process will not 

20 be complete until the management agreement is implemented. Consultation with the SHPO is 

21 ongoing, 

22 For the purpose of the NEPA analysis, the review team does not expect any significant impacts 

23 on cultural and historic resources during operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. All 

24 proposed onsite operational activities would occur within areas already disturbed by Unit 1 or in 

25 areas already surveyed for cultural resources for areas to be disturbed for building activities 

26 (SCE&G 2009g). SCE&G would follow the protection and inadvertent discovery procedures 

27 described in Section 4.6 (SCE&G 2009h) to confirm that known onsite cultural resources would 

28 be protected from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. In addition, SCE&G is pursuing a 

29 management agreement with the South Carolina SHPO that will formalize these protection and 

30 inadvertent discovery procedures (SCE&G 2009i). 

31 Operational impacts associated with maintenance of proposed transmission lines would entail 

32 mostly vegetation maintenance with access on maintenance roads (SCE&G 2009j). Any future 

33 procedures for avoiding impacts on cultural resources associated with operations, including 

34 protective measures and inadvertent discovery procedures, will be covered in the management 

35 agreements being developed by SCE&G and the South Carolina SHPO and Santee Cooper and 

36 the South Carolina SHPO (SCE&G 2009j; NRC 2009, 2010b). With the procedures and 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-52 April 2010 

1 management plan in place, the review team concludes that the impacts on cultural resources 

2 from operations would be SMALL. 

3 5.7 Meteorological and Air Quality Impacts 

4 The primary impacts of the operation of two new units on local meteorology and air quality 

5 would be from releases to the environment of heat and moisture from the primary cooling 

6 system, which consists of two mechanical draft cooling towers for each AP1000 unit (SCE&G 

7 2009a), the operation of auxiliary equipment, and emissions from workers’ vehicles. The 

8 potential impacts of releases from operation of the cooling system are discussed in Section 

9 5.7.1. Section 5.7.2 covers potential air quality impacts from nonradioactive effluent gases 

10 releases at the VCSNS site. 

11 5.7.1 Cooling-Tower Impacts 

12 The proposed cooling system for Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site consists of mechanical draft 

13 cooling towers. A total of four cooling towers would be constructed, two for each unit. 

14 Mechanical draft cooling towers remove excess heat by evaporating water. Upon exiting the 

15 cooling tower, water vapor mixes with the surrounding air and this process can lead to 

16 condensation and the formation of a visible plume. Aesthetic impacts from the visible plume as 

17 well as land-use impacts from cloud shadowing, fogging, icing, increased humidity, and drift 

18 from dissolved salts and chemicals found in the cooling water can result. 

19 SCE&G used the Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impacts (SACTI) computer code to 

20 estimate the impacts from the operation of the cooling towers. Engineering data for the 

21 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design and 3 years (2006–2008) of data from the Columbia 

22 Metropolitan Airport were used as input to the SACTI model. The top of each cooling tower 

23 would be approximately 70 ft above ground (SCE&G 2009a, j). 

24 Results from the SACTI analysis, as reported by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009j), indicate that the 

25 longest average plume lengths would occur in the winter and the shortest average plume 

26 lengths would occur in the summer. The average summer plume length is 0.34 mi (toward the 

27 east-northeast), and the average winter plume length is 0.74 mi (toward the east). Average 

28 plume height is also predicted by SACTI, and is found to range from 420 ft in the summer to 630 

29 ft in the winter. No cases of fogging were found in the simulations. Icing can occur when there 

30 is ground-level fogging and the ambient temperature is below freezing. No cases of icing were 

31 identified in the simulations. Deposition of salts from cooling-tower drift is estimated to be 

32 0.28 lb/ac/mo, which is well below the 8.9-lb/ac/mo threshold described in NUREG-1555 (NRC 

33 2000b). The predicted location of the maximum deposition is 3280 ft east of the towers. 

34 A number of other pollution sources in the vicinity of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling 

35 towers include the auxiliary boilers and generators operated at Units 1, 2, and 3 and the 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-53 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 combustion turbines located at Parr Steam Plant (SCE&G 2009a). The turbines are more than 

2 1.25 mi from the proposed cooling towers, and the boilers and generators at Unit 1 are 

3 approximately 4500 ft north of the proposed cooling towers. This distance is larger than the 

4 distance to the location of maximum salt deposition. The distance is also greater than the 

5 average wintertime plume length (which will generally be in an easterly direction). The distance 

6 between the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling towers and these other sources, as well as the 

7 orientation of the plumes, decrease the likelihood that there would be significant interaction of 

8 the cooling towers with plumes from other pollution sources for an extended period of time. 

9 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts from the operation of the cooling towers, 

10 including the interactions of the cooling-tower plumes and plumes from other sources, on air 

11 quality would be minimal. 

12 5.7.2 Air Quality Impacts 

13 Standby diesel generators and auxiliary power systems would be used for emergency power 

14 and auxiliary steam purposes. A small incinerator would be used periodically to dispose of used 

15 oil (SCE&G 2009a). These systems would be used on an infrequent basis and pollutants 

16 discharged (e.g., particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen 

17 oxides) would be permitted in accordance with the SCDHEC, as described in the South Carolina 

18 Code of Laws 48, Chapter 1,( SC Code Ann. 48-1 2009) and any applicable Federal regulatory 

19 requirements. These systems include the following (SCE&G 2009a): 

20  four standby diesel generators rated at 4000 kW 

21  four ancillary diesel generators rated at 35 kW 

22  additional small generators 

23  small incinerator. 

24 Based on estimates provided by SCE&G, the annual releases of criteria pollutants at the 

25 VCSNS site related to the operation of the onsite generators are listed in Table 5-7 (excluding 

26 the additional small generators and incinerator operated at various locations) (SCE&G 2009a). 

27 Table 5-7. Regulated Source Emissions (lb/yr) 

Source PM(a) SOx

(b) CO(c)

 VOC(d) NOx

(e)

Four standby generators(f) <1600 <5000 <1000 <1200 <24,000 

Four ancillary diesel generators(f) <20 <10 <60 <22 <280 

(a) PM = particulate matter 

(b) SOx = oxides of sulfur 

(c) CO = carbon monoxide 

(d) VOC = volatile organic compounds 

(e) Oxides of nitrogen 

(f) Assumes 4 hours of operation per month for each generator and use of No. 2 diesel fuel. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-54 April 2010 

1 In addition to the generators described above, particulate emissions would be associated with 

2 the operation of the cooling towers. These emissions would include particles with a range of 

3 different sizes, including particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and particles smaller than 

4 10 microns (PM10). As defined in the Clean Air Act, both PM2.5 and PM10 are considered criteria 

5 pollutants. The cooling towers would be required to adhere to the New Source Performance 

6 Standards (40 CFR 60.40Da) and a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for air 

7 emissions would be required before the cooling towers could be operated. 

8 Because these generating systems would be used infrequently (i.e., typically a few hours per 

9 month) and the cooling towers would be operated in accordance with relevant State and Federal 

10 regulations, the review team concludes that the environmental impact of pollutants from these 

11 sources would be minimal. 

12 The transportation of workers to and from the site would also result in both particulate and 

13 gaseous emissions associated with their vehicles. It is anticipated that the operations workforce 

14 would consist of 800 workers at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a). This workforce is much 

15 smaller than the combined preconstruction and construction workforce of up to 3600 workers 

16 that were concluded to have a minor impact; therefore, the impact from transportation of 

17 operational workers on the air quality would be minimal. 

18 Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality are addressed in the NUREG-1437 (NRC 

19 1996). Small amounts of ozone and even smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced 

20 by transmission lines. The production of these gases was found to be insignificant for 745-kV 

21 transmission lines (the largest lines in operation) and for a prototype 1200-kV transmission line. 

22 In addition, it was determined that potential mitigation measures, such as burying transmission 

23 lines, would be very costly and would not be warranted. 

24 Six new 230-kV transmission lines would be constructed to accommodate the new power25 generating capacity (SCE&G 2009a) from the proposed Units 2 and 3. This size is well within 

26 the range of transmission lines discussed in NUREG-1437, and the staff therefore concludes 

27 that air quality impacts from transmission lines would not be noticeable. 

28 Finally, the operation of a nuclear power plant involves the emission of some greenhouse 

29 gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). The review team has estimated that the total carbon 

30 footprint for actual plant operations for 40 years is of the order of 330,000 MT of CO2 equivalent 

31 (see Appendix J). For two AP1000 reactors, the total carbon footprint would be on the order of 

32 650,000 MT, compared to a total United States annual CO2 emissions rate of 6,000,000,000 

33 metric tons (EPA 2009). Periodic testing of diesel generators accounts for about 60 percent of 

34 the total. Workforce transportation accounts for most of the rest. Based on its assessment of 

35 the relatively small plant operations carbon footprint compared to the United States annual CO2

36 emissions, the review team concludes that the atmospheric impacts of greenhouse gases from 

37 plant operations would not be noticeable. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-55 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.7.3 Transmission-Line Impacts 

2 The review team evaluated the potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 

3 and greenhouse gas emissions from operating Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. The review 

4 team also evaluated the potential impacts of cooling-system emissions and transmission lines. 

5 In each case, the review team determined that the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the 

6 review team concludes that the impacts of operation of Units 2 and 3 on air quality from 

7 emissions of criteria pollutants, CO2 emissions, and cooling-system emissions would be SMALL 

8 and that no further mitigation would be warranted. 

9 5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

10 This section addresses the health impacts of operating proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

11 Nonradiological health impacts on the public from operation of the cooling system, noise 

12 generated by unit operations, EMFs, and transporting operations and outage workers are 

13 discussed. Nonradiological health impacts are also evaluated for workers at proposed VCSNS 

14 Units 2 and 3. Health impacts from radiological sources during operations are discussed in 

15 Section 5.9. 

16 5.8.1 Etiological (Disease-Causing) Agents 

17 Operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would result in a thermal discharge to Parr Reservoir 

18 (SCE&G 2009a). Such discharges of warmer water have the potential to increase the growth of 

19 thermophilic microorganisms (microorganisms that favor warmer water), including etiological 

20 agents, both in the CWS and the Parr Reservoir. Thermophilic microorganisms include enteric 

21 (intestinal) pathogens such as Salmonella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, thermophilic fungi, 

22 bacteria such as Legionella spp., and free-living amoeba such as Naegleria fowleri and 

23 Acanthamoeba spp. These microorganisms could result in potentially serious human health 

24 concerns, particularly at high exposure levels. 

25 Available data assembled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 

26 years 1996 to 2007 (CDC 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) report 

27 only two occurrences of waterborne outbreaks of disease from recreational water in the State of 

28 South Carolina. From 1989 to 2000, the CDC surveillance system for waterborne-disease 

29 outbreaks documented 24 fatal cases of primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM; a disease 

30 caused by Naegleria fowleri) in the United States, most occurring in southern states during the 

31 months of July and September (CDC 2008). Outbreaks of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or 

32 Shigellosis that occurred in South Carolina were within the range of national trends (CDC 1997, 

33 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) in terms of cases per 100,000 

34 population or total cases per year, and the outbreaks were associated with pools, spas, or 

35 lakes. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-56 April 2010 

1 Epidemiological reports from the State of South Carolina indicate a very low risk of outbreaks 

2 from thermophilic microorganisms associated with recreational water (CDC 2006). Two 

3 SCDHEC water-quality monitoring stations along Parr Reservoir located in or near recreation 

4 areas monitor for species that are indicators for the presence of other pathogens that may be 

5 present in the water. The main recreational activities associated with Parr Reservoir are fishing 

6 and hunting (SCE&G 2009a). There are no public swimming beaches along Parr Reservoir. 

7 No reported cases of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis occurred in Fairfield County in 

8 2006 (CDC 2006). 

9 Naegleria fowleri is common in freshwater ponds, lakes, and reservoirs throughout the southern 

10 states. While it is possible that the thermal discharge from Units 2 and 3 could have an impact 

11 on the abundance of this organism, the affected area of Parr Reservoir would be relatively small 

12 (Table 5-2 and Table 5-3) under normal operating conditions at most times of the year. In 

13 addition, because there are no swimming beaches on Parr Reservoir and limited public access 

14 to the outfall area, the likelihood of recreational exposure is expected to be minimal. Based on 

15 the historically low risk of diseases from etiological agents in South Carolina, the limited extent 

16 of thermal impacts in Parr Reservoir, and the limited opportunities for public exposure, the 

17 review team concludes that the impacts on human health would be minimal, and mitigation 

18 would not be warranted. 

19 5.8.2 Noise Impacts 

20 In NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff discusses the environmental impacts of noise at existing 

21 nuclear power plants. Common sources of noise from plant operation include cooling towers, 

22 transformers, turbines, and the operation of pumps along with intermittent contributions from 

23 loud speakers and auxiliary equipment such as diesel generators. There would also be noise 

24 from corona discharge associated with high-voltage transmission lines (SCE&G 2009a). These 

25 noise sources are discussed in this section. 

26 The primary sources for background noise at the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 location are 

27 railroad operations (~1 mi to the west), Unit 1 operations (~1 mi to the north), and occasionally 

28 from the Parr combustion turbines (~1.4 mi to the south-southeast) (SCE&G 2009a). The 

29 nearest residence to the site is 5800 ft away (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G states in its ER that it 

30 has never received a complaint about the noise produced by Unit 1 (SCE&G 2009a). 

31 The proposed units at the VCSNS site would use mechanical draft cooling towers. The ER 

32 states that noise levels as high as 55 dBA at distances of 1000 ft would be emitted from the 

33 cooling towers and intermittently run diesel generators (SCE&G 2009a). The exclusion area 

34 boundary is 3390 ft in all directions from the proposed site of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and 1300 ft 

35 from the proposed site of the closest cooling tower (SCE&G 2009a). According to NUREG36 1437 (NRC 1996), noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are considered to be of small significance. 

37 More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in the Generic Environmental Impact 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-57 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586, Supplement 1) (NRC 

2 2002). The criterion for assessing the level of significance was not expressed in terms of sound 

3 levels but based on the effect of noise on human activities and on threatened and endangered 

4 species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is stated as follows: 

5 The noise impacts ... are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently 

6 high to disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts ... 

7 are considered destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected 

8 area is essentially unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or 

9 breeding of a threatened and endangered species is affected. 

10 Noise sources during operation of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be sufficiently distant from 

11 the plant boundaries so that noise generated by the plant would be attenuated to near ambient 

12 levels before reaching critical receptors, such as the nearest residence, outside the plant 

13 boundary. Given the postulated noise levels for cooling towers and diesel generators, the staff 

14 concludes that the noise impacts would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

15 5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 

16 Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 

17 metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMFs associated with transmission 

18 lines (NRC 1999). Such acute effects are controlled and minimized by conformance with 

19 National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria and adherence to the standards for transmission 

20 systems. The potential impacts from EMFs of the existing transmission lines for Unit 1 at the 

21 VCSNS site were evaluated as part of the environmental review for license renewal for 

22 operation (NRC 2004a). Upon review, the staff concluded that the potential impacts for electric 

23 shock during the renewal term were minimal. In its ER, SCE&G states that three new 230-kV 

24 transmission lines would be required for Unit 2 and three new 230-kV lines would be required 

25 for Unit 3 to service new power generation at the VCSNS site, along with a new switchyard 

26 (SCE&G 2009a). The ER states that all new structures would be designed and constructed to 

27 comply with all NESC provisions that limit the induced current due to electrostatic effects to 5 

28 mA (SCE&G 2009a). 

29 With SCE&G’s commitment to design new transmission lines to conform to the present NESC 

30 criteria, the staff concludes that the impact on the public from acute effects of EMFs would be 

31 negligible, and further mitigation would not be warranted. 

32 5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 

33 Operating power transmission lines in the United States produce EMFs of nonionizing radiation 

34 at 60 Hz, which is considered to be an extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF. Research on the 

35 potential for chronic effects of EMFs from energized transmission lines was reviewed and 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-58 April 2010 

1 addressed by the NRC in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). At that time, research results were not 

2 conclusive. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 

3 research through the U.S. Department of Energy. An NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999) contains the 

4 following conclusion: 

5 The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely 

6 safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia 

7 hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory 

8 concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses 

9 electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory 

10 action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public 

11 and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The 

12 NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes 

13 provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern. 

14 The review team reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects to human health from 

15 ELF-EMF published since the NIEHS report, and found that several other organizations reached 

16 the same conclusions (AGNIR 2006; WHO 2007a). Additional work under the auspices of the 

17 World Health Organization (WHO) updated the assessments of a number of scientific groups 

18 reflecting the potential for transmission line EMF to cause adverse health impacts in humans. 

19 The monograph summarized the potential for ELF-EMF to cause disease such as cancers in 

20 children and adults, depression, suicide, reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, 

21 immunological modifications, and neurological disease. The results of the review by WHO 

22 (2007b) found that the extent of scientific evidence linking these diseases to EMF exposure is 

23 not conclusive. 

24 The review team reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects of EMF on human 

25 health and found that the scientific evidence regarding the chronic effects of ELF-EMF on 

26 human health does not conclusively link ELF-EMF to adverse health impacts. 

27 5.8.5 Occupational Health 

28 In general, occupational health risks for new units are expected to be dominated by 

29 occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) to workers engaged in activities 

30 such as maintenance, testing, and plant modifications. The annual incidence rates (the number 

31 of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers) for the State of South Carolina and the United 

32 States for electrical power production workers are approximately 1.7 and 1.9, respectively (BLS 

33 2008b). Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower 

34 than the average U.S. industrial rates, with a 2007 average incidence rate of approximately 

35 1.5 per 100 workers (BLS 2008a). 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-59 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and Occupational 

2 Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards (29 CFR Part 1910), practices, and 

3 procedures. Appropriate State and local statutes must also be considered when assessing the 

4 occupational hazards and health risks for new nuclear unit operation. The staff expects SCE&G 

5 would adhere to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards, practices and procedures during 

6 operation of the new units. 

7 Additional occupational health impacts may result from exposure to hazards such as noise, toxic 

8 or oxygen-replacing gases, thermophilic microorganisms in the condenser bays, and caustic 

9 agents. SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a) reports that it maintains a health and safety program to 

10 protect workers from industrial safety risks at existing Unit 1 and would implement the program 

11 for the proposed new units. Health impacts on workers from nonradiological emissions, noise, 

12 and EMFs would be monitored and controlled in accordance with the applicable OSHA 

13 regulations and would be minimal. Additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

14 5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the VCSNS 

15 Site and Alternative Sites 

16 The general approach used to calculate the nonradiological impacts of fuel and waste 

17 shipments is the same as that used to calculate the impacts of transporting operations and 

18 outage personnel to and from the VCSNS site and alternative sites. However, preliminary 

19 estimates are the only data available to estimate these impacts. The assumptions made to fill in 

20 reasonable estimates of the data needed to calculate nonradiological impacts are discussed 

21 below. 

22  The number of workers needed for operations was given in the ER (SCE&G 2009a) as 

23 800 (two units), so each Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site requires about 

24 400 operating personnel). An additional 1000 temporary workers are estimated to be needed 

25 annually for refueling outages (SCE&G 2009a). It was assumed that outages for the two units 

26 would not occur simultaneously. 

27  The average commute distance for operations and outage workers was assumed to be 20 mi 

28 one way. 

29  To develop representative commuter traffic impacts, a source was located that provides 

30 South Carolina-specific fatality rates for all traffic for the years 2003 to 2007 (DOT 2009a). 

31 The average fatality rate for the 2003 to 2007 period in South Carolina was used as the basis 

32 for estimating South Carolina-specific injury and accident rates. Adjustment factors were 

33 developed using national-level traffic accident statistics in the U.S. Department of 

34 Transportation (DOT) publication National Transportation Statistics 2007 (DOT 2007). The 

35 adjustment factors are the ratio of the national injury rate to the national fatality rate and the 

36 ratio of the national accident rate to the national fatality rate. These adjustment factors 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-60 April 2010 

1 were multiplied by the South Carolina-specific fatality rate to approximate the injury and 

2 accident rates for commuters in the State of South Carolina. 

3 The estimated impacts of transporting operations and outage workers to and from the VCSNS 

4 site are listed in Table 5-8. The total annual traffic fatalities during operations, including both 

5 operations and outage personnel, represent about a 0.8-percent increase above the 19 traffic 

6 fatalities that occurred in Fairfield County, South Carolina, in 2007 (DOT 2009b). This 

7 represents a small increase relative to the current traffic fatality risk in the area surrounding the 

8 proposed VCSNS site. The impacts of transporting operations workers to and from the 

9 alternative sites range from about a 0.3-percent (at the Savannah River alternative site) to a 

10 2-percent (at the Saluda alternative site) increase in traffic fatalities in the counties in which the 

11 alternative sites are located (DOT 2009c, d, e, f). These differences are solely because of 

12 differences in the average State-specific fatality rates used for operations workers and the 

13 county-specific baseline annual fatalities. Because these increases are small relative to the 

14 baseline traffic fatalities (that is, before the new units are constructed) in the counties where 

15 SCE&G has proposed to build the new units, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

16 transporting construction materials and personnel to the proposed VCSNS site and alternative 

17 sites would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

18 Table 5-8. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Operations Workers to and from the 

19 VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites for a Single AP1000 Reactor 

Accidents per Year 

per Unit

Injuries per Year 

per Unit

Fatalities per Year 

per Unit

Permanent workers 1.2 × 101 5.6 × 100 8.4 × 10−2

Outage workers 3.7 × 100 1.7 × 100 2.5 × 10−2

20 5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts 

21 The review team evaluated health impacts on the public and the workers from the cooling 

22 systems, noise generated by unit operations, acute and chronic impacts of EMFs at the higher 

23 power levels, and transporting operations and outage workers to and from the two additional 

24 units. Health risks to workers are expected to be dominated by occupational injuries at rates 

25 below the average U.S. industrial rates. Health impacts on the public and workers from 

26 thermophilic microorganisms, noise generated by operations, and acute impacts of EMFs would 

27 be minimal. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

28 evaluation, the review team concludes that the potential impacts of nonradiological effects 

29 resulting from the operation of two proposed additional units would be SMALL, and mitigation 

30 would not be warranted. The staff has not come to conclusions on the chronic impacts of EMFs 

31 on public health. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-61 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

2 This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of proposed VCSNS Units 

3 2 and 3, including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of the public and to 

4 the biota inhabiting the area around the VCSNS site. Estimated doses to workers at the 

5 proposed units are also discussed. Radiological impacts were determined using the 

6 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design with expected direct radiation and liquid and gaseous 

7 radiological effluent rates in the evaluation (see discussion in Section 3.4.3). 

8 Revision 15 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 2005) is a certified design as set forth in 

9 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted Revisions 16 and 17 of 

10 the AP1000 design. Revision 1 of SCE&G’s ER incorporates Revision 17 of the Design Control 

11 Document (DCD); therefore, the COL application and evaluation of radiological impacts of 

12 normal operations presented here are based on Revision 17 of the DCD (Westinghouse 2008). 

13 5.9.1 Exposure Pathways 

14 The public and biota would receive radiation dose from a nuclear unit via the liquid effluent, 

15 gaseous effluent, and direct radiation pathways. SCE&G estimated the potential exposures to 

16 the public and biota by evaluating exposure pathways typical of those surrounding a nuclear unit 

17 at the VCSNS site. SCE&G considered pathways that could cause the highest calculated 

18 radiological dose based on the use of the environment by the residents located around the site 

19 (SCE&G 2009a). For example, factors such as the location of homes in the area, consumption 

20 of meat from the area, and consumption of vegetables grown in area gardens were considered. 

21 For the liquid effluent release pathway, SCE&G considered the following exposure pathways in 

22 evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI): ingestion of aquatic food 

23 (i.e., commercial and sport fish); ingestion of drinking water; ingestion of meats, vegetables, and 

24 milk (assuming irrigation downstream of the plant using water from Parr Reservoir or the Broad 

25 River); and direct radiation exposure from shoreline activities, swimming, and boating (see 

26 Figure 5-3). The analysis for population dose considered the following exposure pathways: 

27 ingestion of aquatic food, ingestion of drinking water, and direct radiation exposure from 

28 shoreline, swimming, and boating activities. Liquid effluents were assumed to be released via 

29 the planned discharge structure into Parr Reservoir, which is part of the Broad River). 

30 For the gaseous effluent release pathway, SCE&G (2009a) considered the following exposure 

31 pathways in evaluating the dose to the MEI: immersion in the radioactive plume, direct radiation 

32 exposure from deposited radioactivity, inhalation, ingestion of garden fruit and vegetables, 

33 ingestion of goat and cow milk, and ingestion of meat animals. 

34 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-62 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 5-3. Exposure Pathways to Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974) 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-63 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 For population doses from the gaseous effluents, SCE&G (2009a) used the same exposure 

2 pathways as those used for the individual dose assessment (see Figure 5-3). All agricultural 

3 products grown within 50 mi of proposed Unit 3 were assumed to be consumed by the 

4 population dose within 50 mi of proposed new units at the VCSNS site. 

5 SCE&G (2009a) stated that direct radiation from the reactor buildings and planned independent 

6 spent-fuel storage installation would be the primary sources of direct radiation exposure to the 

7 public from the VCSNS site. However, SCE&G assumes that contained sources of radiation at 

8 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be shielded and would not contribute to the external 

9 dose of the MEI or the population. The assumption of negligible contribution from direct 

10 radiation beyond the site boundary is supported by the DCD (Westinghouse 2008). The 

11 containment and other plant buildings would be shielded and direct radiation from them would 

12 be negligible. The AP1000 design also provides for the storage of refueling water inside the 

13 containment building instead of in an outside storage tank that eliminates it as a 

14 source of significant direct radiation to offsite receptors. 

15 Exposure pathways considered in evaluating dose to the biota are shown in Figure 5-4 and 

16 include the following: 

17  ingestion of aquatic foods 

18  ingestion of water 

19  external exposure from water immersion or surface effect 

20  inhalation of airborne radionuclides 

21  external exposure to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes 

22  surface exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents (NRC 1977). 

23 The staff reviewed the exposure pathways for the public and biota identified by SCE&G (2009a) 

24 and found them to be appropriate, based on a documentation review, a tour of the environs, and 

25 interviews with SCE&G staff and contractors during the site visit in March 2009. 

26 5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public 

27 SCE&G calculated the dose to the MEI and the population living within a 50-mi radius of the site 

28 from the liquid and gaseous effluent release pathways (SCE&G 2009a). As discussed in 

29 Section 5.9.1, direct radiation exposure to the MEI from sources of radiation at proposed 

30 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be negligible. 

31 5.9.2.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway 

32 Liquid pathway doses were calculated using the LADTAP II computer program (Strenge et al. 

33 1986). The following activities were considered in the dose calculations: (1) consumption of 

34 drinking water contaminated by liquid effluents, (2) consumption of fish from water sources 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-64 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 5-4. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other Than Man (adapted from Soldat et al. 1974) 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-65 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 contaminated by liquid effluents, (3) consumption of crops, milk, and meat produced on land 

2 irrigated with water contaminated by liquid effluents, and (4) direct radiation from waterbodies 

3 contaminated by liquid effluents during swimming, boating, and recreation along the shoreline. 

4 The liquid effluent releases used in the estimates of dose are found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER 

5 (SCE&G 2009a) and listed in Table G-1 of Appendix G of this EIS. Other parameters used as 

6 inputs to the LADTAP II program include effluent discharge rate, dilution factor for discharge, 

7 transit time to receptor, and liquid pathway consumption and usage factors (i.e., fish 

8 consumption and drinking water consumption), and are found in Table 5.4-1 of the ER (SCE&G 

9 2009a). 

10 SCE&G calculated liquid pathway doses to the MEI as shown in Table 5-9 (SCE&G 2009k). 

11 The MEI was an adult with the majority of the dose from fish and other organisms. The 

12 maximally exposed organ was the gastrointestinal tract of an adult. 

13 Table 5-9. Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual for Liquid Effluent Releases 

14 from a New Unit 

Pathway Age Group 

Total Body 

(mrem/yr) 

Maximum Organ 

(GI-LLI) 

(mrem/yr) 

Thyroid 

(mrem/yr) 

Drinking Water Adult 0.029 0.035 0.041 

 Teen 0.020 0.025 0.031 

 Child 0.038 0.042 0.064 

Fish and Other Organisms Adult 0.058 0.006 0.006 

 Teen 0.033 0.005 0.005 

 Child 0.013 0.002 0.006 

Irrigated Land Adult 0.052 0.456 0.058 

 Teen 0.056 0.330 0.071 

 Child 0.078 0.252 0.122 

Direct Radiation Adult 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

 Teen 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 

 Child 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

Total Adult 0.139 0.497 0.104 

 Teen 0.110 0.360 0.108 

 Child 0.129 0.296 0.192 

Source: SCE&G 2009k (LADTAP output attached to NND-09-0203) 

GI-LLI = gastrointestinal-lower large intestine 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-66 April 2010 

1 The staff recognizes the LADTAP II computer program as an appropriate method for calculating 

2 dose to the MEI for liquid effluent releases. All input parameters used in SCE&G calculations 

3 were judged by the NRC staff to be appropriate. 

4 The staff performed an independent evaluation of liquid pathway doses and found similar 

5 results. The results of the NRC staff’s independent review are found in Appendix G. 

6 5.9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway 

7 Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI were calculated by SCE&G using the GASPAR II computer 

8 program (Strenge et al. 1987) at the nearest residence and the exclusion area boundary. The 

9 GASPAR II computer program was also used to calculate annual population doses. The 

10 following activities were considered in the dose calculations: (1) direct radiation from immersion 

11 in the gaseous effluent cloud and from particulates deposited on the ground, (2) inhalation of 

12 gases and particulates, (3) ingestion of meat from animals eating contaminated grass, 

13 (4) ingestion of milk from animals eating contaminated grass, and (5) ingestion of garden 

14 vegetables contaminated by gases and particulates. The gaseous effluent releases used in the 

15 estimate of dose to the MEI and population are found in Table 3.5-2 of the ER (SCE&G 2009a) 

16 and Table G-4 of Appendix G. Other parameters used as inputs to the GASPAR II program, 

17 including population data, atmospheric dispersion factors, ground deposition factors, receptor 

18 locations, and consumption factors, are found in Tables 2.5-1, 2.7-19 through 2.7-25, and 5.4-3 

19 through 5.4-5 of the ER (SCE&G 2009a). Gaseous pathway doses to the MEI calculated by 

20 SCE&G are found in Table 5-10. 

21 The staff recognizes the GASPAR II computer program as an appropriate tool for calculating 

22 dose to the MEI and population from gaseous effluent releases. The staff reviewed the input 

23 parameters and values used by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a) for appropriateness, including 

24 references made to the AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2008). The staff concluded that the 

25 assumed input parameters and values used by SCE&G were appropriate. The staff performed 

26 an independent evaluation of the gaseous pathway doses and obtained similar results for the 

27 MEI (see Appendix G for details). 

28 5.9.3 Impacts on a Member of the Public 

29 This section describes the staff’s evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological releases 

30 and direct radiation of two units at the VCSNS site. The evaluation addresses dose from 

31 operations to the MEI located at the VCSNS site and the population dose (collective dose to the 

32 population within 50 mi) around the VCSNS site. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-67 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 5-10. Annual Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous Effluent 

Releases for a New Unit(a) 2 

Pathway 

Age 

Group 

Total Body 

Dose 

(mrem/yr) 

Max Organ 

(mrem/yr) 

Skin Dose 

(mrem/yr) 

Thyroid Dose

(mrem/yr) 

Plume (1.68 mi. SE) All 0.060 0.065 (lung) 0.33 0.060 

Ground (1.68 mi. SE) All 0.030 0.030 (lung) 0.035 0.030 

Inhalation (1.68 mi. SE) Adult 

Teen 

Child 

Infant 

0.0074 

0.0075 

0.0066 

0.0038 

0.0094 (lung) 

0.011 (lung) 

0.0092 (lung) 

0.0056 (lung) 

0.0072 

0.0072 

0.0064 

0.0037 

0.066 

0.083 

0.096 

0.086 

Vegetable (1.68 mi. SE) Adult 

Teen 

Child 

0.056 

0.083 

0.18 

0.29 (bone) 

0.44 (bone) 

1.00 (bone) 

0.048 

0.073 

0.17 

0.66 

0.89 

1.7 

Meat (1.68 mi. SE) Adult 

Teen 

Child 

0.017 

0.013 

0.024 

0.072 (bone) 

0.061 (bone) 

0.11 (bone) 

0.016 

0.013 

0.024 

0.040 

0.030 

0.050 

Cow milk (1.68 mi. SE) Adult 

Teen 

Child 

Infant 

0.025 

0.040 

0.085 

0.17 

0.086(b) (bone)

0.16(b) (bone) 

0.38(b) (bone) 

0.73(b) (bone) 

0.020 

0.034 

0.078 

0.16 

0.70 

1.1 

2.2 

5.3 

Goat milk (1.68 mi. SE) Adult 

Teen 

Child 

Infant 

0.038 

0.054 

0.10 

0.19 

0.10(b) (bone) 

0.18(b) (bone) 

0.43(b) (bone) 

0.81(b) (bone) 

0.024 

0.040 

0.088 

0.17 

0.92 

1.5 

2.9 

7.0 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(a) Maximally exposed total body individual is the child of resident gardener at 1.68 mi southeast of VCSNS Units 2 

and 3. Adult, teen, and infant doses are presented as additional information. Ground-level releases were 

assumed. Doses are based on one year’s meteorological data. 

(b) SCE&G 2009k 

3 5.9.3.1 Maximally Exposed Individual 

4 SCE&G stated that total body and organ dose estimates to the MEI from liquid and gaseous 

5 effluents from each new unit would be within the dose design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, 

6 Appendix I (SCE&G 2009a). Doses from liquid effluents from the use of Parr Reservoir to the 

7 total body and maximum organ at the nearest residence from liquid effluents would be well 

8 within the respective 3-mrem/yr and 10 mrem/yr Appendix I dose design objectives. Doses at 

9 the exclusion area boundary from gaseous effluents would be well within the Appendix I dose 

10 design objectives of 10 mrad/yr air dose from gamma radiation, 20 mrad/yr air dose from beta 

11 radiation, 5 mrem/yr to the total body, and 15 mrem/yr to the skin. In addition, dose to the 

12 thyroid from gaseous effluents would be within the 15 mrem/yr Appendix I dose design 

13 objective. A comparison of dose estimates for each of two new units to the Appendix I dose 

14 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-68 April 2010 

1 design objectives is found in Table 5-11. The staff completed an independent evaluation of 

2 compliance with Appendix I dose design objectives and found similar results, as shown in 

3 Appendix G. 

4 Table 5-11. Comparisons of MEI Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents for a 

5 Single New Nuclear Unit to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Dose Design Objectives 

Radionuclide 

Releases/Dose 

SCE&G 

Dose Estimates 

Appendix I 

Design Objectives 

Liquid effluents(a) 

 Total body dose 0.14 mrem 3 mrem 

 Maximum organ dose 0.50 mrem 10 mrem 

Gaseous effluents(b) (noble gases only) 

 Gamma air dose 0.74 mrad 10 mrad 

 Beta air dose 3.1 mrad 20 mrad 

 Total body dose 0.60 mrem 5 mrem 

 Skin dose 2.4 mrem 15 mrem 

Gaseous effluents(c)

 (radioiodines and particulates) 

 Maximum organ dose (thyroid) 7.2 mrem(d) 15 mrem 

Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(a) Total body and GI-LLI doses are for an adult using the Parr Reservoir. 

(b) Southeast Site Boundary; ground-level releases assumed. 

(c) Includes tritium, carbon-14, food chain, and inhalation doses. 

(d) Infant drinking home-produced goat milk. 

6 SCE&G compared the combined dose estimates from direct radiation and gaseous and liquid 

7 effluents from existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3 with the 40 CFR Part 190 standards 

8 (Table 5-12) (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G stated that the total body and organ dose estimates to 

9 the MEI from liquid and gaseous effluents for VCSNS Unit 1 would be less than the estimates 

10 from Units 2 and 3 and well within the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Direct 

11 radiation doses from the existing VCSNS Unit 1 at the site boundary do not vary significantly 

12 from background radiation levels (SCE&G 2009s). As stated in Section 5.9.1, exposure at the 

13 site boundary from direct radiation sources at the proposed new Units 2 and 3 would be 

14 negligible and would not contribute significantly to the MEI dose. Table 5-12 shows SCE&G’s 

15 assessment that the total doses to the MEI from liquid and gaseous effluent as well as direct 

16 radiation at the VCSNS site would be well below the 40 CFR Part 190 standards. The staff 

17 completed an independent evaluation of compliance with 40 CFR Part 190 standards and found 

18 similar results, as shown in Appendix G. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-69 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 5-12. Comparison of Maximally Exposed Individual Dose Rates with 40 CFR Part 190(a) 

2 Criteria 

Unit 1 Units 2 and 3

Site Total 

(mrem/yr) 

40 CFR Part 

190 Dose 

Standards 

(mrem/yr) 

Combined Liquid 

and Gaseous 

(mrem/yr) 

Liquid 

(mrem/yr) 

Gaseous 

(mrem/yr) 

Combined 

(mrem/yr) 

Whole body dose 1.2 0.28 0.80 1.1 2.3 25 

Thyroid 0.043 0.38 (infant, 

goat milk) 

14 (infant. goat 

milk) 

15 15 75 

Other organ 0.043 (bone) 3.3 (child 

bone) 

3.3 (child bone) 3.6 3.6 25 

Source: SCE&G 2009o 

3 5.9.3.2 Population Dose 

4 SCE&G estimated the collective total body dose within the 50-mi radius of the proposed VCSNS 

5 Units 2 and 3 to be 29 person-rem/yr from liquid effluents and 5.8 person-rem/yr from gaseous 

6 effluents (SCE&G 2009o). The staff estimated the collective dose to the same population from 

7 background radiation to be 663,000 person-rem/yr (NCRP 2009). The dose from background 

8 radiation was calculated by multiplying the 50-mi population estimate for 2060 of approximately 

9 2,131,394 people by the annual background dose rate of 311 mrem/yr (NCRP 2009). SCE&G 

10 calculated a higher dose from background because it included radiation from medical practice. 

11 Collective dose from the gaseous and liquid effluent pathways was estimated using the 

12 GASPAR II and LADTAP II computer codes, respectively. The staff performed an independent 

13 evaluation of population doses and obtained similar results (see Appendix G). 

14 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing 

15 cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 

16 Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship 

17 between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the National 

18 Research Council (2006), the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report, uses the 

19 linear, no-threshold dose response model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. 

20 This approach is accepted by the NRC as a conservative method for estimating health risks from 

21 radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this 

22 method, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal 

23 probability coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, 

24 nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), 

25 equal to 0.00057 effect per person-rem. The coefficient is taken from Publication 103 of the 

26 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 2007). 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-70 April 2010 

1 Both the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and ICRP 

2 suggest that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the reciprocal of the relevant risk 

3 detriment (in other words, less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 1754 person-rem), the risk 

4 assessment should note that the most likely number of excess health effects is zero (NCRP 

5 1995; ICRP 2007). The estimated collective whole body dose to the population living within 

6 50 mi of the proposed new units at the VCSNS site is 29 person-rem/yr (SCE&G 2009o), which 

7 is less than the value of 1754 person-rem/yr that ICRP and NCRP suggest would most likely 

8 result in zero excess health effects (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). 

9 In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a 

10 study and published, “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities,” in 1990 (Jablon 

11 1990). The NCI report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power 

12 plants, as well as several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the United States in 

13 1981 and found “no evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near 

14 nuclear facilities” (Jablon 1990). 

15 5.9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts on Members of the Public 

16 The staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent 

17 releases from the new units at the VCSNS site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G 

18 and NRC’s independent evaluation, the staff concludes there would be no observable health 

19 impacts on the public from normal operation of the new units, the health impacts would be 

20 SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

21 5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers 

22 At the VCSNS site, the annual occupational collective dose for 2005 through 2008 averaged 

23 43 person-rem for the existing VCSNS Unit 1 (SCE&G 2006b, 2007a, 2008a, 2009l). The 

24 collective occupational dose for a single AP1000 reactor was estimated at 67.1 person-rem/yr in 

25 the DCD (Westinghouse 2008). This collective dose was based on an 18-month fuel cycle and 

26 would be bounding for a 24-month fuel cycle. 

27 The licensee of a new plant would be required to maintain individual doses to workers to within 

28 5 rem annually as specified in 10 CFR 20.1201 and incorporate provisions to maintain doses as 

29 low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). 

30 The staff concludes that the health impacts from occupational radiation exposure would be 

31 SMALL based on individual worker doses being maintained within 10 CFR 20.1201 limits and 

32 collective occupational doses being typical of doses found in current operating light water 

33 reactors. Additional mitigation would not be warranted because the operating plant would be 

34 required to maintain doses ALARA. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-71 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.9.5 Impacts on Biota Other Than Humans 

2 SCE&G estimated doses to biota in the VCSNS site environs using surrogate species. 

3 Surrogate species used in the ER are well-defined and provide an acceptable method for 

4 evaluating doses to the biota. Surrogate species analysis was performed for aquatic species 

5 such as fish, invertebrates, and algae, and for terrestrial species such as muskrats, raccoons, 

6 herons, and ducks (SCE&G 2009k). Aquatic species on the VCSNS site are represented by the 

7 freshwater fish, invertebrates, and algae surrogates. Although there is no significant harvesting 

8 of freshwater invertebrates, Asian clams in Monticello Reservoir have been monitored in the 

9 past and found to be free of radioactive contamination (SCE&G 2008b). Terrestrial species are 

10 represented by the muskrat and raccoon surrogates; birds are represented by the heron and 

11 duck surrogates. SCE&G performed no species-specific dose calculations. Exposure pathways 

12 considered in evaluating dose to the biota are discussed in Section 5.9.1 and shown in 

13 Figure 5-4. The NRC staff reviewed SCE&G’s calculations (SCE&G 2009k) and performed an 

14 independent evaluation (see Appendix G) of the fish, invertebrates, algae, muskrat, raccoon, 

15 heron, and duck, and found similar results. 

16 5.9.5.1 Liquid Effluent Pathway 

17 SCE&G used the LADTAP II computer code to calculate doses to the biota from the liquid 

18 effluent pathway. In estimating the concentration of radioactive effluents in Parr Reservoir 

19 (Broad River), SCE&G assumed there would be no additional dilution in the reservoir. The biota 

20 dose estimates for the proposed units are also conservative because they do not consider 

21 radioactive decay during transit; therefore, actual doses to the biota are likely to be much less 

22 than estimated (SCE&G 2009a). All parameters used as input to LADTAP are shown in Table 

23 G-1 of Appendix G. Liquid pathway doses were higher for biota compared with man because of 

24 considerations for bioaccumulation of radionuclides, ingestion of aquatic plants, ingestion of 

25 invertebrates, and increased time spent in water and shoreline compared with man. The liquid 

26 effluent releases used in estimating biota dose are found in Table 3.5-1 of the ER (SCE&G 

27 2009a). Table 5-13 presents SCE&G’s estimates of the doses to biota from the liquid and 

28 gaseous pathways from proposed new Units 2 and 3. 

29 5.9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway 

30 Gaseous effluents would contribute to the total body dose of the terrestrial surrogate species 

31 (i.e., muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck). The exposure pathways include inhalation of airborne 

32 radionuclides, external exposure because of immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and surface 

33 exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents. SCE&G used the 

34 calculation methods of dose to the MEI from gaseous effluent releases described in Section 

35 5.9.2 to calculate dose to terrestrial surrogate species, with two modifications (SCE&G 2009a). 

36 One modification increased the ground deposition factors by a factor of two to account for the 

37 closer proximity of terrestrial animals to the ground compared with the MEI. The second 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-72 April 2010 

1 modification was to disable the vegetation intake pathway for muskrat and heron because they 

2 are not known to consume vegetation. In addition, SCE&G assumed that biota could be inside 

3 the exclusion area boundary at a distance of 0.25 mi southeast of the powerblock area circle to 

4 estimate these doses (SCE&G 2009a). This assumption is conservative because it results in an 

5 overestimation of the doses for almost all of the terrestrial biota. The gaseous effluent releases 

6 used in estimating dose are found in Table 3.5-2 of the ER (SCE&G 2009a). Table 5-13 

7 presents SCE&G’s estimates of the doses to biota from the liquid and gaseous pathways from 

8 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009a). 

9 Table 5-13. Biota Doses for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

SCE&G Biota Dose Estimates 

Biota 

Liquid Pathway 

(mrad/yr) 

Gaseous Pathway 

(mrad/yr) 

Total Body Biota 

Dose All Pathways 

(mrad/yr) 

Fish 0.82 0 0.82 

Invertebrate 2.3 0 2.3 

Algae 6.66 0 6.7 

Muskrat 2.44 5.04 7.5 

Raccoon 0.956 7.4 8.4 

Heron 11.14 5.04 16 

Duck 2.34 7.4 9.7 

Source: SCE&G 2009k 

10 5.9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Biota Doses 

11 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 1992) and the NCRP (1991) reported that a 

12 chronic dose rate of no greater than 10 mGy/d (1000 mrad/d) to the MEI in a population of 

13 aquatic organisms would ensure protection of the population. IAEA (1992) also concluded that 

14 chronic dose rates of 1 mGy/d (100 mrad/d) or less do not appear to cause observable changes 

15 in terrestrial animal populations. 

16 Table 5-14 compares estimated total body dose rates to surrogate biota species that would be 

17 produced by releases from Units 2 and 3 to the IAEA/NCRP biota dose guidelines (IAEA 1992; 

18 NCRP 1991). 

19 The maximum total dose from both liquid and gaseous pathways from the bounding calculation 

20 is about 16 mrad/yr, or about 0.044 mrad/d. Thus doses to biota calculated by both SCE&G 

21 and the staff are far below the 100-mrad/d (0.1-rad/d) IAEA guidelines (IAEA 1992) for terrestrial 

22 biota and the 1000-mrad/d (1-rad/d) IAEA guideline (IAEA 1992) for aquatic biota. Daily dose 

23 rates would not exceed the IAEA guidelines for any surrogate species. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-73 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 5-14. Comparison of Biota Doses from Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to IAEA 

2 Guidelines for Biota Protection 

Biota

SCE&G Estimate of Dose to Biota 

(mrad/d)(a)

IAEA/NCRP Guidelines for 

Protection of Biota 

Populations (mrad/d) (b)

Fish 2.2 × 10-3 1000 

Invertebrate 6.3 × 10-3 1000 

Algae 1.8 × 10-2

 1000 

Muskrat 2.0 × 10-2

 100 

Raccoon 2.3 × 10-2

 100 

Heron 4.4 × 10-2

 100 

Duck 2.7 × 10-2

 100 

(a) Total dose from liquid and gaseous effluents in Table 5-13 converted to mrad/d. 

(b) Guidelines in NCRP and IAEA reports expressed in Gy/d (1 mGy/d equals 100mrad/d). 

3 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the NRC’s independent evaluation, the staff 

4 concludes that the radiological impact on biota from the routine operation of the proposed 

5 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not 

6 be warranted. 

7 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring 

8 A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been in place for the VCSNS Unit 

9 1 site since its operation began in 1984, with preoperational sample collection activities 

10 beginning in 1982 (SCE&G 2009a). The REMP includes monitoring of the airborne-exposure 

11 pathway, direct-exposure pathway, water-exposure pathway, aquatic-exposure pathway from 

12 Monticello Reservoir, and the ingestion-exposure pathway within a 5-mi radius of the station, 

13 with indicator locations near the plant perimeter and control locations at distances greater than 

14 10 mi. An annual survey is conducted for the area surrounding the site to verify the accuracy of 

15 assumptions used in the analyses, including the occurrence of milk production (SCE&G 2006c, 

16 2007b, 2008b). The preoperational REMP sampled various media in the environment to 

17 determine a baseline from which to observe the magnitude and fluctuation of radioactivity in the 

18 environment once Unit 1 began operation. The preoperational program included collection and 

19 analysis of samples of air particulates, precipitation, crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, 

20 and silt as well as measurement of ambient gamma radiation. After operation of VCSNS Unit 1 

21 began in 1984, the monitoring program continued to assess the radiological impacts on workers, 

22 the public, and the environment. Radiological releases are summarized in the two annual 

23 reports: the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (SCE&G 2006c, 2007b, 

24 2008b) and the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (SCE&G 2006d, 2007c, 2008c, 

25 2009m). The limits for all radiological releases are specified in the VCSNS Offsite Dose 

26 Calculation Manual (ODCM) (SCE&G 2007d). No additional monitoring program has been 

27 established for the proposed units. To the greatest extent practical, the REMP for the VCSNS 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-74 April 2010 

1 program would use the procedures and sampling locations used by the existing VCSNS site. 

2 The staff reviewed the documentation for the existing REMP, the VCSNS ODCM, and recent 

3 monitoring reports from VCSNS, and determined that the current operational monitoring 

4 program is adequate to establish the radiological baseline for comparison with the expected 

5 impacts on the environment related to the construction and operation of the proposed new units 

6 at the VCSNS site. 

7 The annual radioactive effluent release reports for 2005, 2006, and 2007 (SCE&G 2006d, 

8 2007c, 2008c) summarized results of groundwater sampling performed by SCE&G in various 

9 locations around the plant, which may be a source of groundwater contamination. One location 

10 indicated tritium activity very slightly above detection limits. For proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 

11 3, in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (SCE&G 2009t), SCE&G adopts NEI 08-08, 

12 “Generic FSAR Template Guidance for Life Cycle Minimization of Contamination” (NEI 2008). 

13 5.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts 

14 This section describes the potential impacts on the environment that could result from the 

15 generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste and mixed waste during the 

16 operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Section 3.4.4 of this EIS describes the 

17 nonradioactive waste systems. Types of nonradioactive waste that would be generated, 

18 handled, and disposed of during operational activities include solid wastes, liquid effluents, and 

19 air emissions. Solid wastes include municipal waste, sewage-treatment sludge, and industrial 

20 wastes. Liquid waste includes NPDES-permitted discharges such as effluents containing 

21 chemicals or biocides, wastewater effluents, site stormwater runoff, and other liquid wastes 

22 such as used oils, paints, and solvents that require offsite disposal. Air emissions would 

23 primarily be generated by vehicles and diesel generators. In addition, small quantities of 

24 hazardous waste, and mixed waste, which is waste that has both hazardous and radioactive 

25 characteristics, may be generated during plant operations. The assessment of potential impacts 

26 resulting from these types of wastes is presented in the following sections. 

27 5.10.1 Impacts on Land 

28 Operational solid wastes such as office waste, cardboard, wood, or metal will be recycled or 

29 reused (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G plans to dispose of municipal solid waste and resins from 

30 plant operations in a SCDHEC-approved disposal facility. In addition, a new sanitary 

31 wastewater-treatment plant would be installed to serve the operational needs of the new units; 

32 plant sludge would be applied at an SCDHEC-approved location onsite or shipped offsite for 

33 disposal at a permitted facility (SCE&G 2009a). Debris from trash racks and screens on the 

34 water-intake structure would be periodically collected and disposed at an onsite location. 

35 SCE&G would follow all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and standards for 

36 handling, transporting, and disposing of solid waste (SCE&G 2009a). 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-75 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Based on the plans to manage solid and liquid wastes in a similar manner in accordance with all 

2 applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and standards, and the effective practices for 

3 reusing, recycling, and minimizing waste, the review team expects that impacts on land from 

4 nonradioactive wastes generated during the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

5 minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

6 5.10.2 Impacts on Water 

7 Water withdrawn from the Monticello Reservoir for cooling and other operational purposes for 

8 the proposed Units 2 and 3 would be discharged to the Parr Reservoir. These discharges 

9 would contain both chemicals and biocides and be controlled by the NPDES permit. Other 

10 potential nonradioactive liquid effluent from proposed Units 2 and 3 operations are stormwater 

11 runoff and sanitary wastewater discharges (SCE&G 2009a). In all cases, the NPDES permit 

12 would limit the volume and constituents concentrations. Sections 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of this EIS 

13 discuss impacts on surface and groundwater quality from operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

14 Based on the regulated practices for managing liquid discharges containing chemicals or 

15 biocides, wastewater, and the plans for managing stormwater, the review team expects that 

16 impacts on water from nonradioactive effluents during the operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

17 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

18 5.10.3 Impacts on Air 

19 Operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would result in gaseous emission from operation 

20 of diesel generators. Impacts on air quality are discussed in Section 5.7.2 of this EIS. In 

21 addition, vehicular traffic associated with personnel necessary to operate Units 2 and 3 would 

22 increase vehicle emissions in the area. Increases in air emissions from the operation of Units 2 

23 and 3 would require compliance with the Federal and State air quality control laws and 

24 regulations (SCE&G 2009a). 

25 Based on the regulated practices for managing air emissions from stationary sources, the 

26 review team expects that impacts on air from nonradioactive emissions during the operation of 

27 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

28 5.10.4 Mixed-Waste Impacts 

29 Mixed waste contains both low-level radioactive waste and hazardous waste. The generation, 

30 storage, treatment, or disposal of mixed waste is regulated by the Atomic Energy Act, the Solid 

31 Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended by the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act 

32 (RCRA) in 1976, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (which amended RCRA in 

1984). Each new reactor at the VCSNS site can be expected to produce approximately 17 ft3 33 /yr 

of liquid and 7.5 ft3 34 /yr of solid mixed waste. In addition, SCE&G has implemented a waste-
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-76 April 2010 

1 minimization plan to reduce the amount of mixed waste produced onsite. SCE&G stated that 

2 the treatment, storage, and disposal of mixed wastes generated by the proposed Units 2 and 3 

3 would be managed as the existing Unit 1 mixed wastes is managed (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 Based on the practices for minimizing waste currently in place for VCSNS Unit 1 and the plans 

5 to manage mixed wastes in a similar manner in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, 

6 and local requirements and standards, the review team expects that impacts from the 

7 generation of mixed waste at VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be minimal, and no further mitigation 

8 would be warranted. 

9 5.10.5 Summary of Nonradiological Impacts 

10 Solid, liquid, gaseous, and mixed wastes generated during operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

11 would be handled according to county, State, and Federal regulations. County and State 

12 permits and regulations for handling and disposal of solid waste would be obtained and 

13 implemented. Discharges to the Monticello Reservoir of liquid effluents used for operations, 

14 including wastewater and stormwater, would be controlled and limited via an NPDES permit. Air 

15 emissions from Units 2 and 3 operations would be compliant with local, State, and Federal air 

16 quality standards and regulations. Mixed waste generation, storage, and disposal impacts 

17 during operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 would be compliant with requirements and 

18 standards. 

19 Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the effective practices for recycling, minimizing, 

20 managing, and waste disposal planned to be used at the VCSNS site, the expectation that 

21 regulatory approvals will be obtained to regulate the additional waste that would be generated 

22 from proposed Unit 3, and the independent evaluations as discussed in the referenced sections 

23 of this EIS, the review team concludes that the potential impacts from nonradioactive waste 

24 resulting from the operation of the proposed additional units at the VCSNS site would be 

25 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

26 Cumulative impacts on water and air from nonradiological effluents and emissions are 

27 discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.6, respectively. For the purposes of Chapter 9, the review team 

28 expects that there would be no substantive differences between the impacts of nonradiological 

29 waste for the proposed Units 2 and 3 and the alternative sites and no substantive cumulative 

30 impacts that warrant further discussion beyond those discussed for the alternative sites in 

31 Section 9.3. 

32 5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

33 The NRC staff considered the radiological consequences on the environment of potential 

34 accidents at proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. SCE&G based its COL application on the 

35 proposed installation of AP1000 reactors for proposed Units 2 and 3. Revision 15 of the AP1000 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-77 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 design (Westinghouse 2005) is a certified design as set forth in the 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D. 

2 Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted Revision 17 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 

3 2008). The SCE&G application references Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD. The NRC staff is 

4 reviewing the Westinghouse application to amend the design certification rule for the AP1000. 

5 The term “accident,” as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed in 

6 Section 5.9 that results in the release of radioactive materials into the environment. The focus 

7 of this review is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible 

8 limits for normal operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, 

9 Table 2. 

10 Numerous features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power 

11 plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the plants, which compose 

12 the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive materials from the 

13 plant. The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in 

14 effluents to unrestricted areas ALARA are specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Additional 

15 measures are designed to mitigate the consequences of failures in the first line of defense. 

16 These measures include the NRC’s reactor siting criteria in 10 CFR Part 100, which require the 

17 site to have certain characteristics that reduce the risk to the public and the potential impacts of 

18 an accident, and emergency preparedness plans and protective action measures for the site 

19 and environs, as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E; and NUREG20 0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NRC 1980). All of these safety features, measures, and plans make up the 

21 defense-in-depth philosophy to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. 

22 This section discusses (1) the types of radioactive materials that may be released, (2) the 

23 potential paths for their release to the environment, (3) the relationship between radiation dose 

24 and health effects, and (4) the environmental impacts of reactor accidents, both design basis 

25 accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. The environmental impacts of accidents during 

26 transportation of spent fuel are discussed in Chapter 6. 

27 The potential for dispersion of radioactive materials in the environment depends on the 

28 mechanical forces that physically transport the materials and on the physical and chemical 

29 forms of the material. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms. 

30 Most of the material in the fuel is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, after operation, a 

31 significant fraction of the material is in the form of volatile solids or gases. The gaseous 

32 radioactive materials include the chemically inert noble gases (e.g., krypton and xenon), which 

33 have a high potential for release. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are created in substantial 

34 quantities, are volatile. Other radioactive materials formed during the operation of a nuclear 

35 power plant have lower volatilities and, therefore, have lower tendencies to escape from the fuel 

36 than the noble gases and isotopes of iodine. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-78 April 2010 

1 Radiation exposure to individuals is determined by their proximity to radioactive material, the 

2 duration of their exposure, and the extent to which they are shielded from the radiation. 

3 Pathways that lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material 

4 in the air, on the ground, and in the water, (2) inhalation of radioactive material, and 

5 (3) ingestion of food or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water. 

6 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing 

7 cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 

8 Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship 

9 between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report by the National 

10 Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose response 

11 model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is accepted by the NRC 

12 as a conservative method for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that 

13 the model may overestimate those risks. 

14 Physiological effects are clinically detectable if individuals receive radiation exposure resulting in 

15 a dose greater than about 25 rem over a short period of time (hours). Untreated doses of about 

16 250 to 500 rem received over a relatively short period (hours to a few days) can be expected to 

17 cause some fatalities.

18 5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents 

19 SCE&G evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that a 

20 AP1000 reactor could be constructed and operated at the VCSNS site without undue risk to the 

21 health and safety of the public (SCE&G 2009a). These evaluations used a set of DBAs that are 

22 representative for the reactor design being considered for the VCSNS site and site-specific 

23 meteorological data. The set of accidents covers events that range from relatively high 

24 probability of occurrence with relatively low consequences to relatively low probability with high 

25 consequences. 

26 The DBA review focuses on the AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site. The bases for analyses of 

27 postulated accidents for this design are well established because they have been considered as 

28 part of the NRC’s reactor design certification process. Potential consequences of DBAs are 

29 evaluated by following procedures outlined in regulatory guides and standard review plans. The 

30 potential consequences of accidental releases depend on the specific radionuclides released, 

31 the amount of each radionuclide released, and the meteorological conditions. The source terms 

32 for the AP1000 reactor and methods for evaluating potential accidents are based on guidance in 

33 Regulatory Guide 1.183 (NRC 2000a). 

34 For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological 

35 conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an 

36 atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as relative concentration (/Q; units of 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-79 Draft NUREG-1939 

s/m3 1 ). Acceptable methods of calculating /Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in 

2 Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1983). 

3 Table 5-15 lists /Q values pertinent to the environmental review of DBAs for the proposed 

4 VCSNS site. Small /Q values are associated with greater dilution capability. The first column 

5 lists the time periods and boundaries for which /Q and dose estimates are needed. For the 

6 exclusion area boundary, the postulated DBA dose and its atmospheric dispersion factor are 

7 calculated for a short-term period (i.e., 2 hours), and for the low-population zone, they are 

8 calculated for the course of the accident (i.e., 30 days composed of four time periods). The 

9 second column lists the /Q values for the SCE&G’s site (SCE&G 2009p); these values are 

10 calculated at the exclusion area boundary and low-population zone using 2 years of 

11 meteorological data (January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008) for the SCE&G site. A 

12 ground-level release was defined to occur at any point on the periphery of a circular area that 

13 encompassed the shield buildings for proposed Units 2 and 3 (SCE&G 2009p). Building wake 

14 effects were not taken into account (SCE&G 2009p), thereby resulting in more conservative 

15 estimates of /Q. 

16 Table 5-15. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for the VCSNS Site DBA Calculations

Time Period and Boundary /Q (s/m3

) 

0 to 2 hr, Exclusion Area Boundary 9.46 × 10-5

0 to 8 hr, Low-Population Zone 1.07 × 10-5

8 to 24 hr, Low-Population Zone 8.67 × 10-6

1 to 4 d, Low-Population Zone 5.52 × 10-6

4 to 30 d, Low-Population Zone 2.89 × 10-6

Source: SCE&G 2009p 

17 The NRC staff reviewed the meteorological data used by SCE&G and the method used to 

18 calculate the atmospheric dispersion factors. Based on these reviews, the NRC staff concludes 

19 that the atmospheric dispersion factors for the VCSNS site are acceptable for use in evaluating 

20 potential environmental consequences of postulated DBAs for the AP1000 reactor design at the 

21 VCSNS site. 

22 Table 5-16 lists the set of DBAs considered by SCE&G and presents NRC staff estimates of the 

23 environmental consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent 

24 (TEDE). TEDE is estimated by the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from 

25 inhalation and the effective dose equivalent from external exposure. Dose conversion factors 

26 from Federal Guidance Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988) were used to calculate the committed 

27 effective dose equivalent. Similarly, dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 12 

28 (Eckerman and Ryman 1993) were used to calculate the effective dose equivalent.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-80 April 2010 

1 Table 5-16. DBA Doses for an AP1000 Reactor for Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

Accident

Standard 

Review Plan 

Section(b)

TEDE in rem(a)

EAB(c) LPZ(d)

Review 

Criterion

Main Steam Line Break 15.1.5 

 Pre-existing iodine spike 9.5 × 10-2 1.9 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 1.0 × 10-1 5.2 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Steam Generator Tube Rupture 15.6.3 

 Pre-existing iodine spike 2.1 × 10-1 2.7 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+1(e)

 Accident-initiated iodine spike 1.0 × 10-1 1.8 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Loss-of-Coolant Accident 15.6.5 4.6 × 10+0 1.1 × 10+0 2.5 × 10+1(e)

Rod Ejection 15.4.8 3.4 × 10-1 1.2 × 10-1 6.25 × 10+0(f)

Reactor Coolant Pump Rotor Seizure (locked rotor) 15.3.3 

 No feedwater 7.6 × 10-2 8.3 × 10-3 2.5 × 10+0(f)

 Feedwater available 5.7 × 10-2 1.7 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary Coolant Outside 

Containment 

15.6.2 2.0 × 10-1 2.2 × 10-2 2.5 × 10+0(f)

Fuel Handling 15.7.4 4.9 × 10-1 5.5 × 10-2 6.25 × 10+0(f)

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007) 

(c) EAB = exclusion area boundary. 

(d) LPZ = low population zone. 

(e) 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1) and 10 CFR 100.21 criteria. 

(f) Standard Review Plan criterion. 

2 The NRC staff reviewed SCE&G’s selection of DBAs by comparing the accidents listed in the 

3 COL application with the DBAs considered in Revision 17 of the AP1000 DCD, which is 

4 currently in the design-certification process. The DBAs in the ER are the same set as those 

5 considered in this design certification, therefore the NRC staff concludes that the set of DBAs is 

6 appropriate. 

7 There are no environmental criteria related to the potential consequences of DBAs. 

8 Consequently, the review criteria used in the NRC staff’s safety review of DBA doses are 

9 included in Table 5-16 to illustrate the magnitude of the calculated environmental consequences 

10 (TEDE doses). In all cases, the calculated TEDE values are considerably smaller than the 

11 TEDE doses used as safety review criteria; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that, with respect 

12 to DBAs, the VCSNS site is environmentally suitable for an AP1000 reactor. 
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-81 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Summary of DBA Impacts 

2 The NRC staff reviewed the DBA analysis in the ER, which is based on analyses performed for 

3 design certification of the AP1000 reactor design with adjustment for VCSNS site-specific 

4 characteristics. The NRC staff also performed its own independent DBA analysis. The results 

5 of the SCE&G and the NRC staff analyses indicate that the environmental consequences 

6 associated with DBAs, if an AP1000 reactor were to be located at the VCSNS site, would be 

7 small. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs at 

8 the VCSNS site would be of SMALL for an AP1000 reactor. 

9 5.11.2 Severe Accidents 

10 In its ER, SCE&G considers the potential consequences of severe accidents for an AP1000 

11 reactor at the VCSNS site. Three pathways are considered: (1) the atmospheric pathway, in 

12 which radioactive material is released to the air, (2) the surface-water pathway, in which 

13 airborne radioactive material falls out on open bodies of water, and (3) the groundwater 

14 pathway, in which groundwater is contaminated by a basemat melt-through with subsequent 

15 contamination of surface water by the groundwater. 

16 SCE&G’s consequence assessment is based on the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for 

17 Revision 15 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 2005), which is certified in 10 CFR Part 52, 

18 Appendix D. Westinghouse subsequently upgraded and updated the PRA model; however, 

19 Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA report submitted with Revision 15 of the DCD and 

20 concluded that the reported results and insights remain valid for proposed revisions of the DCD 

21 (Westinghouse 2007). The NRC staff evaluated the current PRA model and its results using 

22 “Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined 

23 License Applications” (DC/COL-ISG-3; NRC 2008a), and concluded that the Revision 15 results 

24 remain conservative and are an acceptable basis for evaluating severe accidents and strategies 

25 for mitigating them. SCE&G is required by regulation to upgrade and update the PRA prior to 

26 fuel loading. At that time, the NRC staff expects the PRA to be site-specific and that it will no 

27 longer use the bounding assumptions of the design-specific PRA. 

28 The SCE&G evaluation (SCE&G 2009a) of the potential environmental consequences for the 

29 atmospheric and surface-water pathways incorporates the results of the Melcor Accident 

30 Consequence Code System (MACCS2) computer code Version 1.13 (Chanin and Young 1997) 

31 using AP1000 reactor source-term information and site-specific meteorological, population, and 

32 land-use data. SCE&G provided the NRC with copies of the input and output files for the 

33 MACCS2 computer code runs (SCE&G 2009n). The NRC staff reviewed the input and output 

34 files, ran confirmatory calculations, and determined that SCE&G’s results are reasonable.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-82 April 2010 

1 The MACCS computer code was developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of 

2 severe accidents for the sites covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). The MACCS2 code 

3 evaluates the consequences of atmospheric releases of material following a severe accident. 

4 The pathways modeled include exposure to the passing plume, exposure to material deposited 

5 on the ground and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and resuspended from the 

6 ground, and ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. 

7 Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed in the MACCS2 analysis: 

8 (1) human health, (2) economic costs, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human 

9 health effects are expressed in terms of the number of cancers that might be expected if a 

10 severe accident were to occur. These effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation 

11 dose received by the general population. MACCS2 estimates both early cancer fatalities and 

12 latent fatalities. Early fatalities are related to high doses or dose rates and can be expected to 

13 occur within a year of exposure (Jow et al. 1990). 

14 Latent fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of people to low doses and dose rates 

15 and can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years. Population health16 risk estimates are based on the population distribution within a 50-mi radius of the site. 

17 Economic costs of a severe accident include the costs associated with short-term relocation of 

18 people; decontamination of property and equipment; interdiction of food supplies, land, and 

19 equipment use; and condemnation of property. The affected land area is a measure of the areal 

20 extent of the residual contamination following a severe accident. Farmland decontamination is 

21 an estimate of the area that has an average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period 

22 following the release that would be greater than 0.5 rem/yr if not reduced by decontamination 

23 and that would have a dose rate following decontamination of less than 0.5 rem/yr. 

24 Decontaminated land is not necessarily suitable for farming. 

25 Risk is the product of the probability and the consequences of an accident. For example, the 

26 probability of a severe accident without loss of containment for an AP1000 reactor at the 

VCSNS site is estimated to be 2.2 × 10-7 27 /Ryr, and the cumulative population dose associated 

28 with a severe accident without loss of containment at the VCSNS site is calculated to be 

5.91 × 10+3 29 person-rem. The population dose risk for this class of accidents is the product of 

2.2 × 10-7/Ryr and 5.91 × 10+3 person-rem, or 1.30 × 10-3 30 person-rem/Ryr. The following 

31 sections discuss the estimated risks associated with each pathway. 

32 The risks presented in the tables that follow are risks per year of reactor operation. SCE&G 

33 plans to build two AP1000 reactors on the VCSNS site. The consequences of a severe 

34 accident would be the same regardless of whether one or two AP1000 reactors were built at the 

35 VCSNS site. However, if two AP1000 reactors were built, the risks would apply to each reactor, 

36 and the total risk for the two new reactors at the site would be double the risk for a single 

37 reactor. A discussion of these risks is presented in the following sections.
Station Operation Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-83 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 5.11.2.1 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Air Pathway 

2 The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to the air 

3 pathway. The risks calculated from the results of the MACCS2 runs are presented in 

4 Table 5-17 (SCE&G 2009a). The core damage frequencies (CDFs) given in these tables are for 

5 internally initiated accident sequences while the plant is at power. Internally initiated accident 

6 sequences include sequences that are initiated by human error, equipment failures, loss of 

7 offsite power, etc. Estimates of the CDFs for externally initiated events and during shutdown 

8 are discussed later. 

9 Table 5-17 shows that the risks of severe accidents for an AP1000 reactor located on the 

10 VCSNS site are small for all risk categories considered. For perspective, Table 5-18 and 

11 Table 5-19 compare the health risks from severe accidents for an AP1000 reactor at the 

12 VCSNS site with the risks for current-generation reactors at various sites and with an AP1000 

13 reactor at the North Anna, Clinton, Grand Gulf, and Vogtle Early Site Permit sites. Table 5-19 

14 also provides the CDFs and population dose risk for the existing Unit 1 reactor at the VCSNS 

15 site. 

16 In Table 5-18, the health risks estimated for an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site are 

17 compared with health-risk estimates for the five reactors considered in NUREG-1150 

18 (NRC 1990). Although risks associated with both internally and externally initiated events were 

19 considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in NUREG-1150, only risks associated with 

20 internally initiated events are presented in Table 5-18. Table 5-18 also compares health risks of 

21 an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site with health risks for an AP1000 reactor at four Early Site 

22 Permit sites (NRC 2006a, b, c, 2008c). 

23 The last two columns of Table 5-18 provide average individual fatality risk estimates. To put 

24 these estimates into context for the environmental analysis, the NRC staff compares these 

25 estimates to the safety goals. The Commission has set safety goals for average individual early 

26 fatality and latent cancer fatality risks from reactor accidents in the Safety Goal Policy Statement 

27 (51 FR 30028). These goals are presented here solely to provide a point of reference for the 

28 environmental analysis and do not serve the purpose of a safety analysis. The Policy 

29 Statement expressed the Commission’s policy regarding the acceptance level of radiological 

30 risk from nuclear power plant operation as follows (51 FR 30028): 

31  Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the 

32 consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no 

33 significant additional risk to life and health.

34 
Station Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-84 April 2010 Table 5-17. Mean Environmental Risks from an AP1000 Reactor Severe Accident at the VCSNS Site 1 Release Category Description (Accident Class) Core Damage Frequency (Ryr) Environmental Risk Population Dose (person-rem/Ryr)(a) Fatalities (per Ryr) Cost(d) ($/Ryr) Farm Land Decontamination(e) (ac/Ryr) Population Dose from Water Ingestion (person-rem/Ryr)(a) Early(b) Latent(c) IC Intact containment 2.2 × 10-7 1.3 × 10-3 0.0 × 10+0 7.8 × 10-7 1.5 × 10-1 2.5 × 10-6 1.0 × 10-5 BP Containment bypass, fission products released directly to environment 1.1 × 10-8 8.1 × 10-2 2.2 × 10-8 5.0 × 10-5 2.2 × 10+2 2.5 × 10-3 5.4 × 10-3 CI Containment isolation failure occurs prior to onset of core damage 1.3 × 10-9 3.0 × 10-3 1.7 × 10-10 1.8 × 10-6 7.1 × 10+0 1.1 × 10-4 1.1 × 10-4 CFE Early containment failure, after onset of core damage but before core relocation 7.5 × 10-9 1.8 × 10-2 1.4 × 10-9 1.1 × 10-5 4.4 × 10+1 6.1 × 10-4 8.2 × 10-4 CFI Intermediate containment failure, after core relocation but before 24 hours 1.9 × 10-10 6.1 × 10-4 1.0 × 10-11 3.7 × 10-7 1.7 × 10+0 3.1 × 10-5 1.1 × 10-5 CFL Late containment failure occurring after 24 hours 3.5 × 10-13 1.6 × 10-6 0.0 × 10+0 9.7 × 10-10 5.6 × 10-3 7.4 × 10-8 2.3 × 10-9 Total 2.4 × 10-7 1.0 × 10-1 2.4 × 10-8 6.4 × 10-5 2.7 × 10+2 3.2 × 10-3 6.4 × 10-3 Source: SCE&G 2009a (a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100. (b) Early fatalities are fatalities related to high doses or dose rates that generally can be expected to occur within a year of the exposure (Jow et al. 1990). (c) Latent fatalities are fatalities related to low doses or dose rates that can be expected to occur after a latent period of several (2 to 15) years. (d) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health effects (Jow et al. 1990). (e) Land risk is the area where the average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the accident exceeds 0.5 rem/yr but can be reduced to less than 0.5 rem/yr by decontamination. 2 
Station Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-85 Draft NUREG-1939 Table 5-18. Comparison of Environmental Risks for an AP1000 Reactor at the VCSNS Site with Risks for Current-Generation 1 Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated in NUREG-1150(a) and the AP1000 at Four Early Site Permit Sites 2 Core Damage Frequency (Ryr) 50-mi Population Dose Risk (person- rem/Ryr)(b) Fatalities (per Ryr) Average Individual Fatality Risk (per Ryr) Early Latent Early Latent Cancer Grand Gulf(c) 4.0 × 10-6 5 × 10+1 8 × 10-9 9 × 10-4 3 × 10-11 3 × 10-10 Peach Bottom(c) 4.5 × 10-6 7 × 10+2 2 × 10-8 5 × 10-3 5 × 10-11 4 × 10-10 Sequoyah(c) 5.7 × 10-5 1 × 10+3 3 × 10-5 1 × 10-2 1 × 10-8 1 × 10-8 Surry(c) 4.0 × 10-5 5 × 10+2 2 × 10-6 5 × 10-3 2 × 10-8 2 × 10-9 Zion(c) 3.4 × 10-4 5 × 10+3 4 × 10-5 2 × 10-2 9 × 10-9 1 × 10-8 AP1000(d) Reactor at the VCSNS site 2.4 × 10-7 1.0 × 10-1 2.4 × 10-8 6.4 × 10-5 1.4 × 10-10 3.5 × 10-12 AP1000(e) Reactor at North Anna 2.4 × 10-7 8.3 × 10-2 1.2 x10-10 4.0 × 10-5 2.6 × 10-13 4.9 × 10-11 AP1000(f) Reactor at Clinton 2.4 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-2 1.4 × 10-8 1.2 × 10-5 6.4 × 10-13 5.5 × 10-11 AP1000(g) Reactor at Grand Gulf 2.4 × 10-7 1.4 × 10-2 < 1.0 × 10-12 6.9 × 10-6 <1.0 × 10-14 2.0 × 10-11 AP1000(h) Reactor at Vogtle 2.4 × 10-7 2.8 × 10-2 1.9 × 10-10 1.9 × 10-5 1.6 × 10-12 1.1 × 10-11 (a) NRC (1990) (b) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100. (c) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). (d) ER (SCE&G 2009a) (e) NUREG-1811 (NRC 2006a) (f) NUREG-1815 (NRC 2006b) (g) NUREG-1817 (NRC 2006c) (h) NUREG-1872 (NRC 2008b) 3 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-86 April 2010 

1 Table 5-19. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents Initiated by Internal 

2 Events for an AP1000 Reactor at the VCSNS Site with Risks Initiated by Internal 

3 Events for Current Plants Undergoing Operating License Renewal Review and 

4 Environmental Risks of the AP1000 Reactor at Other Sites 

Core Damage Frequency 

(per year)

50-mi Population Dose Risk 

(person-rem/Ryr)(a)

Current Reactor Maximum(b) 2.4 × 10-4 6.9 × 10+1

Current Reactor Mean(b) 2.7 × 10-5 1.6 × 10+1

Current Reactor Median(b) 1.6 × 10-5 1.3 × 10+1

Current Reactor Minimum(b) 1.9 × 10-6 3.4 × 10-1 

VCSNS Unit 1 (Existing Reactor) (c) 5.6 × 10-5 1.0 × 10+0

AP1000(d) Reactor at VCSNS 2.4 × 10-7 1.0 × 10-1

AP1000(e) Reactor at North Anna 2.4 × 10-7 8.3 × 10-2

AP1000(f) Reactor at Clinton 2.4 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-2

AP1000(g) Reactor at Grand Gulf 2.4 × 10-7 1.4 × 10-2

AP1000(h) Reactor at Vogtle 2.4 × 10-7 2.8 × 10-2

(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for 76 current-generation plants at 44 sites. 

(c) NUREG-1437 Supplement 15 (NRC 2004a) 

(d) Calculated with MACCS2 code using VCSNS site-specific input. 

(e) NUREG-1811 (NRC 2006a) 

(f) NUREG-1815 (NRC 2006b) 

(g) NUREG-1817 (NRC 2006c) 

(h) NUREG-1872 (NRC 2008b) 

5  Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant operation should be comparable to 

6 or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should 

7 not be a significant addition to other societal risks. 

8 The following quantitative health objectives are used when determining achievement of the 

9 safety goals: 

10  The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities 

11 that might result from reactor accidents should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent 

12 (0.1 percent) of the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to which 

13 members of the U.S. population are generally exposed. 

14  The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear power plant of cancer fatalities that might 

15 result from nuclear power plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent 

16 (0.1 percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-87 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 These quantitative health objectives are translated into two numerical objectives as follows: 

2  The individual risk of a prompt fatality from all “other accidents to which members of the 

U.S. population are generally exposed” is about 4.0 × 10-4/yr, including a 1.6 × 10-4 3 /yr risk 

4 associated with transportation accidents (NSC 2006). One-tenth of 1 percent of these figures 

5 implies that the individual risk of prompt fatality from a reactor accident should be less than 

4 × 10-7 6 /Ryr. 

7  “The sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes” for an individual is taken to 

be the cancer fatality rate in the United States, which is about 1 in 500 or 2 × 10-3 8 /yr (Reed 

9 2007). One-tenth of 1 percent of this implies that the risk of cancer to the population in the 

area near a nuclear power plant because of its operation should be limited to 2 × 10-6 10 /Ryr. 

11 MACCS2 calculates average individual early and latent cancer fatality risks. The average 

12 individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 1 mi of the plant 

13 boundary. The average individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the population 

14 distribution within 10 mi of the plant. For the plants considered in NUREG-1150, these risks 

15 were well below the Commission’s safety goals. Risks calculated by SCE&G for the AP1000 

16 reactor design at the VCSNS site are also well below the Commission’s safety goals. 

17 The NRC staff compared the CDF and population dose risk estimate for an AP1000 reactor at 

18 the VCSNS site with statistics summarizing the results of severe accident analyses performed 

19 for 76 current-generation reactors at 44 sites. The results of these analyses are included in the 

20 final site-specific Supplements 1 through 30 to the NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996, 1999), and in the 

21 ERs included with license renewal applications for the plants for which supplements have not 

22 been published. All of the analyses were completed after publication of NUREG-1150 

23 (NRC 1990) and the analyses for 72 of the reactors used MACCS2, which was released in 

24 1997. Table 5-17 shows that the CDF estimated for the AP1000 reactor is significantly lower 

25 than those of current-generation reactors. Similarly, the population doses estimated for a 

26 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site are well below the mean and median values 

27 for current-generation reactors undergoing license renewal and an order of magnitude lower 

28 than the existing VCSNS Unit 1 reactor. 

29 Finally, the population dose risk from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS 

site, 1.0 × 10-1 30 person-rem/Ryr, may be compared with the dose risk for normal operation of a 

single AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site, 5.8 × 100 31 person-rem/Ryr (SCE&G 2009a); 

32 comparatively, the population dose risk for a severe accident is small. 

33 5.11.2.2 Estimated Risks of Releases to Surface-Water Pathways

34 Surface-water dose pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These pathways cover the 

35 effects of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water and include ingestion of water 

36 and aquatic foods as well as water submersion and activities occurring near the water. Of these 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-88 April 2010 

1 surface-water pathways, the MACCS2 code evaluates the ingestion of contaminated water. 

2 The risks associated with this pathway were calculated for the VCSNS site and are included in 

the last column of Table 5-17. The water-ingestion dose risk of about 6.4 × 10-3 3 person-rem/Ryr 

is small compared with the total dose risk of 1.0 × 10-1 4 person-rem/Ryr.

5 The Broad River and Monticello Reservoir are used for fishing as well as other general 

6 recreational activities, such as swimming and boating. Doses from these surface-water 

7 pathways are not modeled in MACCS2. Population exposure risk from aquatic food ingestion 

8 was considered in NUREG-1437 for license renewals of current-generation reactors (NRC 

9 1996). In the analysis, nuclear plants were categorized as being sited on an estuary, one of the 

10 Great Lakes, a small river, or a large river. Exposure risk was then compared with that of the 

11 Fermi plant, located on Lake Erie, for which an analysis of an uninterdicted dose had been 

12 completed (NRC 1981). For the purpose of evaluating the surface-water pathway, the existing 

13 VCSNS site was classified as being on a small river (NRC 1996). For small river sites, the 

14 population dose from the aquatic food pathway was well below the population dose from the air 

15 pathway. Analysis of water-related exposure pathways at the Fermi reactor (NRC 1981) 

16 suggests that population exposures from swimming are significantly lower than exposures from 

17 the aquatic food pathway. If a severe accident occurred at an AP1000 reactor located at the 

18 VCSNS site, Federal, State, and local officials would likely restrict access to affected water 

19 areas. These interdiction actions would further reduce potential surface-water pathway 

20 exposures. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the population dose risk from surface-water 

21 pathways at the VCSNS site likely would be a small fraction of the air pathway risk 

22 5.11.2.3 Estimated Risks of Releases to the Groundwater Pathway 

23 The groundwater pathway involves a reactor core melt, reactor vessel failure, and penetration of 

24 the floor (basemat) below the reactor vessel. Ultimately, core debris reaches groundwater 

25 where soluble radionuclides are transported with the groundwater. In the NUREG-1437 (NRC 

26 1996), the NRC staff assumed that the probability of a severe accident with basemat 

penetration was 1 × 10-4 27 /Ryr and concluded that the groundwater contribution to risk is generally 

28 a small fraction of the risk attributable to the atmospheric pathway. The SCE&G ER (SCE&G 

29 2009a) summarizes the discussion in NUREG-1437 and reaches the same conclusion. 

The NRC staff has re-evaluated its assumption of a 1.0 × 10-4 Ryr-1 30 probability of a basemat 

melt-through. The NRC staff believes that the 1.0 × 10-4 31 probability is too large for new power 

32 stations. Design elements have been included in the AP1000 design to minimize the potential 

33 for reactor core debris to reach groundwater. These elements include external reactor vessel 

34 cooling and ex-vessel core debris cooling. Furthermore, the probability of core melt with 

35 basemat melt-through should be no larger than the total CDF estimate for the reactor. 

Table 5-17 gives a total CDF estimate of 2.4 × 10-7 Ryr-1 36 for an AP1000 reactor. NUREG-1150 

37 indicates that the conditional probability of a basemat melt-through ranges from 0.05 to 0.25 for 

38 current-generation reactors. If the CDF for AP1000 severe accidents in which containment 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-89 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 remains intact are subtracted from the total AP1000 CDF to get the CDF for severe accidents in 

which basemat melt-through is a possibility, the CDF is on the order of 2 × 10-8 2 /Ryr. On this 

basis, the NRC staff believes that a basemat melt-through probability of 2 × 10-8 3 /Ryr is 

4 reasonable and still conservative. 

5 The groundwater pathway is more tortuous and affords more time for implementing protective 

6 actions than the atmospheric pathway and, therefore, results in a lower risk to the public. As a 

7 result, the NRC staff concludes that the risks associated with releases to groundwater are low 

8 and that they would not have a significant effect on the overall plant risk. 

9 5.11.2.4 Estimated Risks of Releases Related to External Events 

10 The analyses described above are specifically for internally initiated events. The AP1000 

11 reactor vendor and the NRC staff have addressed three externally initiated events during design 

12 certification of the AP1000 reactor: seismic, internal fire, and internal flooding events. The 

13 analyses are described Section 19.1.5 of the final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) for the 

14 AP1000 reactor (NRC 2004b). 

15 With respect to seismic events, the AP1000 reactor vendor performed a PRA-based seismic 

16 margin analysis. This analysis indicated that there is a high confidence (95 percent) that safety 

17 systems and components would survive a 0.5-g peak acceleration during a seismic event. The 

18 safe-shutdown earthquake for the AP1000 reactor design is 0.3 g. Consequently, the NRC staff 

19 concluded in the FSER that the AP1000 reactor design is acceptable (NRC 2004b). 

20 With respect to internal fires, the AP1000 reactor vendor estimated the fire-induced CDFs to be 

about 5.6 × 10-8/yr during power operation and about 8 × 10-8 21 /yr during shutdown, and the 

22 vendor considers these estimates to be conservative. While the staff believes that such a 

23 conclusion is not possible without a detailed PRA, the NRC staff, in its safety review, did 

24 conclude that the AP1000 reactor design is capable of withstanding severe accident challenges 

25 from internal fires in a manner superior to most, if not all, operating plant designs. 

26 With respect to internal flooding, the AP1000 reactor vendor did not perform a detailed PRA to 

27 assess the risk from internal flooding. Instead, the vendor performed an internal flooding PRA 

28 commensurate with the level of detail available and, where detailed information was not 

29 available, made conservative assumptions to bound the flooding analysis. In its safety review, 

30 the NRC staff found that this analysis was adequate to identify potential vulnerabilities and to 

31 provide insight into the design that could be used to support design certification requirements. 

32 Quantification of potential scenarios with the plant at power resulted in a total CDF from internal 

floods of about 1 × 10-9 33 /yr. The CDF from internal floods when the plant is shutdown is 

estimated to be about 3.2 × 10-9 34 /yr. The vendor considers these estimates to be conservative. 

35 While the staff believes that such a conclusion is not possible without a detailed PRA, the NRC 

36 staff, in its safety review, did conclude that the AP1000 reactor design is capable of 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-90 April 2010 

1 withstanding severe accident challenges from internal floods in a manner superior to operating 

2 plants and is consistent with the conclusions from the vendor’s internal flood risk analysis. 

3 5.11.3 Summary of Severe Accident Impacts 

4 The SCE&G application refers to proposed Revision 17 of the AP1000 reactor certified design 

5 (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D). The consequence assessment is based on the PRA for 

6 Revision 15 of the AP1000 design (Westinghouse 2005), which is certified in 10 CFR Part 52, 

7 Appendix D. Westinghouse subsequently upgraded and updated the PRA; however, 

8 Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA report submitted with Revision 15 of the DCD and 

9 concluded that the reported results and insights remain valid for proposed revisions of the DCD 

10 (Westinghouse 2007). The NRC staff evaluated the current PRA model and its results using 

11 DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008a), “Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to Support Design 

12 Certification and Combined License Applications,” and concluded that the Revision 15 results 

13 remain conservative and are an acceptable basis for evaluating severe accidents and strategies 

14 for mitigating them. SCE&G is required by regulation to upgrade and update the PRA prior to 

15 fuel loading. At that time, the NRC staff expects the PRA to be site-specific and that it will no 

16 longer use the bounding assumptions of the design-specific PRA. The NRC staff concludes it is 

17 unlikely that the PRA would change sufficiently to cause the staff to materially change its 

18 conclusions related to severe accident risks. 

19 The NRC staff reviewed the risk analysis in the ER and conducted a confirmatory analysis of the 

20 probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

21 using the MACCS2 code. The results of both the SCE&G analysis and the NRC analysis 

22 indicate that the environmental risks associated with severe accidents if an AP1000 reactor 

23 were to be located at the VCSNS site would be small compared with risks associated with 

24 operation of the current-generation reactors at the VCSNS site and other sites. These risks are 

25 within the Commission’s safety goals. On these bases, the NRC staff concludes that the 

26 probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents at the VCSNS site would be SMALL for 

27 an AP1000 reactor. 

28 5.11.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

29 The purpose of the evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) is to 

30 determine whether there are severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs), 

31 procedural modifications, or training activities that can be justified to further reduce the risks of 

32 severe accidents (NRC 2000c). SCE&G based its COL application on the AP1000 reactor 

33 design (see Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 52, Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design), 

34 which incorporates many features intended to reduce severe accident CDFs and the risks 

35 associated with severe accidents. The effectiveness of the AP1000 reactor design features is 

36 evident in Table 5-18 and Table 5-19, which compare CDFs and severe-accident risks for the 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-91 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 AP1000 reactor with CDFs and risks for current-generation reactors. The CDFs and risks have 

2 been reduced considerably when compared with current-generation reactors. 

3 Consistent with the direction from the Commission to consider the SAMDAs at the time of 

4 certification, the AP1000 reactor vendor (Westinghouse 2005) and the NRC staff (NRC 2004b, 

5 2005b) considered a number of design alternatives for an AP1000 reactor at a generic site. The 

6 conclusion of the NRC staff’s review was 

7 ...that none of the potential design modifications evaluated are justified on the 

8 basis of benefit-cost considerations. The NRC further concludes that it is unlikely 

9 that any other design changes would be justified in the future on the basis of 

10 person–rem exposure because the estimated CDFs are very low on an absolute 

11 scale. 

12 Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA for Revision 15 and concluded that the PRA remains 

13 valid for a proposed revision of the DCD (Westinghouse 2007); this is unchanged for Revision 

14 17. Furthermore, the NRC staff evaluated the current PRA using DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008a), 

15 “Probabilistic Risk Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined 

16 License Applications,” and concluded that the PRA submitted with Revision 15 is a conservative 

17 and acceptable basis for evaluating severe accidents and strategies for mitigating them. 

18 Therefore, the NRC staff considers the PRA for DCD Revision 15 to be an adequate basis for a 

19 SAMDA analysis for an application referencing DCD Revision 17. Consequently, the NRC staff 

20 incorporates by reference the environmental assessment accompanying the design certification 

21 rulemaking for Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52 (NRC 2005c). 

22 Section 5.11.2 of this chapter presents the environmental risks from various classes of severe 

23 accidents for the VCSNS site. Site-specific information appears in SAMDA evaluations as 

24 population dose risk (person-rem/Ryr) and offsite economic costs ($/Ryr). The NRC staff 

25 considers these two elements to be the appropriate metrics to use to determine if the site 

26 characteristics are bounded by the site parameters in the DCD because they are calculated 

27 from site-specific meteorology, population distribution, and land-use data. Appendix 1B of the 

28 AP1000 DCD lists the population dose risk (person-rem/Ryr) used in the DCD generic SAMDA 

29 review. While it does not specifically list the offsite economic costs, it does include a maximum 

30 attainable benefit that considers offsite economic costs, onsite exposure costs, onsite cleanup 

31 costs, and replacement power costs in addition to the cost associated with the offsite population 

32 dose risk. To perform a like-kind comparison, the NRC staff used the maximum attainable 

33 benefit cost for the VCSNS site characteristic. The probability-weighted, mean population dose 

34 risks derived from Table 1B-1 and the base case maximum attainable benefit listed in 

35 Table 1B-4 are the metrics used by the NRC staff to determine whether the VCSNS site 

36 characteristics are within the site parameters specified in Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-92 April 2010 

1 Table 5-20 presents the comparison of the VCSNS site-specific values (SCE&G 2009a) with the 

2 generic values from Appendix 1B of the AP1000 DCD (Westinghouse 2008). Table 5-20 shows 

3 that the population dose risk for the proposed VCSNS site is about 2.3 times larger than that 

4 listed in DCD Appendix 1B, while the maximum attainable benefit for the VCSNS site is roughly 

5 1.5 times greater than the DCD Appendix 1B value. Potential design modifications were 

6 examined further to determine if they would be cost beneficial in reducing risk at the VCSNS 

7 site. 

8 Table 5-20. Comparison of VCSNS SAMDA Site Characteristics with Site Parameters 

9 Specified in AP1000 DCD, Appendix 1B 

Population Dose 

Risk, 

person-rem/Ryr

Maximum 

Attainable 

Benefit 

DCD Appendix 1B (internal events)(a) 4.3 × 10-2 $21,000 

VCSNS site (internal events)(b) 1.0 × 10-1 $32,000 

Ratio of VCSNS site-specific value to DCD value 2.3 1.52

(a) AP1000 DCD Appendix 1B (Westinghouse 2008) 

(b) ER (SCE&G 2009a) 

10 The generic AP1000 SAMDA analysis is presented in Appendix 1B of the DCD (Westinghouse 

11 2008, Appendix 1B). Design alternatives considered by Westinghouse and their estimated 

12 implementation costs are presented in Table 5-21 (Westinghouse 2008). In the base-case 

13 analysis, the benefit-cost methodology of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997) is used to calculate the 

14 maximum attainable benefit. The analysis assumes that the implementation of the design 

15 alternative completely eliminates all potential for core damage. For the AP1000, the maximum 

16 attainable benefit was valued at $21,000 (Westinghouse 2008). Only one design alternative in 

17 Table 5-21 – the self-actuating containment isolation valves – has a cost ($33,000) that is 

18 comparable to the maximum attainable benefit. To evaluate the benefit of this SAMDA, the 

19 design change was assumed to eliminate the Containment Isolation severe accident release 

20 category, which is only a small contributor to the total CDF. Therefore, this design alternative 

21 provides almost no benefit in reducing the AP1000 CDF. 

22 The SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2009a) updates the SAMDA analysis conducted for AP1000 design 

23 certification using the results of the VCSNS site-specific consequence analysis (MACCS2) that 

24 are discussed in Section 5.11.2. The results of the SCE&G analysis indicate that the maximum 

25 attainable benefit, if the total risk for internal events for the VCSNS site could be reduced to 

26 zero, has a value of approximately $32,000 (SCE&G 2009a). Similar to the finding in the 

27 AP1000 DCD SAMDA analysis, only the self-actuating containment isolation valves design 

28 alternative (Table 5-21) has a value comparable to the maximum attainable benefit for the 

29 VCSNS site. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-93 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 5-21. Design Alternatives Considered for SAMDA in the AP1000 DCD

No. Design Alternative Cost ($) 

1 Upgrade chemical, volume, and control system for small loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 1,500,000 

2 Containment filtered vent 5,000,000 

3 Self-actuating containment isolation valves 33,000 

4 Safety grade passive containment spray 3,900,000 

6 Steam generator shell-side heat removal 1,300,000 

7 Steam generator relief flow to in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) 620,000 

8 Increased steam generator pressure capability 8,200,000 

9 Secondary containment ventilation with filtration 2,200,000 

10 Diverse IRWST injection valves 570,000 

12 Ex-vessel core catcher 1,660,000 

13 High-pressure containment design 50,000,000 

14 More reliable diverse actuation system 470,000

Source: Westinghouse 2008, 

2 Table 5-17, which lists the mean environmental risks from an AP1000 reactor severe accident at 

3 the VCSNS site, shows that the containment isolation severe accident category only contributes 

4 a small fraction to the total population dose (approximately 1 percent) and cost risk 

5 (approximately 0.1 percent) at the VCSNS site. Assuming that implementation of the self6 actuating containment isolation valves completely eliminates the risks associated with this 

7 release category, then the value of the reduction in risk would only be about $320. Thus, the 

8 site-specific SAMDA review conducted by SCE&G confirms the results of the design certification 

9 SAMDA review. Although the dose risk for the VCSNS site exceeds the DCD value, the site10 specific SAMDA analysis for the VCSNS site shows that the resulting design alternative (self11 actuating containment isolation valves) would only reduce this total risk by a small fraction. The 

12 next lowest cost design alternative has more than an order-of-magnitude higher cost than the 

13 self-actuating containment isolation valves. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that, in fact, 

14 there are no potential design modifications that are justified on the basis of benefit-cost 

15 considerations, and it is unlikely that any other design changes would be justified in the future 

16 on the basis of person-rem exposure because the estimated CDFs are very low on an absolute 

17 scale. 

18 The PRA upon which the AP1000 and SCE&G severe accident reviews are based was 

19 conducted for Revision 15 of the AP1000 design. Westinghouse subsequently upgraded and 

20 updated the PRA; however, Westinghouse reviewed the AP1000 PRA report submitted with 

21 Revision 15 of the DCD and concluded that the reported results and insights remain valid for 

22 proposed revisions of the DCD (Westinghouse 2007). The NRC staff evaluated the current 

23 PRA model and its results using DC/COL-ISG-3 (NRC 2008a), “Probabilistic Risk Assessment 

24 Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications,” and concluded 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-94 April 2010 

1 that the Revision 15 results remain conservative and are an acceptable basis for evaluating 

2 severe accidents and strategies for mitigating them. SCE&G is required by regulation to update 

3 the PRA prior to fuel loading. The NRC staff expects the PRA to be site-specific rather than use 

4 the bounding assumptions used for the design-specific PRA. The NRC staff considers it 

5 unlikely that the PRA would change sufficiently to cause the NRC staff to conclude that any 

6 SAMDA considered in the design-certification process would become cost beneficial. 

7 The SAMDA issue is a subset of the SAMA review. The other attributes of the SAMA review, 

8 namely procedural modifications and training activities, have not yet been addressed by 

9 SCE&G. However, SCE&G has stated (SCE&G 2009a) that risk insights would be considered 

10 in the development of plant procedures and training. Because the maximum attainable benefit 

11 is so low, a SAMA based on procedures or training for an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site 

12 would have to reduce the CDF or risk to near zero to become cost beneficial. Based on its 

13 evaluation, the staff concludes that it is unlikely that any of the SAMAs based on procedures or 

14 training would reduce the CDF or risk that much. Therefore, the staff further concludes it is 

15 unlikely that these SAMAs would be cost effective. Additionally, based on statements by 

16 SCE&G in the ER (SCE&G 2009a), the staff expects that SCE&G will consider risk insights in 

17 the development of procedures and training. However, this expectation is not crucial to the 

18 staff’s conclusions because the staff already concluded procedural and training SAMAs would 

19 be unlikely to be cost effective. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that SAMAs have been 

20 appropriately considered. 

21 5.11.5 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts

22 The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts from DBAs and severe accidents for an 

23 AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

24 NRC’s own independent review, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental 

25 impacts (risks) from a postulated accident from the operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 

26 and 3 would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

27 5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

28 Operation 

29 In its evaluation of environmental impacts during operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 at the 

30 VCSNS site, the review team relied on SCE&G’s compliance with the following measures and 

31 controls that would limit adverse environmental impacts: 

32  compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations 

33 intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid waste 

34 management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, stormwater 

35 management, spill response and cleanup, hazardous material management) 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-95 Draft NUREG-1939 

1  compliance with applicable requirements of permits or licenses required for operation of the 

2 new unit (e.g., USACE’s Section 404 Permit, NPDES) 

3  compliance with existing VCSNS Unit 1 processes and/or procedures applicable to proposed 

4 Units 2 and 3 environmental compliance activities for the VCSNS site (e.g., solid waste 

5 management, hazardous waste management, and spill prevention and response) 

6  incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts 

7  implementation of BMPs. 

8 The review team considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of the impacts of 

9 plant operation. Table 5-22 lists a summary of measures and controls to limit adverse impacts 

10 during operation proposed by SCE&G. 

11 Table 5-22. Summary of Measures and Controls Proposed by SCE&G to Limit Adverse 

12 Impacts During Operation of Proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS Site

Impact Category Specific Measures and Control

Land-Use Impacts

The Site and Vicinity SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls 

Transmission-Line Corridors and Offsite 

Areas 

 Routing decisions would consider protected species and 

critical habitats. 

 Maintenance practices would protect sensitive habitats and 

protected species, including wetlands and water crossings. 

Historic Properties and Cultural 

Resources 

 Before site disturbance, conduct archaeological surveys. 

 Continue to have a fence barrier around Pearson Cemetery.

 Continue any applicable mitigation measures for any 

National Register-eligible sites 

 Develop management agreement with SHPO. 

 Conduct earth-disturbing activities under existing 

procedures that prescribe actions to be taken in the event 

that significant archaeological or paleontological artifacts 

are encountered. 

 Conduct awareness training for procedures associated with 

inadvertent discoveries. 

Water-Related Impacts

Water-Use Impacts  Monitor hydrologic impacts as required by NPDES permit. 

Water-Quality Impacts  Monitor constituent emissions as required by NPDES 

permit. 

 Implement SCE&G’s Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan. 

 Conduct stormwater monitoring as required by stormwater 

permit. 

Future Water Use SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-96 April 2010 

1 Table 5-22. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Control

Cooling System Impacts

Intake System: 

Hydrodynamic Descriptions and Physical 

Impacts 

 Design and operate intake structures based on best 

available technology. 

Aquatic Ecosystems  Continue voluntary monitoring program for water quality in 

Monticello Reservoir. 

Discharge System: 

Thermal Description and Other Physical 

Impacts 

 Implement planned design that alternates discharge 

orientation. 

Aquatic Ecosystems SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls 

Terrestrial Ecosystems SCE&G did not propose any additional measures or controls 

Impacts on Members of the Public  No mitigation for noise will be required. 

 Control personnel and public access to the cooling towers 

by administrative controls and security patrols. Implement 

procedure to reduce the risk associated with exposure to 

thermophilic microorganisms by providing work practices 

and personal protective equipment to eliminate routes of 

exposure to thermophilic microorganisms that may produce 

illnesses.

Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation

Exposure Pathways  Implement radiological monitoring program as required. 

Radiation Doses to Members of the 

Public 

 Conduct radiological monitoring program as required. 

Impacts on Members of the Public  Conduct meteorological monitoring. 

Impacts on Biota Other than Members 

of the Public 

 Conduct radiological monitoring program as required. 

Environmental Impact of Waste

Nonradioactive Waste System Impacts  All discharges would comply with NPDES permit and 

applicable water-quality standards. 

 Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units. 

Mixed Waste Impacts  Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units. 

Waste Minimization  Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units. 

Radioactive Waste  Implement existing VCSNS waste-minimization program at 

new units. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-97 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 5-22. (contd)

Impact Category Specific Measures and Control

Transmission System Impacts

Terrestrial Ecosystems  Train personnel in the handling of fuel and lubricants and 

the cleanup and reporting of any incidental spills. 

 Have adequate spill response equipment on hand during 

maintenance activities in the corridors. 

 Maintenance practices would protect sensitive habitats and 

protected species, including wetland and water crossings. 

Aquatic Ecosystems  Implement existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures 

intended to prevent impacts on water quality and be 

protective of wetlands and stream crossings, including 

restriction of heavy equipment to prevent erosion, use of 

approved herbicides only, and spill-prevention practices 

when fueling or lubricating equipment. 

Impacts on Members of the Public  Build new transmission lines to national electrical standards 

to limit shock from induced currents. 

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts of Proposed Units  Pave access roads and set speed limits for vehicle traffic to 

minimize noise impacts. 

Social and Economic Impacts of 

Proposed Units 

 Stagger outage schedules to minimize traffic congestion. 

 Before the start of Unit 2 operation, develop an operations 

management traffic plan. 

 Minimize the visual impact of the structures through use of 

topography, design, materials, and color. 

Environmental Justice  No mitigation would be required. 

Decommissioning

Decommissioning  Continue applicable mitigation measures used during the 

operations period for decommissioning activities or for 

transportation of waste and materials to disposal sites. 

 SCE&G would assure that adequate funding for 

decommissioning would be available. 

Transportation of Radioactive Waste

Transportation of Radioactive Waste  No mitigation would be required. 

Nonradiological Health Impacts

Nonradiological Health Impacts  Implement existing SCE&G industrial safety program at 

Units 2 and 3. 

2 5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts 

3 The staff’s evaluation of the environment impacts of operations is summarized in Table 5-23. 

4 Impact level categories are denoted in the table as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a 

5 measure of their expected adverse impacts, if any. With the socioeconomic issues for which the 

6 impacts are likely to be beneficially MODERATE or LARGE, this is noted in the Comments 

7 column. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-98 April 2010 

1 Table 5-23. Characterization of Operational Impacts at the VCSNS Site 

Category Comments Impact Level

Land-Use Impacts SMALL 

 The Site and Vicinity Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on land use 

SMALL 

 Transmission-Line Corridors Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on land use. 

SMALL 

Water-Related Impacts SMALL 

 Water Use Operational activities would have negligible 

impacts on groundwater availability and small 

impacts on surface-water availability. 

SMALL 

 Water Quality Operational activities would have negligible 

impacts on surface and groundwater quality. 

SMALL 

Ecological Impacts SMALL 

 Terrestrial and Wetland 

 Ecosystems 

Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on terrestrial and wetland ecological 

resources and habitat. 

SMALL 

 Aquatic Ecosystems Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on aquatic ecological resources and 

habitat. 

SMALL 

Socioeconomic Impacts SMALL to 

LARGE 

 Physical Impacts Operational activities would have negligible 

physical impacts. 

SMALL 

 Demography Operational activities would have minimal 

demographic characteristics of the vicinity and 

region. 

SMALL 

 Economic Impacts on the 

 Community 

Operational activities would have substantial 

tax revenue impacts in Fairfield County. 

LARGE 

(beneficial) 

 Infrastructure and Community 

 Service 

Operational activities would have negligible 

impacts on local and regional transportation 

networks, recreation resources, housing, public 

services, or education. 

SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL 

 Health and Physical Impacts No disproportionate and adverse health or 

physical impacts to low-income and minority 

populations would be expected from 

operations 

SMALL 

 Socioeconomic No disproportionate and adverse impacts on 

any minority or low-income population would 

be expected from operations 

SMALL 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-99 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 5-23. (contd) 

Category Comments Impact Level

 Subsistence and Special 

 Conditions 

No disproportionate and adverse impacts 

on any minority or low-income population 

would be expected from operations 

SMALL 

Historic and Cultural Resources Operational activities would have minimal 

impact on historic and cultural resources. 

SMALL. 

Meteorological and Air-Quality 

Impacts

 SMALL 

 Cooling Towers Operational activities would not have a 

significant meteorological or air quality 

impacts 

SMALL 

 Air Quality Operational activities would not have a 

significant meteorological or air quality 

impacts 

SMALL 

 Transmission Lines Operational activities would not have a 

significant meteorological or air quality 

impacts 

SMALL 

Nonradiological Health Impacts Operational activities would not have 

significant nonradiological health impacts to 

the public 

SMALL 

Radiological Health Impacts SMALL 

 Members of Public Operational activities would result in no 

observable radiological health impacts to 

the public 

SMALL 

 VCSNS Workers Occupational doses to workers would be 

within regulatory limits 

SMALL 

 Biota Other Than Humans Doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota would 

be far below IAEA guidelines 

SMALL 

Nonradiological Waste Impacts Solid, liquid, gaseous, and mixed wastes 

generated during operations would be 

handled according to county, State, and 

Federal regulations. 

SMALL 

Impacts of Postulated Accidents SMALL 

 Design Basis Accidents The environmental consequences of DBAs 

would not be significant 

SMALL 

 Severe Accidents The environmental risks of severe accidents 

are well below the NRC safety criteria 

SMALL 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-100 April 2010 

1 5.14 References 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 Protection against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

6 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

7 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

8 10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

9 Criteria.” 

10 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational 

11 Safety and Health Standards.” 

12 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

13 Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” 

14 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

15 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

16 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

17 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

18 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

19 Policy Statement Correction and Republication.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

20 Commission. 

21 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

22 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register. 

23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

24 69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice 

25 Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

26 Commission. 

27 Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR). 2006. Power Frequency Electromagnetic 

28 Fields, Melatonin and the Risk of Breast Cancer. RCE-1, Health Protection Agency, Oxford, 

29 UK. Available at http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1204286180274 

30 Accession No. ML093210326. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-101 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Atomic Energy Act. 2 USC 2011 et seq. 

2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1997. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

3 United States 1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45 (53):1-88. October 31, 1997. 

4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1998. “Surveillance for Waterborne5 Disease Outbreaks – United States, 1995–1996.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC 

6 Surveillance Summaries, 47(SS-5):1-34. December 11, 1998. 

7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases. 

8 United States. 1998.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(53):1-94. December 31, 1999. 

9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases, 

10 United States 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(53):1-16. April 6, 2001. 

11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002. “Surveillance for Waterborne12 Disease Outbreaks – United States, 1999-2000.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

13 51(SS-8):1-48. November 22, 2002. 

14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2003. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

15 United States, 2001.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 50(53):1-22. May 2, 2003. 

16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2004. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

17 United States, 2002.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51 (53):1:77. April 30, 2004. 

18 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2005. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

19 United States, 2003.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(54):1-85. April 22, 2005. 

20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

21 United States, 2004.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 53(53):1-79. June 16, 2006. 

22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2007. “Summary of Notifiable Diseases – 

23 United States, 2005.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(53):2-92. March 30, 2007. 

24 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2008. “Primary Amebic 

25 Meningoencephalitis – Arizona, Florida, and Texas, 2007.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

26 Report, 57( 21):573-577. May 30, 2008. 

27 Chanin D.I. and M.L. Young. 1997. Code Manual for MACCS2: Volume 1, User’s Guide. 

28 NUREG/CR-6613, Vol. 1, SAND97-0594. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

29 D.C. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-102 April 2010 

1 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1996. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

2 IV July 1, 1995 – June 30, 1996. Annual Progress Report F-63-1-4. South Carolina 

3 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300698. 

4 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1997. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

5 IV July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1997. Annual Progress Report F-63-3-4, South Carolina Department 

6 of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300700. 

7 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1998. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

8 IV. Annual Progress Report F-63, July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. South Carolina 

9 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300704. 

10 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1999. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

11 IV. July 1. 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63-4-4, South Carolina 

12 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300706. 

13 Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401 et seq. 

14 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

15 Act [FWPCA]). 

16 Coutant, C.C. 1976. “Thermal Effects on Fish Ecology.” In: Encyclopedia of Environmental 

17 Science and Engineering Vol 2. W. & G. Baird, Ltd., Northern Ireland. 

18 Dames and Moore 1985. 316(b) Demonstration for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the 

19 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and the Nuclear Regulatory 

20 Commission. Job No. 5182-108-09. Accession No. ML090630369. 

21 Eckerman, K.F., A. B. Wolbarst, and A.C.B. Richardson. 1988. Limiting Values of Radionuclide 

22 Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors For Inhalation, Submersion, and 

23 Ingestion, Federal Guidance Report No. 11. EPA-520/1-880020. Environmental Protection 

24 Agency. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML052290105.

25 Eckerman, K.F. and J.C. Ryman. 1993. Federal Guidance Report No. 12, External Exposure to 

26 Radionuclides in Air, Water and Soil. EPA-402-R—93-081, Environmental Protection Agency, 

27 Washington, D.C. 

28 Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

29 Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

30 (SCE&G). Accession No. ML082680277. 

31 Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1988. “Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects.” Annual

32 Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-103 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2005. Final Report Comprehensive 316(b) 

2 Demonstration Study Proposal for Information Collection, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. 

3 Prepared for SCE&G. Accession No. ML091890159. 

4 Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2007. Preliminary Report of Fish Impingement Mortality 

5 at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Prepared for SCE&G. Accession No. ML091890160. 

6 Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data 

7 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

8 Jablon, S., Z. Hrubec, J.D. Boice Jr., and B.J. Stone. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living near 

9 Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 

10 Washington, D.C. 

11 Jow H.N., J.L. Sprung, J.A. Rollstin, L.T. Ritchie, and D.I. Chanin. 1990. MELCOR Accident 

12 Consequence Code System (MACCS), Model Description. NUREG/CR-4691; SAND-86-1562, 

13 Vol. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

14 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. 42 U.S.C. 6901.

15 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and 

16 Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series 

17 No. 332, Vienna, Austria. 

18 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007. The 2007 

19 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 

20 Publication No. 103. Annals of the ICRP 37(2-4). Accession No. ML080790301. 

21 Kellog, R.L. and J.J. Gift. 1983. “Relationship Between Optimum Temperatures for Growth and 

22 Preferred Temperatures for the Young of Four Fish Species.” Transactions of the America 

23 Fisheries Society 112:424-430. 

24 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

25 Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper. 

26 Accession No. ML082680275. 

27 Moulder, J.E.M. 2003. Powerlines & Cancer FAQS. Accessed June 23, 2009 at 

28 http://www.faqs.org/faqs/medicine/powerlines-cancer-faq/. Accession No. ML093280522. 

29 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1991. Effects of Ionizing 

30 Radiation on Aquatic Organisms: Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation 

31 Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-104 April 2010 

1 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1995. Principles and 

2 Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, Bethesda, 

3 Maryland. 

4 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

5 Exposure of the Population of the United States: Recommendations of the National Council on 

6 Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland. 

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

8 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq. 

9 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health 

10 Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields: Publication No. 99-4493, 

11 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at 

12 http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/niehs-report.pdf. Accession No. ML073240014.

13 National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

14 Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low 

15 Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, 

16 Washington, D.C. 

17 National Safety Council (NSC). 2006. Odds of Dying. Washington, D.C. Accessed September 

18 21, 2009 at 

19 http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Odds%20of%20Dyi

20 ng.pdf. 

21 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2007. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

22 Surveys: Draft Final Report. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

23 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2008. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

24 Surveys: Summer Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

25 Accession No. ML091050699. 

26 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009a. Monticello and Parr Reservoirs Fisheries 

27 Surveys: Winter Report Final. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, South Carolina. 

28 Accession No. ML092050189. 

29 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau). 2009b. Monticello Reservoir Icthyoplankton 

30 Studies, September 2008 Through August 2009. Prepared for Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Aiken, 

31 South Carolina. Accession No. ML092750409. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-105 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007. Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative –Final 

2 Guidance Document. August 2007. NEI 07-07. Washington, DC. Accession No. 

3 ML072610036. 

4 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2008. Generic FSAR Template Guidance for Life Cycle 

5 Minimization of Contamination. September 2008. NEI 08-08. Washington, DC. Accession No. 

6 ML082660100. 

7 Reed, E. 2007. Preventing and Controlling Cancer, The Nation’s Second Leading Cause of

8 Death, 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

9 Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Available at http://www.toiholliday.com/files/cancer.pdf. 

10 Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

11 Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. 

12 SC Code Ann. 48-1. 2009. “Pollution Control Act.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

13 Schubel, J.R., C.F. Smith, and T.S.Y. Koo. 1977. “Thermal effects of power plant entrainment 

14 on survival of larval fishes: a laboratory assessment.” Chesapeake Science 18(3): 290-298. 

15 Soldat, J.K., N.M. Robinson, and D.A. Baker. 1974. Models and Computer Codes for 

16 Evaluating Environmental Radiation Doses. BNWL--1754, Battelle, Pacific Northwest 

17 Laboratories, Richland, Washington. Available at 

18 http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=4334422/. 

19 Solid Waste Disposal Act. 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 

20 Sott, K.R. 2006. Santee Cooper - Transmission Vegetation Management Program. Santee 

21 Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090641089. 

22 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2002. South 

23 Carolina Water Use Report 1999 and 2000 Summary Data Compilation Bureau of Water, 

24 Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML093270551. 

25 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2003a. South 

26 Carolina Water Use Report 2001 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

27 Accession No. ML093270551. 

28 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2003b. South 

29 Carolina Water Use Report 2002 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

30 Accession No. ML093270551. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-106 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. South 

2 Carolina Water Use Report 2003 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

3 Accession No. ML093270551. 

4 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005a. South 

5 Carolina Water Use Report 2004 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

6 Accession No. ML093270551. 

7 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005b. Whole 

8 Effluent Toxicity (WET) Implementation Guidance As Relates to the South Carolina Aquatic Life 

9 Protection Act of 2005. July 2005. Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090640972. 

10 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2006. South 

11 Carolina Water Use Report 2005 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

12 Accession No. ML093270551. 

13 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. South 

14 Carolina Water Use Report 2006 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

15 Accession No. ML093270551. 

16 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. R.61-68,

17 Water Classifications & Standards. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

18 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/reg.htm#top. 

19 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2008. 2006

20 South Carolina Annual Report On Reportable Conditions. Available at 

21 http://www.scdhec.gov/health/disease/docs/Annual_report_on_Reportable_Conditions.pdf. 

22 Accession No. ML100481115. 

23 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) 2006. South Carolina Rare, 

24 Threatened, & Endangered Species Inventory Country Selection from List. Columbia, South 

25 Carolina. Available at: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map. 

26 Accession No. ML093280967. 

27 South Carolina Department of Revenue (SCDOR). 2009. South Carolina Counties by Zip 

28 Code: Important Information About Changes to Myrtle Beach Municipal Tax Rate. ST-439 (Rev. 

29 8/5/09). Columbia, South Carolina. Available at http://www.sctax.org/cgi30 bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&host_id=42&page_id=46

31 41&query=ST439. Accession No. ML100050236. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-107 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006a. 230kV Electric Transmission Right-of-Way 

2 Vegetation Management Program. Revision 2, January 3, 2006. Columbia, South Carolina. 

3 Accession No. ML090641089. 

4 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006b. Letter from Jeffrey B. Archie, (SCE&G Vice 

5 President, Nuclear Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 31, 2006, 

6 “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. 

7 NPF-12, Annual Operating Report.” Accession No. ML060940276. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006c. Radiological Environmental Operating 

9 Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2005 - December 

10 31, 2005. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML062770462. 

11 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2006d. Virgil C. Summer Jenkinsville South 

12 Carolina, Annual Effluent Radioactive Report for the Virgil C. Summer Station for the Operating 

13 Period January 1, 2005-December 31, 2005. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. 

14 ML061220346. 

15 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007a. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, 2006 

16 Annual Operating Report. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML070860335. 

17 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007b. Annual Radiological Environmental 

18 Operating Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2006-

19 December 31, 2006. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML083020046. 

20 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007c. Annual Effluent Radioactive Release 

21 Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, for the Operating Period January 1, 2006 - December 

22 31, 2006. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML071100299. 

23 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2007d. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual for South 

24 Carolina Electric and Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. Rev. 26. Jenkinsville, 

25 South Carolina. Accession Nos. ML081280582 and ML072910571. 

26 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008a. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 2007 

27 Annual Operating Report.” Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML080920137. 

28 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008b. Radiological Environmental Operating 

29 Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2007-December 

30 31, 2007. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML092960482. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-108 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008c. Virgil C. Summer Jenkinsville South 

2 Carolina, Annual Effluent Radioactive Report for the Virgil C. Summer Station for the Operating 

3 Period January 1, 2007-December 31. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. 

4 ML081280581. 

5 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

6 3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

7 Revision 1. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

9 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

10 1, 2009 in response to letters from Manny Comar (NRC) dated March 1, 2009, “Subject: Virgil 

11 C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3 Combined License Application (COLA) – 

12 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Response to NRC Request for Additional Information 

13 (RAI) Letter No. 041.” NND-09-0109. Accession No. ML091270890. 

14 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

15 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated May 

16 11, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

17 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

18 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

19 Information Needs: ACC-11, ALT-3, AQ-5, AQ-6, GW-11, LU-3, and SW-12.” NND-09-0126. 

20 Accession No. ML091350104. 

21 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

22 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

23 June 15, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

24 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

25 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

26 Information Needs: ALT-2 Part 2, AQ-1 Part B, GW-11 Parts 2 and 3, and LU-5.” NND-09-

27 0160. 

28 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

29 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

30 July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

31 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

32 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

33 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Alt-3, AqEco-7, CR-3, 

34 GW-6, Met-1, SEcon-6, and SW-2.” NND-09-0184. Accession No. ML092010266. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-109 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 August 7, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

4 Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

5 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

6 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): BenCost-1 and SEcon7 4.” NND-09-0237. Accession No. ML092230779. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

9 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

10 May 7, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

11 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

12 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

13 Information Needs: CR-17, 23, 24, 25, 26, GW-7 (Parts 1 and 5), SW-2, 4, 6, 10, SW-3 (Part 1), 

14 and T-3.” NND-09-0121. Accession No. ML091310563. 

15 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

16 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

17 July 20, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

18 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

19 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

20 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): TLine-2 and 3.” NND-09-

21 0198. Accession No. ML092030443. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009i. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

23 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

24 July 21, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

25 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

26 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

27 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10, 

28 and TLine-1.” NND-09-0204. Accession No. ML092040676. 

29 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

30 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

31 July 30, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

32 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

33 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

34 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-2 and 6, LU-1 and 

35 AqEco-1.” NND-09-0209. Accession No. ML092160247. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-110 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 July 20, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

4 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

5 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

6 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): GW-1, 2, 3, and 9 and 

7 HP-1 and 2, Met-2, TerEco-1, and SEcon-3.” NND-09-0203. Accession No. ML100660021. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009l. Letter from Jeffrey B. Archie, (SCE&G Vice 

9 President, Nuclear Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated March 25, 2009, 

10 “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating License No. 

11 NPF-12, Annual Operating Report.” Accession No. ML090890289. 

12 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009m. Letter from Thomas D. Gatlin (SCE&G, 

13 General Manager, Nuclear Plant Operations) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated 

14 April 29, 2009, “Subject: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Docket Number 50/395, Operating 

15 License No. NPF-12, Annual Radiological Effluent Release Report.” Accession No. 

16 ML091260302. 

17 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009n. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

18 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

19 April 29, 2009 in response to letter from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008, “Subject: V.C. 

20 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

21 License Application – Environmental Report Audit Information Needs.” NND-09-0104. 

22 Accession No. ML091270517. 

23 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009o. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

24 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

25 June 1, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

26 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

27 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

28 Information Needs: G-3, GW-4, HP-6, HP-10, HP-11, LU-4, and SE-1.” NND-09-0148. 

29 Accession No. ML091550479. 

30 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009p. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

31 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated, 

32 2009 in response to letter from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. 

33 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined 

34 License Application- revision to ER Section 2.7 to Incorporate Two Years of Meteorological 

35 Data.” NND-09-0270. Accession No. ML092670578. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-111 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009q. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manger, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 August 17, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B, Clary dated February 13, 2009 and 

4 Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009. “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

5 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

6 Environmental Report (ER) requests for Additional Information (RAI): Met-3.” NND-09-0247. 

7 Accession No. ML092310682. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009s. Radiological Environmental Operating 

9 Report, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station for the Operating Period January 1, 2008-December 

10 31, 2008. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML092860167. 

11 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009t. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

12 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

13 Accession No. ML092170463. 

14 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009u. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

15 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

16 August 6, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

17 Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

18 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

19 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): USACE-2, 3, 4, and 5.” 

20 NND-09-0236. Accession No. ML092230165. 

21 Strenge D.L., R.A. Peloquin, and G. Whelan. 1986. LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User 

22 Guide. NUREG/CR-4013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

23 Strenge D.L., T.J. Bander, and J.K. Soldat. 1987. GASPAR II - Technical Reference and User 

24 Guide. NUREG/CR-4653 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

25 Toblin, R.S. 2007. Temperature Distribution in Parr Reservoir on the Broad River as a Result 

26 of Blowdown from Proposed 2-Unit AP1000 Operation at V.C. Summer Stations. Prepared by 

27 Tetra Tech NUS Inc., for South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G), Jenkinsville, South 

28 Carolina. 

29 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008a. Table 1. Incidences Rates of Total Cases of 

30 Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by industry and Case Types, 2007. Available at 

31 http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb2071.pdf. Accession No. ML100481291. 

32 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2008b. Table 6. Incidences Rates of Nonfatal 

33 Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by industry and Case Types, 2007, South Carolina. 

34 Available at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/pr076sc.pdf. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-112 April 2010 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2007. National Transportation Statistics 2007.

2 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington, D.C. Available at 

3 http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics. Accession No. 

4 ML100481244. 

5 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009a. Traffic Safety Facts, South Carolina, 2003-

6 2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd7 30/ncsa/STSI/45_SC/2007/45_SC_2007.htm. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

8 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML093360621. 

9 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009b. Traffic Safety Facts, Fairfield County, South 

10 Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www11 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Fairfield%20County_2007.htm. 

12 Accession No. ML093360600. 

13 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009c. Traffic Safety Facts, Aiken County, South 

14 Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www15 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Aiken%20County_2007.htm. 

16 Accession No. ML093360588. 

17 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009d. Traffic Safety Facts, Barnwell County, South 

18 Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www19 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Barnwell%20County_2007.htm. 

20 Accession No. ML093360596. 

21 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009e. Traffic Safety Facts, Orangeburg County, 

22 South Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www23 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd24 3...nties/South%20Carolina_Orangeburg%20County_2007.htm. Accession No. ML093360609. 

25 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2009f. Traffic Safety Facts, Saluda County, South 

26 Carolina, 2003-2007. Accessed March 16, 2009 at http://www27 nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-3...nties/South%20Carolina_Saluda%20County_2007.htm. 

28 Accession No. ML093360617. 

29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Accessed 

30 December 15, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. Accession 

31 No. ML100221499. 

32 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. Charleston Ecological Services Office – Listed 

33 Endangered Species in South Carolina – Counties. Accessed November 25, 2008 at 

34 http://www.fws.gov/charleston/listedEndangeredSpecies.html. Accession No. ML100210568. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-113 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 

2 Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 

3 Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Washington, D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 

5 Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 

6 Plants. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Impact Statement 

8 Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit No. 2, Docket No. 50-341, 

9 Addendum No. 1. NUREG-0769, Addendum No. 1, Washington, D.C. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for 

11 Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 

12 1.145 Rev. 1, Washington, D.C. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment 

14 for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

16 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997 Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

18 Handbook, Final Report. NUREG/BR-0184. Washington D.C. Accession No. ML092870631. 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

20 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, 

21 Washington, D.C. 

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000a. Alternative Radiological Source Terms 

23 for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.183, 

24 Washington, D.C. 

25 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000b. Environmental Standard Review Plan– 

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

27 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 

29 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Appendix D in NRR Office 

30 Instruction LIC-203, Washington, D.C. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-114 April 2010 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

2 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of 

3 Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

5 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

6 Station, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to 

8 Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design. NUREG-1793, Washington, D.C. 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004c. Procedural Guidance for Preparing 

10 Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. LIC-203, Revision 1, 

11 Washington, D.C. 

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Final Rule – AP1000 Design Certification. 

13 SECY-05-0277, December 14, 2005. Washington, D.C. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005c. United States Nuclear Regulatory 

15 Commission Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Relating to the 

16 Certification of the AP1000 Standard Plant Design Docket 52-006.  Washington D.C. Accession 

17 No. ML053250292. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Environmental Impact Statement for an 

19 Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site Final Report, Main Report. NUREG-1811, 

20 Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. 

21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Environmental Impact Statement for an

22 Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site Final Report, Main Report. NUREG-1815, 

23 Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006c. Environmental Impact Statement for an 

25 Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site Final Report, Main Report. NUREG-1817, 

26 Vol. 1. Washington, D.C. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Standard Review Plan for the Review of 

28 Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition. NUREG-0800. Washington, 

29 D.C. 

30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Interim Staff Guidance, Probabilistic Risk 

31 Assessment Information to Support Design Certification and Combined License Applications. 

32 DC/COL-ISG-3. Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML081430675. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

April 2010 5-115 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

2 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872. 

3 Washington, D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Email from Jennifer Davis (NRC, Office of 

5 Nuclear Reactor Regulation to April R. Rice, Jack Cushing, Patricia Vokoun, Tamsen Dozier, 

6 Richard Darden, Rebekah Dobrasko, C. Cantley, Carl M. Berkowitz, Nancy, Kohn, Stephen E. 

7 Summer, Johnnie Waller, Jr., Randolph R. Hamah, Robert C. Lindler, Ken Johnson, William 

8 Cherry, and Joe I. Gillespie dated August 6, 2009, “Subject: RE: Process for Completing 

9 Section 106 Consultation.” Accession No. ML092400382. 

10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun, 

11 Project Manager, to Ryan Whited, Branch Chief, dated March 18, 2010, Subject: “Summary of 

12 the Environmental Site Audit and Alternative Site Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

13 License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3.”. Accession No. 

14 ML100480082. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Summary of Conference Calls 

16 Concerning Section 106 Consultation and the NRC Environmental Review of the VC Summer 

17 Units 2 and 3 COL Application, March 9, 2010. Accession No. ML100660020. 

18 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2005. AP1000 Design Control 

19 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 15, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

20 ML053480403. 

21 Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse). 2007. APP-PRA-GER-00, Revision 0 

22 AP1000 Design Change Proposal Review for PRA and Severe Accident Impact. Technical 

23 Report 135, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. Accession No. ML072670541. 

24 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

25 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

26 ML083230868. 

27 Williamson, K.L. and P.C. Nelson. 1985. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow 

28 suitability curves: Gizzard shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.112). 

29 World Health Organization (WHO). 2007a. Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health. 

30 Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Fact Sheet No. 322. Geneva, Switzerland. 

31 Available at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs322/en/print.html. Accession No. 

32 ML100481077. 
Operational Impacts at the VC Summer Site 

Draft NUREG-1939 5-116 April 2010 

1 World Health Organization (WHO). 2007b. Extremely Low Frequency Fields. Environmental 

2 Health Criteria Monograph No. 238, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at 

3 http://www.who.int/entity/peh-emf/publications/Complet_DEC_2007.pdf. Accession No. 

4 ML082880728. 

5 
April 2010 6-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 6.0 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

2 This chapter addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel cycle and solid3 waste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the decommissioning 

4 of two new nuclear units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site. 

5 In its evaluation of uranium fuel-cycle impacts from two new units at the VCSNS site, South 

6 Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) used the Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC 

7 (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized water reactor design. SCE&G’s 

8 assessment of fuel-cycle impacts is based on values in Table S-3 in Title 10 of the Code of 

9 Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.51(b), which in turn assumes an 80-percent annual capacity 

10 factor referenced to a 1000-MW(e) light water reactor (LWR), resulting in 800 MW of electrical 

11 output. SCE&G then assumed a 93-percent capacity factor for each of the two new 

12 1200-MW(e) AP1000 reactors and scaled the impact values from Table S-3 by 34 percent 

13 (SCE&G 2009a). The results reported here apply to the impacts from two AP1000 units, each 

14 with the capacity factor of 93 percent assumed by SCE&G. 

15 6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Solid-Waste Management 

16 This section discusses the environmental impacts from the uranium fuel-cycle and solid-waste 

17 management for the AP1000 reactor design. The environmental impacts of this design are 

18 evaluated against specific criteria for LWR designs at 10 CFR 51.51. 

19 The regulations in 10 CFR 51.51(a) state the following: 

20 Under § 51.50, every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage 

21 or Early Site Permit stage or combined license stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear 

22 power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4, 1979, shall take Table S-3, 

23 Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as the basis for evaluating the 

24 contribution of the environmental effects of uranium mining and milling, the production 

25 of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of 

26 irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive materials and management of low-level 

27 wastes and high-level wastes related to uranium fuel cycle activities to the 

28 environmental costs of licensing the nuclear power reactor. Table S-3 shall be 

29 included in the environmental report and may be supplemented by a discussion of the 

30 environmental significance of the data set forth in the table as weighed in the analysis 

31 for the proposed facility. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-2 April 2010 

1 The AP1000 reactors proposed for Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site are light-water-cooled 

2 reactors that use uranium dioxide fuel; therefore, Table S-3 (10 CFR 51.51(b)) can be used to 

3 assess the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Table S-3 values are normalized 

4 for a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor. The 10 CFR 51.51(a) 

5 Table S-3 values are reproduced in Table 6-1. 

6 Each AP1000 reactor unit is rated at 3400 MW(t) (Westinghouse 2008). Assuming that two 

7 AP1000 reactors would be located on the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009a), the power rating for the 

8 new units at the VCSNS site would be 6800 MW(t). Each AP1000 reactor unit is rated at 

9 1200 MW(e), of which 93 MW(e) are used for station and auxiliary loads, leaving 1107 MW(e) 

10 net electric output when the reactor is operating (Westinghouse 2008). With a capacity factor of 

11 93 percent (SCE&G 2009a), each AP1000 unit produces an average of 1070 MW(e). For two 

12 AP1000 units, this corresponds to 2140 MW(e). 

13 Specific categories of environmental considerations are included in Table S-3 (see Table 6-1). 

14 These categories relate to land use, water consumption and thermal effluents, radioactive 

15 releases, burial of transuranic, high-level waste (HLW) and low-level waste (LLW), and radiation 

16 doses from transportation and occupational exposures. In developing Table S-3, the staff 

17 considered two fuel-cycle options that differed in the treatment of irradiated (spent) fuel removed 

18 from a reactor. The “no-recycle” option treats all spent fuel as waste to be stored at a Federal 

19 waste repository, whereas the “uranium-only recycle” option involves reprocessing spent fuel to 

20 recover unused uranium and return it for use in new fuel. Neither cycle involves the recovery of 

21 plutonium. The contributions in Table S-3 resulting from reprocessing, waste management, and 

22 transportation of wastes are maximized for both of the two fuel cycles (uranium-only and no23 recycle); that is, the identified environmental impacts are based on the cycle that results in the 

24 greater impact. The uranium fuel cycle is defined as the total of the operations and processes 

25 associated with provision, use, and ultimate disposition of fuel for nuclear power reactors. 

Table 6-1. Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data(a) 26 

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Natural Resource Use 

Land (ac) 

 Temporarily committed(b)............................ 100 

 Undisturbed area .................................... 79 

 Disturbed area ........................................... 22 Equivalent to a 100-MW(e) coal-fired power plant. 

 Permanently committed ............................. 13 

 Overburden moved (millions of MT) .......... 2.8 Equivalent to a 95-MW(e) coal-fired power plant. 

27 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Water (millions of gallons) 

 Discharged to air ....................................... 160 =2 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR with cooling 

tower. 

 Discharged to waterbodies ........................ 11,090 

 Discharged to ground ................................ 127 

 

 Total 11,377 <4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) with once-through 

cooling. 

Fossil Fuel 

 Electrical energy (thousands of MW-hr) .... 323 <5 percent of model 1000-MW(e) LWR output. 

 Equivalent coal (thousands of MT) ............ 118 Equivalent to the consumption of a 45-MW(e) coal-fired 

power plant. 

Natural Gas (millions of standard cubic 

feet) 

135 <0.4 percent of model 1000 MW(e) energy output. 

Effluents--Chemical (MT) 

Gases (including entrainment)

(c)

 SOx

-1 4400 

 NOx

-1(d) 1190 Equivalent to emissions from 45-MW(e) coal-fired plant 

for a year. 

 Hydrocarbons ............................................ 14 

 CO 29.6 

 Particulates ................................................ 1154 

Other Gases 

 F 0.67 Principally from uranium hexafluoride (UF6) production, 

enrichment, and reprocessing. The concentration is 

within the range of state standards–below level that has 

effects on human health. 

 HCI 0.014 

Liquids 

 SO4

-

 9.9 From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and reprocessing 

steps. Components that constitute a potential for adverse 

environmental effect are present in dilute concentrations 

and receive additional dilution by receiving bodies of 

water to levels below permissible standards. The 

constituents that require dilution and the flow of dilution 

water are: NH3 – 600 cfs, NO3 – 20 cfs, Fluoride – 70 cfs.

 NO3

-

 25.8

 Fluoride 12.9

 Ca++ 5.4

 Cl− 8.5

 Na+ 12.1

 NH3 10

 Fe 0.4

 Tailings solutions (thousands of MT) ......... 240 From mills only – no significant effluents to environment. 

 Solids 91,000 Principally from mills – no significant effluents to 

environment. 

Effluents–Radiological (curies) 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-4 April 2010 

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Gases (including entrainment) 

 Rn-222 Presently under reconsideration by the Commission. 

 Ra-226 0.02 

 Th-230 0.02 

 Uranium 0.034 

 Tritium (thousands) ................................... 18.1 

 C-14 24 

 Kr-85 (thousands) ...................................... 400 

 Ru-106 0.14 Principally from fuel-reprocessing plants. 

 I-129 1.3 

 I-131 0.83 

 Tc-99 Presently under consideration by the Commission. 

 Fission products and transuranic 

elements 

0.203 

Liquids 

 Uranium and daughters ............................. 2.1 Principally from milling – included tailings liquor and 

returned to ground – no effluents; therefore, no effect on 

environment. 

 Ra-226 0.0034 From UF6 production. 

 Th-230 0.0015 

 Th-234 0.01 From fuel fabrication plants – concentration 10 percent of 

10 CFR Part 20 for total processing 26 annual fuel 

requirements for model LWR. 

 Fission and activation products ................. 5.9 × 10−6

Solids (buried onsite) 

 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 spentfuel storage. No significant effluent to the environment. 

 TRU and HLW (deep) ................................ 1.1 × 107 Buried at Federal Repository. 

Effluents – thermal (billions of British 

thermal units) 

4063 <5 percent of model1000-MW(e) LWR. 

Transportation (person-rem) 

 Exposure of workers and general public ... 2.5 

Occupational Exposure (person-rem) ............... 22.6 From reprocessing and waste management. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 6-1. (contd)

Environmental Considerations Total

Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel Requirement or 

Reference Reactor Year of Model 1000-MW(e) LWR

Source: Table S-3 from 10 CFR 51.51(b), 

(a) In some cases where no entry appears, it is clear from the background documents that the matter was addressed and that, in 

effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However, there are other areas that are not 

addressed at all in the table. Table S-3 does not include health effects from the effluents described in the table, or estimates 

of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle or estimates of technetium-99 released from waste management or 

reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of litigation in the individual licensing proceedings. 

Data supporting this table are given in Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1248 (AEC 1974); 

Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG-0116 (Supp.1 to 

WASH-1248) (NRC 1976); NUREG-0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248) (NRC 1977b); and in the record of the final rulemaking 

pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts from Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, Docket RM50-3. The contributions from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of the 

two fuel cycles (uranium-only and no-recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes transportation of cold fuel to a 

reactor and of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor, which are considered in Table S-4 of Sec. 51.20(g). The 

contributions from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns A-E of Table S-3A of WASH-1248. 

(b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, because the complete 

temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services one reactor for one year or 57 reactors for 30 years. 

(c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation. 

(d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process. 

HLW = high-level waste; LWR = light water reactor; TRU = transuranic elements

1 The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 (22 USC 3201, et seq.) significantly affected the 

2 disposition of spent nuclear fuel by deferring indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and 

3 recycling of spent fuel produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power program. While the ban 

4 on the reprocessing of spent fuel was lifted during the Reagan administration, economic 

5 circumstances changed, reserves of uranium ore increased, and the stagnation of the nuclear 

6 power industry in the United States provided little incentive for industry to resume reprocessing. 

7 During the 109th Congress, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Statute 594) was enacted. It 

8 authorized the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct an advanced fuel-recycling 

9 technology research and development program to evaluate proliferation-resistant fuel-recycling 

10 and transmutation technologies that minimize environmental or public health and safety 

11 impacts. Consequently, while Federal policy does not prohibit reprocessing, additional DOE 

12 efforts would be necessary before commercial reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel 

13 produced in the U.S. commercial nuclear power plants could commence. 

14 The no-recycle option is presented schematically in Figure 6-1. Natural uranium is mined in 

15 either open-pit or underground mines or by an in situ leach-solution mining process. In situ

16 leach mining, presently the primary form of mining in the United States, involves injecting a 

17 lixiviant solution into the uranium ore body to dissolve uranium and then pumping the solution to 

18 the surface for further processing. The ore or in situ leach solution is transferred to mills where 

19 it is processed to produce “yellowcake” (U3O8). A conversion facility prepares the uranium oxide 

20 by converting it to uranium hexafluoride, which is then processed by an enrichment facility to 

21 increase the percentage of the more fissile isotope uranium-235 and decrease the percentage 

22 of the nonfissile isotope uranium-238. At a fuel-fabrication facility, the enriched uranium, which 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-6 April 2010 

1 

2 Figure 6-1. The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option (derived from NRC 1996) 

3 is approximately 5 percent uranium-235, is then converted to uranium dioxide (UO2). The UO2

4 is pelletized, sintered, and inserted into tubes to form fuel assemblies, which are placed in a 

5 reactor to produce power. When the content of the uranium-235 reaches a point where the 

6 nuclear reactor has become inefficient with respect to neutron economy, the fuel assemblies are 

7 withdrawn from the reactor. After onsite storage for sufficient time to allow for short-lived 

8 fission-product decay and to reduce the heat-generation rate, the fuel assemblies are 

9 transferred to a waste repository for interment. Disposal of spent-fuel elements in a repository 

10 constitutes the final step in the no-recycle option. 

11 The following assessment of the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle as related to the 

12 operation of the proposed project is based on the values given in Table S-3 (Table 6-1) and the 

13 staff’s analysis of the radiological impact from radon-222 and technetium-99. In NUREG-1437, 

14 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) 

(NRC 1996, 1999),(a) 15 the staff provides a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts from 

16 the uranium fuel cycle. Although NUREG-1437 is specific to the impacts related to license 

17 renewal, the information is relevant to this review because the advanced LWR design 

18 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999. 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 considered here uses the same type of fuel as considered in the staff’s evaluation in 

2 NUREG-1437. The staff’s analyses in Section 6.2.3 of NUREG-1437 are summarized and set 

3 forth here. 

4 The fuel-cycle impacts in Table S-3 are based on a reference 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at an 

5 annual capacity factor of 80 percent for a net electric output of 800 MW(e). As explained above, 

6 the total net electric output for the proposed two new units at the VCSNS site is 2140 MW(e), 

7 which is about 2.68 times (i.e., 2140 MW(e) divided by 800 MW(e) yields 2.68) the output value 

8 in Table S-3 (see Table 6-1). For added conservatism in its review and evaluation of the 

9 environmental impacts of the nuclear fuel cycle, the staff multiplied the values in Table S-3 by a 

10 factor of 3, rather than a factor of 2.68, scaling the impacts upward to account for the increased 

11 electric generation of the two proposed AP1000 units. Scaling up by a factor of 3 is referred to 

12 as using the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. 

13 Recent changes in the fuel cycle may have some bearing on environmental impacts; however, 

14 as discussed below, the staff is confident that the contemporary fuel-cycle impacts are below 

15 those identified in Table S-3. This is especially true in light of the following recent fuel cycle 

16 trends in the United States: 

17  Increasing use of in situ leach uranium mining, which does not produce mine tailings. 

18  Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion to gas 

19 centrifuge. The centrifuge process uses only a small fraction of the electrical energy per 

20 separation unit compared to gaseous diffusion. (U.S. gaseous diffusion plants relied on 

21 electricity derived mainly from the burning of coal.) 

22  Current LWRs use nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher fuel burnup. Therefore, less 

23 uranium fuel per year of reactor operation is required than in the past to generate the same 

24 amount of electricity. 

25  Fewer spent-fuel assemblies per reactor-year are discharged, hence the waste 

26 storage/repository impact is lessened. 

27 The values in Table S-3 were calculated from industry averages for the performance of each 

28 type of facility or operation within the fuel cycle. Recognizing that this approach meant that 

29 there would be a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the staff followed the policy of 

30 choosing the assumptions or factors to be applied so that the calculated values would not be 

31 underestimated. This approach was intended to make sure that the actual environmental 

32 impacts would be less than the quantities shown in Table S-3 for all LWR nuclear power plants 

33 within the widest range of operating conditions. Many subtle fuel-cycle parameters and 

34 interactions were recognized by the staff as being less precise than the estimates and were not 

35 considered or were considered but had no effect on the Table S-3 calculations. For example, to 

36 determine the quantity of fuel required for a year’s operation of a nuclear power plant in 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-8 April 2010 

1 Table S-3, the staff defined the model reactor as a 1000-MW(e) LWR operating at 80-percent 

2 capacity with a 12-month fuel-reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. 

3 This is a “reactor reference year” or “reference reactor year” depending on the source (either 

4 Table S-3 or NUREG-1437), but it has the same meaning. 

5 If approved, the COLs for the proposed two units would allow 40 years of operation. In 

6 NUREG-1437, the sum of the initial fuel loading plus all of the reloads for the lifetime of the 

7 reactor was divided by a 60-year lifetime (40-year initial license term and 20-year license 

8 renewal term) to obtain an average annual fuel requirement. This approach was followed in 

9 NUREG-1437 for both boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors; the higher annual 

10 requirement, 35 MT of uranium made into fuel for a boiling water reactor, was chosen in 

11 NUREG-1437 as the basis for the reference reactor year (NRC 1996). The average annual fuel 

12 requirement presented in NUREG-1437 would only be increased by 2 percent if a 40-year 

13 lifetime was evaluated. However, a number of fuel-management improvements have been 

14 adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel and 

15 separative-work (enrichment) requirements. Since the time when Table S–3 was promulgated, 

16 these improvements have reduced the annual fuel requirement, which means the Table S-3 

17 assumptions remain bounding as applied to the proposed two units. 

18 Another change supporting the bounding nature of the S-3 assumptions with respect to Units 2 

19 and 3 impacts is the elimination of the U.S. restrictions on the importation of foreign uranium. 

20 Until recently, the economic conditions of the uranium market favored use of foreign uranium at 

21 the expense of the domestic uranium industry. From the mid-1980s to 2004, the price of U3O8

22 remained below $20/lb. These market conditions resulted in the closing of most U.S. uranium 

23 mines and mills, thereby substantially reducing the environmental impacts in the United States 

24 from these activities. However, more recently the spot price of uranium has increased 

25 dramatically from $24/lb in April 2005 to $135/lb in July 2007 and has decreased to near $44/lb 

26 as of April 2009 (VxC 2009). As a result, there is a renewed interest in uranium mining and 

27 milling in the United States and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) anticipates 

28 receiving multiple license applications for uranium mining and milling in the next several years. 

29 The majority of these applications are expected to be for in situ leach solution mining that does 

30 not produce tailings. Factoring in changes to the fuel cycle suggests that the environmental 

31 impacts of mining and tail millings could drop to levels below those given in Table S-3; however, 

32 Table S-3 estimates remain bounding as applied to the proposed two units. 

33 In summation, these reasons highlight why Table S-3 is likely to overestimate impacts from the 

34 proposed two units and therefore remains a bounding approach for this analysis. 

35 Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 discusses in greater detail the sensitivity to changes in the fuel 

36 cycle since issuance of Table S-3 on the environmental impacts. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 6.1.1 Land Use 

2 The total annual land requirement for the fuel cycle supporting the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled 

3 model is about 339 ac. Approximately 39 ac are permanently committed land, and 300 ac are 

4 temporarily committed. A “temporary” land commitment is a commitment for the life of the 

5 specific fuel-cycle plant (e.g., a mill, enrichment plant, or succeeding plants). After 

6 decommissioning, such land can be released for unrestricted use. “Permanent” commitments 

7 represent land that may not be released for use after plant shutdown and decommissioning 

8 because decommissioning activities do not result in the removal of sufficient radioactive material 

9 to meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E, for release of that area for unrestricted use. Of 

10 the 300 ac of temporarily committed land, 66 ac are assumed to be disturbed. In comparison, a 

11 coal-fired power plant using the same megawatt electric output as the LWR-scaled model and 

12 using strip-mined coal requires the disturbance of about 528 ac/yr for fuel alone. The staff 

13 concludes that the impacts on land use to support the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would be 

14 SMALL. 

15 6.1.2 Water Use 

16 The principal water use for the fuel cycle supporting a 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model is that 

17 required to remove waste heat from the power stations supplying electrical energy to the 

18 enrichment step of this cycle. Scaling from Table S-3, of the total annual water use of 

3.41 × 1010 gal, about 3.33 × 1010 19 gal are required for the removal of waste heat, assuming that 

20 a new unit uses once-through cooling. Also, scaling from Table S-3, other water uses involve 

the discharge to air (e.g., evaporation losses in process cooling) of about 4.80 × 108 21 gal/yr and 

discharge to the ground (e.g., mine drainage) of about 3.81 × 108 22 gal/yr. 

23 On a thermal-effluent basis, annual discharges from the nuclear fuel cycle are about 4 percent 

24 of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using once-through cooling. The consumptive water use 

25 is about 2 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model using cooling towers. The maximum 

26 consumptive water use (assuming that all plants supplying electrical energy to the nuclear fuel 

27 cycle use cooling towers) would be about 4 percent of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model 

28 using cooling towers. Under this condition, thermal effluents would be negligible. The staff 

29 concludes that the impacts on water use for these combinations of thermal loadings and water 

30 consumption would be SMALL. 

31 6.1.3 Fossil Fuel 

32 Electric energy and process heat are required during various phases of the fuel-cycle process. 

33 The electric energy is usually produced by the combustion of fossil fuel at conventional power 

34 plants. Electric energy use associated with the fuel cycle represents about 5 percent of the 

35 annual electric power production of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. Process heat is 

36 primarily generated by the combustion of natural gas. This gas consumption, if used to 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-10 April 2010 

1 generate electricity, would be less than 0.4 percent of the electrical output from the model plant. 

2 The staff concludes that the fossil fuel impacts from the direct and indirect consumption of 

3 electric energy for fuel-cycle operations would be SMALL relative to the net power production of 

4 the proposed project. 

5 The largest source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the fuel cycle is production of electric 

6 energy from combustion of fossil fuel in conventional power plants. This energy is used to 

7 power components of the fuel cycle such as enrichment. The CO2 emissions from the fuel cycle 

8 are about 5 percent of the CO2 emissions from an equivalent fossil fuel-fired plant. 

9 The largest use of electricity in the fuel cycle comes from the enrichment process. It appears 

10 that gas centrifuge (GC) technology is likely to eventually replace gaseous diffusion (GD) 

11 technology for uranium enrichment in the United States. The same amount of enrichment from 

12 a GC facility uses less electricity and therefore results in lower amounts of air emissions such as 

13 carbon dioxide than a GD facility. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the values for 

14 electricity use and air emissions in Table S-3 continue to be appropriately bounding values. 

15 In Appendix J, the staff estimates that the carbon footprint of the fuel cycle to support a 

reference 1000-MW(e) LWR for a 40-year plant life is on the order of 1.8 × 107 16 MT of CO2, 

17 including a very small contribution from other greenhouse gases. Scaling this footprint to the 

18 power level of the AP1000 reactor and two proposed units using the scaling factor of 3 

19 discussed earlier, the NRC staff estimates the carbon footprint for 40 years of fuel-cycle 

emissions to be approximately 5.3 × 107 20 MT of CO2. 

21 On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the fossil fuel impacts including greenhouse gas 

22 emissions from the direct and indirect consumption of electric energy for fuel cycle operations 

23 would be SMALL. 

24 6.1.4 Chemical Effluents 

25 The quantities of gaseous and particulate chemical effluents produced in fuel-cycle processes 

26 are given in Table S-3 (Table 6-1) for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR and, according to 

27 WASH-1248 (AEC 1974), result from the generation of electricity for fuel-cycle operations. The 

28 principal effluents are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Table S-3 states that the 

29 fuel cycle for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR requires 323,000 MWh of electricity. The fuel 

30 cycle for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would therefore require 969,000 MWh of 

31 electricity, or less than 0.024 percent of the 4.1 billion MWh of electricity generated in the United 

32 States in 2008 (DOE 2009). Therefore, the gaseous and particulate chemical effluents from 

33 fuel-cycle processes to support the operation of the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model would add 

34 less than 0.024 percent to the national gaseous and particulate chemical effluents for electricity 

35 generation. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Liquid chemical effluents produced in fuel-cycle processes are related to fuel enrichment and 

2 fabrication and may be released to receiving waters. These effluents are usually present in 

3 dilute concentrations such that only small amounts of dilution water are required to reach levels 

4 of concentration that are within established standards. Table S-3 (Table 6-1) specifies the 

5 amount of dilution water required for specific constituents. In addition, all liquid discharges into 

6 the navigable waters of the United States from facilities associated with the fuel-cycle 

7 operations would be subject to requirements and limitations set by appropriate Federal, State, 

8 Tribal, and local agencies. 

9 Tailings solutions and solids are generated during the milling process, but as Table S-3 

10 indicates, effluents are not released in quantities sufficient to have a significant impact on the 

11 environment. 

12 Based on the above analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts of these chemical 

13 effluents (gaseous, particulate and liquid) would be SMALL. 

14 6.1.5 Radiological Effluents 

15 Radioactive effluents estimated to be released to the environment from waste management 

16 activities and certain other phases of the fuel-cycle process are listed in Table S-3 (Table 6-1). 

17 NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) provides the 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. 

18 population from fuel cycle activities for 1 year of operation of the model 1000-MW(e) LWR using 

19 the radioactive effluents in Table S-3. Excluding reactor releases and dose commitments 

20 because of exposure to radon-222 and technetium-99, the total overall whole body gaseous 

21 dose commitment and whole body liquid dose commitment from the fuel cycle were calculated 

22 to be approximately 400 person-rem and 200 person-rem, respectively. Scaling these dose 

23 commitments by a factor of about 3 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model results in 

24 whole body dose commitment estimates of 1200 person-rem for gaseous releases and 

25 600 person-rem for liquid releases. Therefore, for both pathways, the estimated 100-year 

26 environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population would be approximately 1800 person27 rem for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. 

28 Currently, the radiological impacts associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases are 

29 not addressed in Table S-3. Principal radon releases occur during mining and milling 

30 operations and as emissions from mill tailings, whereas principal technetium-99 releases occur 

31 from gaseous-diffusion enrichment facilities. SCE&G provided an assessment of radon-222 and 

32 technetium-99 in its Environmental Report (ER) (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G’s evaluation relied on 

33 the information discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

34 In Section 6.2 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996), the staff estimated the radon-222 releases from 

35 mining and milling operations and from mill tailings for each year of operation of the reference 

36 1000-MW(e) LWR. The estimated release of radon-222 for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-12 April 2010 

1 is approximately 16,000 Ci. Of this total, about 78 percent would be from mining, 15 percent 

2 from milling operations, and 7 percent from inactive tailings before stabilization. For radon 

3 releases from stabilized tailings, the staff assumed that the LWR-scaled model would result in 

4 an emission of 3 Ci/Ryr, (i.e., about three times the NUREG-1437 [NRC 1996] estimate for the 

5 reference reactor year). The major risks from radon-222 are from exposure to the bone and the 

6 lung, although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole body. The organ-specific dose7 weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 were applied to the bone and lung doses to estimate the 

8 100-year dose commitment from radon-222 to the whole body. The estimated 100-year 

9 environmental dose commitment from mining, milling, and tailings before stabilization for each 

10 reactor year (assuming the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model) would be approximately 

11 1800 person-rem to the whole body. From stabilized tailings piles, the estimated 100-year 

12 environmental dose commitment would be approximately 34 person-rem to the whole body. 

13 Additional insights regarding Federal policy/resource perspectives concerning institutional 

14 controls comparisons with routine radon-222 exposure and risk and long-term releases from 

15 stabilized tailing piles are discussed in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). 

16 Also as discussed in NUREG-1437, the staff considered the potential doses associated with the 

17 releases of technetium-99. The estimated releases of technetium-99 for the reference reactor 

18 year for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model are 0.021 Ci from chemical processing of recycled 

19 uranium hexafluoride before it enters the isotope-enrichment cascade and 0.015 Ci into the 

20 groundwater from a HLW repository. The major risks from technetium-99 are from exposure of 

21 the gastrointestinal tract and kidney, although there is a small risk from exposure to the whole 

22 body. Applying the organ-specific dose-weighting factors from 10 CFR Part 20 to the 

23 gastrointestinal tract and kidney doses, the total-body 100-year dose commitment from 

24 technetium-99 to the whole body was estimated to be 300 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) 

25 LWR-scaled model. 

26 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation 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 dose response relationship is used to describe the 

29 relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A recent report 

30 by the National Research Council (2006), the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII 

31 report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose response model as a basis for estimating the risks 

32 from low doses. This approach is accepted by the NRC as a conservative method for 

33 estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate 

34 those risks. Based on this method, the staff estimated the risk to the public from radiation 

35 exposure using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment. This coefficient has 

36 the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary effects per 

37 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 0.00057 effect per person-rem. The 

38 coefficient is taken from Publication 103 of the International Commission on Radiological 

39 Protection (ICRP 2007). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The nominal probability coefficient was multiplied by the sum of the estimated whole body 

2 population doses from gaseous effluents, liquid effluents, radon-222, and technetium-99 

3 discussed above (approximately 3900 person-rem/yr) to calculate that the U.S. population 

4 would incur a total of approximately 2.2 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary 

5 effects annually. 

6 Radon-222 releases from tailings are indistinguishable from background radiation levels at a 

7 few miles from the tailings pile (at less than 0.6 mi in some cases) (NRC 1996). The public 

8 dose limit in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulation, 40 CFR Part 190, 

9 is 25 mrem/yr to the whole body from the entire fuel cycle, but most NRC licensees have 

10 airborne effluents resulting in doses of less than 1 mrem/yr (61 FR 65120). 

11 In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute conducted a study 

12 and published Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities in 1990 (Jablon et al. 1990). 

13 This report included an evaluation of health statistics around all nuclear power plants, as well as 

14 several other nuclear fuel-cycle facilities, in operation in the United States in 1981 and found “no 

15 evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted from living near nuclear facilities” 

16 (Jablon et al.1990). The contribution to the annual average dose received by an individual from 

17 fuel-cycle-related radiation and other sources as reported in a publication of the National 

18 Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 2009) is listed in Table 6-2. The 

19 contribution from the nuclear fuel cycle to an individual’s annual average radiation dose is 

20 extremely small (less than 0.01 mrem/yr) compared to the annual average background radiation 

21 dose (about 311 mrem/yr). 

22 Based on the analyses presented above, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of 

23 radioactive effluents from the fuel cycle, including gaseous and liquid releases, are SMALL. 

24 6.1.6 Radiological Wastes 

25 The estimated quantities of buried radioactive waste material (LLW, HLW, and transuranic 

26 waste) generated by the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR are specified in Table S-3 (Table 6-1). 

For LLW disposal at land burial facilities, the Commission(a) 27 notes in Table S-3 that there would 

28 be no significant radioactive releases to the environment. The VCSNS site is in the State of 

29 South Carolina, and thus has continuing access to the LLW disposal facility at Barnwell, South 

30 Carolina. 

 

(a) The Commission is the body of up to five NRC commissioners that formulates policies, develops 

regulations governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and 

adjudicates legal matters. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-14 April 2010 

1 Table 6-2. Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by a U.S. Resident from All 

2 Sources 

Source Dose (mrem/yr)(a) Percent of Total 

Ubiquitous 

background

Radon and thoron 

Space 

Terrestrial 

Internal (body) 

Subtotal 

228 

33 

21 

29 

 311 

37 

5 

3 

5 

 50 

Medical Computed tomography 

Medical x-ray 

Nuclear medicine 

Subtotal 

147 

76 

77 

 300 

24 

12 

12 

 48 

Consumer Construction materials, 

smoking, air travel, 

mining, agriculture, fossil 

fuel combustion 

 13 2 

Other Occupational 

Nuclear fuel cycle 

 0.5(b)

0.05(c)

 0.1 

0.01 

Total 624 100 

Source: NCRP Report 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (NCRP 2009) 

(a) NCRP Report 160 table expressed in mSv/yr (1 mSv/yr equals 100 mrem/yr). 

(b) Occupational dose is regulated separately from public dose and is provided here for informational purposes. 

(c) Calculated using 153 person-Sv/yr from Table 6.1 of NCRP Report 160 using a 2006 U.S. population of 

300 million. 

3 The Commission notes that high-level and transuranic wastes are to be buried at a repository, 

4 such as the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and that no release to the 

5 environment is expected to be associated with such disposal, because it has been assumed 

6 that all of the gaseous and volatile radionuclides contained in the spent fuel are released to the 

7 atmosphere before the disposal of the waste. In NUREG-0116 (NRC 1976), which provides 

8 background and context for the Table S–3 values established by the Commission, the staff 

9 indicates that these high-level and transuranic wastes will be buried and will not be released to 

10 the environment. 

11 As part of the Table S-3 rulemaking, the staff evaluated, along with more conservative 

12 assumptions, this zero-release assumption associated with waste burial in a repository, and the 

13 NRC reached an overall generic determination that fuel-cycle impacts would not be significant. 

14 In 1983, the Supreme Court affirmed the NRC’s position that the zero-release assumption was 

15 reasonable in the context of the Table S-3 rulemaking to address generically the impacts of the 

16 uranium fuel cycle in individual reactor licensing proceedings (Baltimore Gas & Electric v. 

17 National Resources Defense Council). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Furthermore, in the Commission’s Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, the Commission 

2 has made the generic determination that “if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can 

3 be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the 

4 licensed life for operation [...] of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or 

5 offsite independent spent fuel storage installations.” That regulation also states that “the 

6 Commission believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository 

7 will be available [...] within 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to 

8 dispose of the commercial high-level waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and 

9 generated up to that time.” The regulation provides that, accordingly, no discussion of any 

10 environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the period following the term of a reactor 

11 combined license is required in any EIS prepared in connection with the issuance of that 

12 combined license. 

13 In October 2008, the Commission proposed a rulemaking to update and revise the Waste 

14 Confidence Decision (73 FR 59551 [Oct. 9, 2008]). Public comments were received on the 

15 rulemaking, and the public comment period for the rule was extended through February 2009 

16 (73 FR 72370 [Nov. 28, 2008]). At this time, however, the Commission has not approved 

17 publication of a final rule. If a revised rule concerning the waste confidence determination is 

18 ultimately issued by the Commission, the staff will be required to follow that determination. 

19 Absent further developments with respect to the Waste Confidence rulemaking, Table S-3 and 

20 the existing Waste Confidence Decision indicates that any environmental impacts associated 

21 with the HLW that would be generated by Units 2 and 3 would be small. 

22 In the context of operating license renewal, Sections 6.2 and 6.4 of NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) 

23 provide additional description of the generation, storage, and ultimate disposal of LLW, mixed 

24 waste, and spent fuel from power reactors, concluding that environmental impacts from these 

25 activities are small. For the reasons stated above, the staff concludes that the environmental 

26 impacts of radioactive waste storage and disposal associated with proposed Units 2 and 3 

27 would be SMALL. 

28 6.1.7 Occupational Dose 

29 The annual occupational dose attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the 1000-MW(e) 

30 LWR-scaled model is about 1800 person-rem. This is based on the NUREG-1437 occupational 

31 dose estimate of 600 person-rem attributable to all phases of the fuel cycle for the model 

32 1000-MW(e) LWR (NRC 1996). The environmental impact from this occupational dose is 

33 considered SMALL because the dose to any individual worker would be maintained within the 

34 limits of 10 CFR Part 20, which is 5 rem/yr. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-16 April 2010 

1 6.1.8 Transportation 

2 The transportation dose to workers and the public related to the uranium fuel cycle is 

3 approximately 2.5 person-rem annually for the reference 1000-MW(e) LWR in accordance with 

4 Table S-3 (Table 6-1). This corresponds to a dose of 7.5 person-rem for the 1000-MW(e) LWR5 scaled model. For purposes of comparison, in the year 2010 the population within 50 mi of the 

6 VCSNS site is estimated to be 1.15 million people (SCE&G 2009b). Using 0.311 rem/yr as the 

7 average dose to a U.S. resident from natural background radiation (NCRP 2009), the collective 

8 dose to that population is estimated to be 358,000 person-rem/yr. On the basis of this 

9 comparison, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation would be 

10 SMALL. 

11 6.1.9 Conclusions 

12 The staff evaluated the environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, as given in Table S-3 

13 (Table 6-1), considered the effects of radon-222 and technetium-99, and appropriately scaled 

14 the impacts for the 1000-MW(e) LWR-scaled model. Based on this evaluation, the staff 

15 concludes that the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle would be SMALL. 

16 6.2 Transportation Impacts 

17 This section addresses both the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from 

18 normal operating and accident conditions resulting from (1) shipment of unirradiated fuel to the 

19 VCSNS site and alternative sites, (2) shipment of irradiated (spent) fuel to a monitored 

20 retrievable storage facility or a permanent repository, and (3) shipment of low-level radioactive 

21 waste and mixed waste to offsite disposal facilities. Alternative sites evaluated in this 

22 environmental impact statement (EIS) include the existing VCSNS site (proposed), Cope 

23 Generating Station (CGS) site, Saluda County site, and the Savannah River (SR) project site. 

24 Note that the transportation impacts for the Fairfield Unit 1 (FA-1) site are not explicitly analyzed 

25 in this EIS. This is because the FA-1 site is less than 10 mi from the existing VCSNS site and 

26 the transportation impacts would be approximately equal to those for the VCSNS site. 

27 The NRC performed a generic analysis of the environmental effects of transportation of fuel and 

28 waste to and from LWRs in the Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials 

29 to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) and in a supplement to 

30 WASH-1238, NUREG-75/038 (NRC 1975), and found the impact to be SMALL. These 

31 documents provided the basis for Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 that summarizes the 

32 environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to and from one LWR of 3000 to 

33 5000 MW(t) (1000 to 1500 MW(e)). Impacts are provided for normal conditions of transport and 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

accidents in transport for a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR.(a) 1 Dose to transportation workers 

2 during normal transportation operations was estimated to result in a collective dose of 4 person3 rem per reference reactor year. The combined dose to the public along the route and dose to 

4 onlookers were estimated to result in a collective dose of 3 person-rem per reference 

5 reactor year. 

6 Environmental risks of radiological effects during accident conditions, as stated in Table S-4, are 

7 SMALL. Nonradiological impacts from postulated accidents were estimated as one fatal injury 

8 in 100 reactor years and one nonfatal injury in 10 reference reactor years. Subsequent reviews 

9 of transportation impacts in NUREG-0170 (NRC 1977a) and by Sprung et al. (2000) concluded 

10 that impacts were bounded by Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52. 

11 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52(a), a full description and detailed analysis of transportation 

12 impacts is not required when licensing an LWR (i.e., impacts are assumed to be bounded by 

13 Table S-4) if the reactor meets the following criteria: 

14  The reactor has a core thermal power level not exceeding 3800 MW(t). 

15  Fuel is in the form of sintered UO2 pellets having a uranium-235 enrichment not exceeding 

16 4 percent by weight; and pellets are encapsulated in zircaloy-clad fuel rods. 

17  The average level of irradiation of the fuel from the reactor does not exceed 

18 33,000 MWd/MTU, and no irradiated fuel assembly is shipped until at least 90 days after it is 

19 discharged from the reactor. 

20  With the exception of irradiated fuel, all radioactive waste shipped from the reactor is 

21 packaged and in solid form. 

22  Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated (spent) fuel is shipped from the 

23 reactor by truck, railroad, or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is 

24 shipped from the reactor by truck or railroad. 

25 The environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and from 

26 nuclear power facilities were resolved generically in 10 CFR 51.52, provided that the specific 

27 conditions in the rule (see above) are met; if not, then a full description and detailed analysis is 

28 required for initial licensing. The NRC may consider requests for licensed plants to operate at 

29 conditions beyond those in the facility's licensing basis; for example, higher burnups (above 

 

(a) The transportation impacts associated with the VCSNS site and alternative sites were normalized for 

a reference 1100-MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor for comparison with Table S-4. Note 

that the basis for Table S-4 is an 1100-MW(e) LWR at an 80-percent capacity factor (AEC 1972; NRC 

1975). The basis for Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b) that was discussed in Section 6.1 of this EIS is an 

1000-MW(e) LWR with an 80-percent capacity factor (NRC 1976). However, because fuel cycle and 

transportation impacts are evaluated separately, this difference does not affect the results and 

conclusions in this EIS. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-18 April 2010 

1 33,000 MWd/MTU), enrichments (above 4 percent uranium-235), or thermal power levels 

2 (above 3800 MW(t)). Departures from the conditions itemized in 10 CFR 51.52(a) must be 

3 supported by a full description and detailed analysis of the environmental effects, as specified in 

4 10 CFR 51.52(b). Departures found to be acceptable for licensed facilities cannot serve as the 

5 basis for initial licensing for new reactors. 

6 In its application, SCE&G requested combined construction permits and operating licenses 

7 (COLs) for two additional reactors at its VCSNS site in Fairfield County, South Carolina. Each 

8 proposed new reactor would be an AP1000 unit, which has a thermal power rating of 

9 3400 MW(t) and a net electrical output of 1107 MW(e). The thermal power rating is less than 

10 the 3800-MW(t) condition given in 10 CFR 51.52(a). Westinghouse AP1000 reactors are 

11 expected to operate with a 93-percent capacity factor, so the net electrical output (annualized) is 

12 about 1030 MW(e) (SCE&G 2009a). Fuel for the reactors would be enriched up to about 

13 4.54 weight percent uranium-235, which exceeds the 10 CFR 51.52(a) condition. In addition, 

14 the expected irradiation level of about 50,533 MWd/MTU (SCE&G 2009a) exceeds the 

15 10 CFR 51.52(a) condition. Therefore, a full description and detailed analysis of transportation 

16 impacts is required. 

17 In its ER (SCE&G 2009a), SCE&G provided a full description and detailed analysis of 

18 transportation impacts. In the analysis, the radiological impacts of transporting fuel and waste 

19 to and from the VCSNS site were calculated using the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et 

20 al. 2008). RADTRAN 5.6 was used in this EIS and is the most commonly used transportation 

21 impact analysis software in the nuclear industry. 

22 6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel 

23 The NRC staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting 

24 unirradiated (i.e., fresh) fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites. The radiological impacts of 

25 normal operating conditions and transportation accidents as well as nonradiological impacts are 

26 discussed in this section. Radiological impacts to populations and maximally exposed 

27 individuals (MEIs) are presented. Because the specific fuel fabrication plant for VCSNS 

28 unirradiated fuel is not known at this time, the staff’s analysis assumes a “representative” route 

29 between the fuel fabrication facility and the VCSNS site or alternative sites. This means that 

30 there are no differences between the impacts calculated for the VCSNS site and the three 

31 alternative sites. However, site-specific differences would be small because the radiation doses 

32 from unirradiated fuel transport and the shipping distances between potential fuel fabrication 

33 plants and the VCSNS site and alternative sites are small. 

34 6.2.1.1 Normal Conditions 

35 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” transportation, are transportation 

36 activities in which shipments reach their destinations without releasing any radioactive material 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 to the environment. The impacts of these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation 

2 that penetrate the shipping containers of unirradiated fuel. Radiation exposures at some level 

3 would occur to the following populations: (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors 

4 between the fuel fabrication facility and the VCSNS site; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the 

5 same route as a shipment of unirradiated fuel; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, 

6 and vehicle inspections; and (4) the transportation crew (including drivers). 

7 Truck Shipments 

8 Table 6-3 provides an estimate of the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel for the 

9 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design compared to those of the reference 1100-MW(e) reactor 

10 specified in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) operating at 80-percent capacity (880 MW(e)). After 

11 normalization to electric generation capacity, the number of truck shipments of unirradiated fuel 

12 to the VCSNS site and alternative sites is fewer than the number of truck shipments of 

13 unirradiated fuel estimated for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. 

14 Table 6-3. Number of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and the 

15 Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor 

Reactor Type 

Number of Shipments 

per Reactor 

Unit Electric 

Generation, 

MW(e)(b)

Capacity 

Factor(b)

Normalized, 

Shipments per 

1100 MW(e)(c) Total(a)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 252 1100 0.8 252 

VCSNS Westinghouse AP1000 233 1107 0.93 199 

(a) Total shipments of unirradiated fuel over a 40-year plant lifetime (i.e., initial core load plus 39 years of average 

annual reload quantities). 

(b) Unit capacities and capacity factors were taken from WASH-1238 for the reference light water reactor (LWR) 

and the ER (SCE&G 2009a) for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. 

(c) Normalized to net electric output for WASH-1238 reference LWR (i.e., 1100-MW(e) plant at 80 percent or net 

electrical output of 880 MW(e)). 

16 Shipping Mode and Weight Limits 

17 In 10 CFR 51.52, one identified condition is that all unirradiated fuel is to be shipped to the 

18 reactor by truck; SCE&G specifies that unirradiated fuel would be shipped to the proposed 

19 reactor site by truck (SCE&G 2009a). Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 includes a condition that the 

20 truck shipments not exceed 73,000 lb as governed by Federal or State gross vehicle-weight 

21 restrictions; SCE&G states in its ER that the unirradiated fuel shipments to the proposed 

22 VCSNS site and alternative sites would comply with applicable weight restrictions (SCE&G 

23 2009a). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-20 April 2010 

1 Radiological Doses to Transport Workers and the Public 

2 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4, includes conditions related to radiological dose to transport workers 

3 and members of the public along transport routes. These doses are a function of many 

4 variables, including the radiation dose rate emitted from the unirradiated fuel shipments, the 

5 number of individuals exposed and their locations relative to the shipment, the time in transit 

6 (including travel and stop times), and the number of shipments to which the individuals are 

7 exposed. For this EIS, the NRC staff independently calculated the radiological dose impacts to 

8 transport workers and the public from the transportation of unirradiated fuel using the 

9 RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 2008). 

10 One of the key assumptions in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) for the reference-LWR unirradiated fuel 

11 shipments is that the radiation dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) from the transport vehicle is about 

12 0.1 mrem/hr. This assumption was also used in the NRC staff’s analysis of the Westinghouse 

13 AP1000 reactor unirradiated fuel shipments. This assumption is reasonable because the 

14 AP1000 reactor fuel material would be low-dose-rate uranium radionuclides and would be 

15 packaged similarly to the practice described in WASH-1238 (i.e., inside a metal container that 

16 provides little radiation shielding). The numbers of shipments per year were obtained by 

17 dividing the normalized shipments in Table 6-3 by 40 years of reactor operation. Other key 

18 input parameters used in the radiation-dose analysis for unirradiated fuel are shown in 

19 Table 6-4. 

20 The RADTRAN 5.6 results for this “generic” unirradiated fuel shipment are as follows: 

 worker dose: 1.71 × 10-3 21 person-rem/shipment 

22  general public dose (onlookers/persons at stops and sharing the highway): 

3.62 × 10-3 23 person-rem/shipment) 

 general public dose (along route/persons living near a highway or truck stop): 5.12 × 10-5 24 

25 person-rem/shipment. 

26 These values were combined with the average annual shipments of unirradiated fuel for the 

27 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor to calculate annual doses to the public and workers. Table 6-5 

28 presents the annual radiological impacts on workers, public onlookers (persons at stops and 

29 sharing the road), and members of the public along the route (i.e., residents within 0.5 mi of the 

30 highway) for transportation of unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites. The 

31 cumulative annual dose estimates in Table 6-5 were normalized to 1100 MW(e) (880 MW(e) of 

32 net electrical output). The NRC staff performed an independent review and determined that 

33 all dose estimates calculated by the staff are bounded by the Table S-4 conditions of 

34 4 person-rem/yr to transportation workers, 3 person-rem/yr to onlookers, and 3 person-rem/yr 

35 to members of the public along the route. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 6-4. RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Unirradiated Fuel Shipments 

Parameter

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source

Shipping distance, km 3200 AEC (1972)(a)

Travel fraction – rural 0.90 NRC (1977a) 

Travel fraction – suburban 0.05 

Travel fraction – urban 0.05 

Population density – rural, persons/km2

 10 DOE (2002a) 

Population density – suburban, persons/km2

 349 

Population density – urban, persons/km2

 2260 

Vehicle speed – km/hr 88.5 Conservative in-transit speed of 

88.5 km/hr (55 mph) assumed; 

predominantly interstate highways 

used. 

Traffic count – rural, vehicles/hr 530 DOE (2002a) 

Traffic count – suburban, vehicles/hr 760 

Traffic count – urban, vehicles/hr 2400 

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 0.1 AEC (1972) 

Packaging length, m 9.1 Approximate length of two AP1000 fuel 

assemblies placed end to end 

(Westinghouse 2007). 

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977a), and DOE 

(2002a) 

Stop time, hr/trip 4 Based on one 30-minute stop per 

400 km (Johnson and Michelhaugh 

2003). 

Population density at stops, persons/km2

 See Table 6-8 for truck stop parameters 

(a) AEC (1972) provides a range of shipping distances between 25 mi and 3000 mi for shipments of fresh fuel. A 

3200-km (2000-mi) “representative” shipping distance was assumed here. 

2 Table 6-5. Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to 

3 the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites

Plant Type 

Normalized 

Average 

Annual 

Shipments

Cumulative Annual Dose; person-rem/yr per 

1100 MW(e)(a) (880 MW(e) net) 

Transportation 

Workers 

Public – 

Onlookers 

Public – Along 

Route 

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 6.3 1.1 × 10-2 2.3 × 10-2 3.2 × 10-4

VCSNS and alternative sites AP1000 5.0 8.5 × 10-3 1.8 × 10-2 2.5 × 10-4

10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4 condition <1 per day 4 3 3 

(a) Multiply person-rem/yr times 0.01 to obtain doses in person-Sv/yr. 

LWR = light water reactor 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-22 April 2010 

1 Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of causing 

2 cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. 

3 Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship 

4 between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A report by the National 

5 Research Council (2006), the BEIR VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose response 

6 model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is accepted by the NRC 

7 as a conservative method for estimating health risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that 

8 the model may overestimate those risks. Based on this method, the NRC staff estimated the risk 

9 to the public from radiation exposure using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment. 

10 This coefficient has the value of 570 fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and severe hereditary 

11 effects per 1,000,000 person-rem (10,000 person-Sv), equal to 0.00057 effect per person-rem. 

12 The coefficient is taken from ICRP Publication 103 (ICRP 2007). 

13 Both the NCRP and ICRP suggest that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the 

14 reciprocal of the relevant risk detriment (in other words, less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 

15 1754 person-rem), the risk assessment should note that the most likely number of excess health 

16 effects is zero (NCRP 1995; ICRP 2007). The largest annual collective dose estimate for 

17 transporting unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites was 0.018 person-rem, 

18 which is less than the value of 1754 person-rem that NCRP and ICRP suggest would most likely 

19 result in zero excess health effects. 

20 To place these impacts in perspective, the average U.S. resident receives about 311 mrem/yr 

21 effective dose equivalent from natural background radiation (i.e., exposures from cosmic 

22 radiation, naturally occurring radioactive materials such as radon, and global fallout from testing 

23 of nuclear explosive devices (NCRP 2009). Using this average effective dose, the collective 

24 population dose from natural background radiation to the population along this representative 

route would be about 2.2 × 105 25 person-rem. Therefore, the radiation doses from transporting 

26 unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites are small compared to the collective 

27 population dose to the same population from exposure to natural sources of radiation. 

28 MEIs Under Normal Transport Conditions 

29 The NRC staff conducted a scenario-based analysis to develop estimates of incident-free 

30 radiation doses to MEIs for fuel and waste shipments to and from the VCSNS site and 

31 alternative sites. An MEI is a person who may receive the highest radiation dose from a 

32 shipment to and/or from the VCSNS site and alternative sites. The following discussion applies 

33 to shipments of unirradiated fuel to, and spent fuel and radioactive waste shipments from, any of 

34 the alternative sites. The analysis is based on data in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS (DOE 

35 2002b) and incorporates data about exposure times, dose rates, and the number of times an 

36 individual may be exposed to an offsite shipment. Adjustments were made where necessary to 

37 reflect the normalized fuel and waste shipments addressed in this EIS. In all cases, the NRC 

38 staff assumed that the dose rate emitted from the shipping containers is 10 mrem/hr at 2 m 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 (6.6 ft) from the side of the transport vehicle. This is conservative in that the assumed dose rate 

2 is the maximum dose rate allowed by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations 

3 (see 49 CFR 173.441). Most unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste shipments would have 

4 much lower dose rates than the regulations allow (AEC 1972; DOE 2002a). The analysis is 

5 described below. 

6 Truck crew member. Truck crew members would receive the highest radiation doses during 

7 incident-free transport because of their proximity to the loaded shipping container for an 

8 extended period. The NRC staff’s analysis assumed that crew-member doses are limited to 

9 2 rem/yr, which is the DOE administrative control level presented in DOE-STD-1098-99, DOE 

10 Standard, Radiological Control, Chapter 2, Article 211 (DOE 2005). This limit is anticipated to 

11 apply to shipments of spent nuclear fuel to a disposal facility, because DOE would take title to 

12 the spent fuel at the reactor site. There would be more shipments of spent nuclear fuel from the 

13 VCSNS site (or alternative sites) than there would be shipments of unirradiated fuel to, and 

14 radioactive waste other than spent fuel from, these sites. This is because the capacities of 

15 spent-fuel shipping casks are limited due to their substantial radiation shielding and accident 

16 resistance requirements. Spent-fuel shipments would also have significantly higher radiation 

17 dose rates than unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste (DOE 2002a). As a result, crew doses 

18 from shipments of unirradiated fuel and radioactive waste would be lower than the doses from 

19 shipments of spent nuclear fuel. The DOE administrative limit of 2 rem/yr (see DOE 2005) is 

20 less than the NRC limit for occupational exposures of 5 rem/yr (see 10 CFR Part 20). 

21 The DOT does not regulate annual occupational exposures. It does recognize that air crews 

22 are exposed to elevated cosmic radiation levels and recommends dose limits to air-crew 

23 members from cosmic radiation (DOT 2003). Air passengers are less of a concern because 

24 they do not fly as frequently as air crews. The recommended limits are a 5-year effective dose 

25 of 2 rem/yr with no more than 5 rem in a single year (DOT 2003). As a result, a 2-rem/yr MEI 

26 dose to truck crews is a reasonable estimate to apply to shipments of fuel and waste from the 

27 VCSNS site and alternative sites. 

28 Inspectors. Radioactive shipments are inspected by Federal or State vehicle inspectors, for 

29 example, at State ports of entry. The Yucca Mountain Final EIS (DOE 2002b) assumed that 

30 inspectors would be exposed for 1 hour at a distance of 1 m (3.3 ft) from the shipping 

31 containers. The dose rate at 1 m (3.3 ft) is conservatively assumed to be at the regulatory limit, 

32 or equivalent to about 14 mrem/hr; therefore, the dose per shipment is about 14 mrem. This is 

33 independent of the location of the reactor site. Based on this conservative value and the 

34 assumption that the same person inspects all shipments of fuel and waste to and from the 

35 VCSNS site and alternative sites, the annual doses to vehicle inspectors were calculated by the 

36 NRC staff to be about 0.9 rem/yr, based on a combined total of 66 shipments of unirradiated 

37 fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste per year. This value is less than one-half of the 2-rem/yr 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-24 April 2010 

1 DOE administrative control level on individual doses (DOE 2005) and one-fifth of the 5-rem/yr 

2 NRC occupational dose limit. 

3 Resident. The analysis assumed that residents living adjacent to a highway where a shipment 

4 would pass would be exposed to all shipments along that particular route. Exposures to 

5 residents on a per-shipment basis were obtained from the NRC staff’s RADTRAN 5.6 output 

6 files developed for this EIS. These dose estimates are based on an individual located 100 ft 

7 from shipments that are traveling 15 mph. The potential radiation dose to the maximally 

8 exposed resident is about 0.04 mrem/yr for shipments of fuel and waste to and from the site. 

9 Individual stuck in traffic. This scenario addresses potential traffic interruptions that could lead 

10 to a person being exposed to a loaded shipment for 1 hour at a distance of 4 ft. The NRC staff’s 

11 analysis assumed that this exposure scenario would occur only one time to any individual, and 

12 that the dose rate was at the regulatory limit of 10 mrem/hr at 6.6 ft from the shipment, so the 

13 dose rate will be higher at the assumed exposure distance of 4 ft. The dose to the MEI was 

14 calculated to be 16 mrem in DOE’s Yucca Mountain EIS (DOE 2002b). 

15 Person at a truck service station. This scenario estimates doses to an employee at a service 

16 station where all truck shipments to and from the VCSNS site and alternative sites are assumed 

17 to stop. The NRC staff’s analysis assumed that this person is exposed for 49 minutes at a 

18 distance of 52 ft from the loaded shipping container (DOE 2002b). The exposure time and 

19 distance were based on the observations discussed by Griego et al. (1996). This results in a 

20 dose of about 0.34 mrem/shipment and an annual dose of about 22 mrem/yr for the VCSNS site 

21 and alternative sites, assuming that a single individual services all shipments of unirradiated 

22 fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste to and from the VCSNS site and alternative sites. 

23 6.2.1.2 Radiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents 

24 Accident risks are a combination of accident frequency and consequence. Accident frequencies 

25 for transportation of unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites are expected to be 

26 lower than those used in the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), which forms the basis for 

27 Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52, because of improvements in highway safety and security, and an 

28 overall reduction in traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates since WASH-1238 was published. 

29 There is no significant difference between the Westinghouse AP1000 and current-generation 

30 LWRs in consequences of transportation accidents severe enough to result in a release of 

31 unirradiated fuel particles to the environment because the fuel form, cladding, and packaging 

32 are similar to those analyzed in WASH-1238. Consequently, consistent with the conclusions of 

33 WASH-1238 (AEC 1972), the impacts of accidents during transport of unirradiated fuel for the 

34 Westinghouse AP1000 at the VCSNS site and alternative sites are expected to be negligible. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 6.2.1.3 Nonradiological Impacts of Transportation Accidents 

2 Nonradiological impacts are the human-health impacts projected to result from traffic accidents 

3 involving shipments of unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and alternative sites; that is, the 

4 analysis does not consider the radiological or hazardous characteristics of the cargo. 

5 Nonradiological impacts include the projected number of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities 

6 that could result from shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site and return shipments of empty 

7 containers from the site. 

8 Nonradiological impacts are calculated using accident, injury, and fatality rates from published 

9 sources; the rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km traveled) are then multiplied by estimated travel 

10 distances for workers and materials. The general formula for calculating nonradiological 

11 impacts is as follows: 

12 Impacts = (unit rate) × (round-trip shipping distance) × (annual number of shipments) 

13 In this formula, impacts are presented in terms of the number of accidents, number of injuries, 

14 and number of fatalities per year. Corresponding unit rates (i.e., impacts per vehicle-km 

15 traveled) are used in the calculations. 

16 Accident, injury, and fatality rates were taken from Table 4 in State-Level Accident Rates for 

17 Surface Freight Transportation: A Reexamination (Saricks and Tompkins 1999). Nationwide 

18 median rates were used for shipments of unirradiated fuel to the site. The data are 

19 representative of traffic-accident, injury, and fatality rates for heavy truck shipments similar to 

20 those to be used to transport unirradiated fuel to the VCSNS site and proposed alternative sites. 

21 In addition, the DOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration evaluated the data underlying 

22 the Saricks and Tompkins (1999) rates, which were taken from the Motor Carrier Management 

23 Information System, and determined that the rates were under-reported. Therefore, the 

24 accident, injury, and fatality rates reported by Saricks and Tompkins (1999) were adjusted using 

25 factors derived from data provided by the University of Michigan Transportation Research 

26 Institute (UMTRI 2003). The UMTRI data indicate that accident rates for 1994 to 1996, the 

27 same data used by Saricks and Tompkins (1999), were under-reported by about 39 percent. 

28 Injury and fatality rates were under-reported by 16 and 36 percent, respectively. As a result, the 

29 accident, injury, and fatality rates were increased by factors of 1.64, 1.20, and 1.57, 

30 respectively, to account for the under-reporting. 

31 The nonradiological accident impacts for transporting unirradiated fuel to (and empty shipping 

32 containers from) the VCSNS site and alternative sites are shown in Table 6-6. The 

33 nonradiological impacts associated with the WASH-1238 reference LWR are also shown for 

34 comparison purposes. Note that there are only small differences between the impacts 

35 calculated for a Westinghouse AP1000 at the VCSNS site and alternative sites and the 

36 reference LWR in WASH-1238 due entirely to the smaller number of shipments. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-26 April 2010 

1 Table 6-6. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the VCSNS Site and 

2 Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference LWR 

Plant Type 

Annual 

Shipments 

Normalized to 

Reference LWR 

One-Way 

Shipping 

Distance, 

km 

Round-trip 

Distance, km 

per Year 

Annual Impacts 

Accidents 

per Year 

Injuries 

per Year 

Fatalities 

per Year 

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238) 

6.3 3200 4.0 × 104 1.9 × 10-2 9.3 × 10-3 5.8 × 10-4

VCSNS and 

alternative sites 

AP1000 reactors 

5.0 3200 3.2 × 104

 1.5 × 10-2 7.4 × 10-3 4.6 × 10-4

LWR = light water reactor 

3 6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel 

4 The NRC staff performed an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of transporting 

5 spent fuel from the proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites to a spent-fuel disposal 

6 repository. For the purposes of these analyses, the staff considered the proposed Yucca 

7 Mountain, Nevada, site as a surrogate destination. Currently, the NRC has not made a decision 

8 about the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. However, the NRC staff considers 

9 an estimate of the impacts of the transportation of spent fuel to a possible repository in Nevada 

10 to be a reasonable bounding estimate of the transportation impacts on a storage or disposal 

11 facility because of the distances involved and the representativeness of the distribution of 

12 members of the public in urban, suburban, and rural areas (i.e., population distributions) along 

13 the shipping routes. Radiological impacts of normal operating conditions and transportation 

14 accidents, as well as nonradiological impacts of accidents, are discussed in this section. 

15 This analysis is based on shipment of spent fuel by legal-weight trucks in shipping casks with 

16 characteristics similar to currently available casks (i.e., massive, heavily shielded, cylindrical 

17 metal pressure vessels). Due to the large size and weight of spent-fuel shipping casks, each 

18 shipment is assumed to consist of a single shipping cask loaded on a modified trailer. These 

19 assumptions are consistent with those made in the evaluation of the environmental impacts of 

20 transportation of spent fuel in Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996). Because the 

21 alternative transportation methods involve railroad transportation or heavy-haul trucks, which 

22 would reduce the overall number of spent-fuel shipments (NRC 1996), thereby reducing 

23 impacts, these assumptions are conservative. Also, the use of current shipping-cask designs 

24 for this analysis results in conservative impact estimates because the current designs are based 

25 on transporting short-cooled spent fuel (approximately 120 days out of reactor). Future shipping 

26 casks would be designed to transport longer-cooled fuel (greater than 5 years out of reactor) 

27 and would require much less shielding to meet external dose limitations. Therefore, future 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 shipping casks are expected to have higher cargo capacities, thereby reducing the numbers of 

2 shipments and associated impacts. 

3 The NRC staff calculated radiological impacts of transportation of spent fuel using the 

4 RADTRAN 5.6 computer code (Weiner et al. 2008). Routing and population data used in 

5 RADTRAN 5.6 for truck shipments were obtained from the TRAGIS routing code (Johnson and 

6 Michelhaugh 2003). The population data in the TRAGIS code are based on the 2000 census. 

7 Nonradiological impacts were calculated using published traffic accident, injury, and fatality data 

8 (Saricks and Tompkins 1999) in addition to route information from TRAGIS (Johnson and 

9 Michelhaugh 2003). Traffic accident rates used the RADTRAN 5.6 and nonradiological impact 

10 calculations were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as discussed in Section 4.8.3. 

11 6.2.2.1 Normal Conditions 

12 Normal conditions, sometimes referred to as “incident-free” conditions, are transportation 

13 activities in which shipments reach their destination without an accident occurring en route. 

14 Impacts from these shipments would be from the low levels of radiation that penetrate the 

15 heavily shielded spent-fuel shipping cask. Radiation exposures would occur to the following 

16 populations: (1) persons residing along the transportation corridors between the VCSNS site (or 

17 alternative sites) and the proposed repository location; (2) persons in vehicles traveling on the 

18 same route as a spent-fuel shipment; (3) persons at vehicle stops for refueling, rest, and vehicle 

19 inspections; and (4) the transportation crew (drivers). For the purposes of this analysis, the 

20 NRC staff assumed that the destination for the spent-fuel shipments is the proposed Yucca 

21 Mountain disposal facility in Nevada. This assumption is conservative because it tends to 

22 maximize the shipping distance from the VCSNS site and alternative sites. 

23 Shipping casks have not been designed for the spent fuel from advanced reactor designs such 

24 as the Westinghouse AP1000. Information in Early Site Permit Environmental Report Sections 

25 and Supporting Documentation (INEEL 2003) indicated that advanced LWR fuel designs would 

26 not be significantly different from existing LWR designs; therefore, current shipping-cask 

27 designs were used for the analysis of Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent-fuel shipments. The 

28 NRC staff assumed that the capacity of a truck shipment of Westinghouse AP1000 reactor 

29 spent fuel was 0.5 MTU/shipment, the same capacity as that used in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). 

30 In its ER (SCE&G 2009a), SCE&G assumed a shipping-cask capacity of 1.8 MTU/shipment, 

31 representative of future shipping-cask designs. 

32 Input to RADTRAN 5.6 includes the total shipping distance between the origin and destination 

33 sites and the population distributions along the routes. This information was obtained by 

34 running the TRAGIS computer code (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003) for highway routes from 

35 the proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites to Yucca Mountain. The resulting route36 characteristics information is listed in Table 6-7. Note that for truck shipments, all of the spent 

37 fuel is assumed to be shipped to the proposed Yucca Mountain site over designated highway- 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-28 April 2010 

1 Table 6-7. Transportation-Route Information for Shipments from the VCSNS Site and 

2 Alternative Sites to the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 

Advance 

Reactor Site(a) 

One-Way Shipping Distance, km Population Density, persons/km2 Stop time 

per trip, 

Total Rural Suburban Urban Rural Suburban Urban hr 

VCSNS Site 4096 3284 735 77 9.5 311.4 2209.8 5 

CGS 4202 3331 790 81 9.6 315.5 2213.1 5 

Saluda 4077 3271 729 77 9.4 312.8 2209.8 5 

SR 4094 3232 754 107 9.3 335.0 2272.1 5 

Source: Johnson and Michelhaugh (2003) 

Note: This table presents aggregated route characteristics provided by TRAGIS (Johnson and Michelhaugh 2003), 

including estimated distances from the alternative sites to the nearest TRAGIS highway node. Input to the 

RADTRAN 5.6 computer code was disaggregated to a state-by-state level. 

(a) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site is not explicitly analyzed in this EIS. Shipping distances and 

population distributions are approximately the same as those for the VCSNS Site. 

3 route controlled-quantity routes. In addition, TRAGIS data were loaded into RADTRAN 5.6 on a 

4 state-by-state basis, which increases precision and allows the results to be presented for each 

5 state along the route between the VCSNS site and alternative sites and Yucca Mountain, if 

6 desired. 

7 Radiation doses are a function of many parameters, including vehicle speed, traffic count, dose 

8 rate, packaging dimensions, number in the truck crew, stop time, and population density at 

9 stops. A list of the values for these and other parameters and the sources of the information is 

10 provided in Table 6-8. 

11 For the purposes of this analysis, the transportation crew for spent-fuel shipments delivered by 

12 truck is assumed to consist of two drivers. Escort vehicles and drivers were considered, but 

13 they were not included in the analysis because their distance from the shipping cask would 

14 reduce the dose rates to levels well below the dose rates experienced by the drivers and would 

15 be negligible. Stop times for refueling and rest were assumed to accrue at the rate of 

16 30 minutes per 4 hours of driving time. TRAGIS outputs were used to estimate the number of 

17 stops. For this analysis, doses to the public at refueling and rest stops (“stop doses”) are the 

18 sum of the doses to individuals located in two annular rings centered at the stopped vehicle, as 

19 illustrated in Figure 6-2. The inner ring represents persons who may be at the truck stop at the 

20 same time as a spent-fuel shipment and extends 1 to 10 m from the edge of the vehicle. The 

21 outer ring represents persons who reside near a truck stop and extends from 10 to 800 m from 

22 the vehicle. This scheme is similar to that used by Sprung et al. (2000). Population densities 

23 and shielding factors were also taken from Sprung et al. (2000), which were based on the 

24 observations of Griego et al. (1996). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-29 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 6-8. RADTRAN 5.6 Normal (Incident-Free) Exposure Parameters 

Parameter 

RADTRAN 5.6 

Input Value Source 

Vehicle speed, km/hr 88.49 Based on average speed in rural areas given 

in DOE (2002a). Conservative in-transit speed 

of 55 mph assumed; predominantly interstate 

highways used. 

Traffic count – rural, vehicles/hr State-specific State-specific rural, suburban, and urban traffic 

counts are taken from Weiner et al. (2008). Traffic count – suburban, vehicles/hr 

Traffic count – urban, vehicles/hr 

Vehicle occupancy, persons/vehicle 1.5 DOE (2002a) 

Dose rate at 1 m from vehicle, mrem/hr 14 DOE (2002a, b) – approximate dose rate at 

1 m that is equivalent to maximum dose rate 

allowed by Federal regulations 

(i.e., 10 mrem/hr at 2 m from the side of a 

transport vehicle). 

Packaging dimensions, m Length – 5.2 

Diameter – 1.0

DOE (2002b) 

Number of truck crew 2 AEC (1972), NRC (1977a), and 

DOE (2002a, b) 

Stop time, hr/trip Route-specific See Table 6-5 

Population density at stops, 

persons/km2

30,000 Sprung et al. (2000). Equivalent to nine 

persons within 10 m of vehicle. See 

Figure 6-2. 

Min/max radii of annular area around 

vehicle at stops, m 

1 to 10 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Dimensionless shielding factor applied 

to annular area surrounding vehicle at 

stops 

1 

(no shielding) 

Sprung et al. (2000) 

Population density surrounding truck 

stops, persons/km2

340 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Min/max radius of annular area 

surrounding truck stop, m 

10 to 800 Sprung et al. (2000) 

Dimensionless shielding factor applied 

to annular area surrounding truck stop 

0.2 Sprung et al. (2000) 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-30 April 2010 

1 Figure 6-2. Illustration of Truck Stop Model 

2 The results of these normal (incident-free) exposure calculations are shown in Table 6-9 for the 

3 proposed VCSNS site and alternative sites. Population dose estimates are given for workers 

4 (i.e., truck crew members), onlookers (doses to persons at stops and persons on highways 

5 exposed to the spent-fuel shipment), and persons along the route (persons living near the 

6 highway). Shipping schedules for spent fuel generated by the proposed new unit have not been 

7 determined. The NRC staff judged it to be reasonable to calculate annual doses assuming that 

8 the annual number of spent-fuel shipments is equivalent to the annual refueling requirements. 

9 Population doses were normalized to the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (880 net MW(e)). This 

10 corresponds to an 1100-MW(e) LWR operating at 80-percent capacity. 

Not to Scale

1 m

10 m

800 m

Truck Stop

Region 1

Truck Stop

Region 2

Population Density = 340 persons/km2

Population Density = 

30,000 persons/km2

Shielding Factor = 0.2

(Dose rate reduced by 80% to account

for intervening structures, buildings, terrain)

Shielding Factor = 1

(No intervening shielding)

Not to Scale

1 m

10 m

800 m

Truck Stop

Region 1

Truck Stop

Region 2

Population Density = 340 persons/km2

Population Density = 

30,000 persons/km2

Shielding Factor = 0.2

(Dose rate reduced by 80% to account

for intervening structures, buildings, terrain)

Shielding Factor = 1

(No intervening shielding)
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-31 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 6-9. Normal (Incident-Free) Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from 

2 Shipping Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed 

3 High-Level Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain 

Normalized Impacts (Person-rem/yr)(a)

Worker (Crew) Along Route Onlookers

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 1.1 × 10+1 5.3 × 10-1 2.4 × 10+1

VCSNS COL normalized impacts(b) 7.4 × 100 3.5 × 10-1 1.5 × 10+1

CGS 7.5 × 100

 3.9 × 10-1 1.6 × 10+1

Saluda 7.3 × 100

 3.6 × 10-1 1.5 × 10+1

SR 7.3 × 100

 3.9 × 10-1 1.6 × 10+1

Table S-4 condition 4 × 100

 3 × 100 3 × 10-0

(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site are not explicitly analyzed in this EIS. Shipping 

distances, population distributions, and transportation impacts are approximately the same 

as those for the VCSNS Site. 

LWR = light water reactor 

4 There are only small differences in transportation impacts among the four alternative sites 

5 evaluated. The differences are due to the route characteristics (distance, population density) for 

6 shipments from the VCSNS site and alternative sites to Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

7 The bounding cumulative doses to the exposed population given in Table S-4 are 

8  4 person-rem/reactor-year to transport workers 

9  3 person-rem/reactor-year to general public (onlookers) and to members of the public along 

10 the route. 

11 The calculated population doses to the crew and onlookers for the reference LWR and the 

12 VCSNS and alternative site shipments exceed Table S-4 values. A key reason for the higher 

13 population doses relative to Table S-4 is the longer shipping distances assumed for this COL 

14 analysis (i.e., to a proposed repository in Nevada) than the distance used in WASH-1238. 

15 WASH-1238 assumed that each spent-fuel shipment would travel a distance of 1000 mi, 

16 whereas the shipping distances used in this assessment were about 2500 to 2600 mi. If the 

17 shorter distance were used to calculate the impacts for the VCSNS spent-fuel shipments, the 

18 doses in Table 6-9 could be reduced by half or more. Other important differences are the model 

19 related to vehicle stops described above and the additional precision that results from 

20 incorporating state-specific route characteristics and vehicle densities on highways (vehicles per 

21 hour). 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-32 April 2010 

1 Where necessary, the NRC staff made conservative assumptions to calculate impacts 

2 associated with transportation of spent fuel. Some of the key conservative assumptions are as 

3 follows: 

4  Use of the regulatory maximum dose rate (10 mrem/hr at 2 m) in the RADTRAN 5.6 

5 calculations. The shipping casks assumed in the EIS prepared by DOE in support of the 

6 application for the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE 2002b) were 

7 designed to transport spent fuel that has cooled for a minimum of 5 years (see 10 CFR Part 

8 961, Subpart B). Most spent fuel would have cooled for much longer than 5 years before 

9 being shipped to a possible geologic repository. For this reason, shipments from the 

10 VCSNS site and alternative sites are also expected to be cooled for longer than 5 years. 

11 Consequently, the estimated population doses in Table 6-9 could be further reduced if more 

12 realistic dose-rate projections and shipping-cask capacities are used. 

13  Use of 30 minutes as the average time at a truck stop in the calculations. Many stops made 

14 for actual spent-fuel shipments are of short duration (i.e., 10 minutes) for brief visual 

15 inspections of the cargo (e.g., checking the cask tie-downs). These stops typically occur in 

16 minimally populated areas, such as an overpass or freeway ramp in an unpopulated area. 

17 Furthermore, empirical data provided by Griego et al. (1996) indicate that a 30-minute 

18 duration is toward the high end of the stop-time distribution. Average stop times observed 

19 by Griego et al. (1996) are on the order of 18 minutes. 

20 A sensitivity study was performed to demonstrate the effects of using more realistic dose rates 

21 and stop times on the incident-free population dose calculations. For this sensitivity study, the 

22 dose rate was reduced to 5 mrem/hr, the approximate 50-percent confidence interval of the 

23 dose rate distribution estimated by Sprung et al. (2000) for future spent-fuel shipments. The 

24 stop time was reduced to 18 minutes per stop. All other RADTRAN 5.6 input values were 

25 unchanged. The result is that the annual crew doses were reduced to 2.6 person-rem/yr or 

26 about 35 percent of the annual dose shown in Table 6-9. The annual onlooker doses were 

27 reduced to 4.0 person-rem/yr (26 percent) and the annual doses to persons along the route 

28 were reduced to 0.13 person-rem/yr (38 percent). The NRC concluded that using more realistic 

29 parameters for shipment capacities, stop times, and dose rates would reduce the annual doses 

30 in Table 6-9 to below the Table S-4 values. 

31 SCE&G described the results of a RADTRAN 5.6 analysis of the impacts of incident-free 

32 transport of spent fuel to Yucca Mountain (SCE&G 2009a). Although the overall approaches 

33 are the same (e.g., use of TRAGIS and RADTRAN 5.6), there are some differences in the 

34 modeling details. For example, the NRC staff’s analysis used state-by-state route 

35 characteristics and a shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU, whereas SCE&G elected to use 

36 aggregated route information and a shipment capacity of 1.8 MTU. After adjusting for these key 

37 differences, the results are similar to those calculated by the NRC staff in this EIS. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-33 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Using the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

2 annual public dose impacts for transporting spent fuel from the VCSNS site and alternative sites 

3 to Yucca Mountain are less than the value of 1754 person-rem that ICRP (ICRP 2007) and 

4 NCRP (NCRP 1995) suggest would most likely result in zero excess health effects. This risk is 

very small compared to the estimated 2.1 × 105 5 person-rem that the same population along the 

6 route from the proposed VCSNS site to Yucca Mountain would incur annually from exposure to 

7 natural background radiation. Note that the estimated dose to persons along the Summer-to8 Yucca-Mountain route from natural background radiation is different than the natural 

9 background dose calculated by the NRC staff for unirradiated fuel shipments in Section 6.2.1.1 

10 of this EIS because the route characteristics are different. A generic route was used in 

11 Section 6.2.1.1 for unirradiated fuel shipments and an actual highway route was used in this 

12 section for spent-fuel shipments. 

13 Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and wastes under 

14 normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. 

15 6.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts of Accidents 

16 As discussed previously, the NRC staff used the RADTRAN 5.6 computer code to estimate the 

17 impacts of transportation accidents involving spent-fuel shipments. RADTRAN 5.6 considers a 

18 spectrum of postulated transportation accidents, ranging from those with high frequencies and 

19 low consequences (e.g., “fender benders”) to those with low frequencies and high 

20 consequences (i.e., accidents in which the shipping container is exposed to severe mechanical 

21 and thermal conditions). 

22 Radionuclide inventories are important parameters in the calculation of accident risks. The 

23 radionuclide inventories used in this analysis were taken from SCE&G’s ER (SCE&G 2009a). 

24 Spent-fuel radionuclide inventories used in the NRC staff analysis are presented in Table 6-10. 

25 The radionuclides listed in the table include all of the radionuclides that were included in the 

26 analysis conducted by Sprung et al. (2000). The staff’s analysis also included the estimated 

27 inventory of “crud,” or radioactive material deposited on the external surfaces of LWR spent-fuel 

28 rods. Because crud is deposited from corrosion products generated elsewhere in the reactor 

29 cooling system and the complete reactor design and operating parameters are uncertain, the 

30 quantities and characteristics of crud deposited on Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent fuel are 

31 not available at this time. The VCSNS Westinghouse AP1000 spent-fuel transportation accident 

32 impacts were calculated in this EIS and in SCE&G’s ER assuming that the cobalt-60 inventory 

33 in the form of crud is 4.09 Ci/MTU, based on information provided in the ER (SCE&G 2009a) 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-34 April 2010 

1 Table 6-10. Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation-Accident Risk Calculations for the 

Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor(a)(b) 2 

Radionuclide Ci/MTU Bq/MTU 

PhysicalChemical Group

Am-241 7.27E+02 2.7E+13 Particulate 

Am-242m 1.31E+01 4.9E+11 Particulate 

Am-243 3.34E+01 1.2E+12 Particulate 

Ce-144 8.87E+03 3.3E+14 Particulate 

Cm-242 2.83E+01 1.0E+12 Particulate 

Cm-243 3.07E+01 1.1E+12 Particulate 

Cm-244 7.75E+03 2.9E+14 Particulate 

Cm-245 1.21E+00 4.5E+10 Particulate 

Co-60 4.09E+00 2.9E+12 Crud 

Cs-134 4.80E+04 1.8E+15 Cesium 

Cs-137 9.31E+04 3.4E+15 Cesium 

Eu-154 9.13E+03 3.4E+14 Particulate 

Eu-155 4.62E+03 1.7E+14 Particulate 

I-129 4.65E-02 1.7E+09 Gas 

Kr-85 8.90E+03 3.3E+14 Gas 

Pm-147 1.76E+04 6.5E+14 Particulate 

Pu-238 6.07E+03 2.2E+14 Particulate 

Pu-239 2.55E+02 9.4E+12 Particulate 

Pu-240 5.43E+02 2.0E+13 Particulate 

Pu-241 6.96E+04 2.6E+15 Particulate 

Pu-242 1.82E+00 6.7E+10 Particulate 

Ru-106 1.55E+04 5.7E+14 Ruthenium 

Sb-125 3.83E+03 1.4E+14 Particulate 

Sr-90 6.19E+04 2.3E+15 Particulate 

Y-90 6.19E+04 2.3E+15 Particulate 

(a) Divide becquerel per metric ton uranium (Bq/MTU) by 3.7 × 1010 to 

obtain curies per MTU (Ci/MTU) 

(b) The source of the spent-fuel inventories is SCE&G (2009a). 

3 Robust shipping casks are used to transport spent fuel because of the radiation shielding and 

4 accident resistance required by 10 CFR Part 71. Spent-fuel shipping casks must be certified 

5 Type-B packaging systems, meaning they must be designed to withstand a series of severe 

6 postulated hypothetical accident conditions with essentially no loss of containment or shielding 

7 capability. These casks are also designed with fissile-material controls to verify that the spent 

8 fuel remains subcritical under normal and accident conditions. According to Sprung et al. 

9 (2000), the probability of encountering accident conditions during transport that would lead to 

10 shipping-cask failure is less than 0.01 percent (i.e., more than 99.99 percent of all accidents 

11 would result in no release of radioactive material from the shipping cask). The NRC staff 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-35 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 assumed that shipping casks approved for transportation of spent fuel from an AP1000 reactor 

2 would provide equivalent mechanical and thermal protection of the spent-fuel cargo. 

3 Accident frequencies are calculated in RADTRAN 5.6 using user-specified accident rates and 

4 conditional shipping-cask failure probabilities. State-specific accident rates were taken from 

5 Saricks and Tompkins (1999) and used in the RADTRAN 5.6 calculations. The state-specific 

6 accident rates were then adjusted to account for under-reporting, as described in 

7 Section 6.2.1.3. Conditional shipping-cask failure probabilities (i.e., the probability of cask 

8 failure as a function of the mechanical and thermal conditions applied in an accident) were 

9 taken from Sprung et al. (2000). 

10 The RADTRAN 5.6 accident-risk calculations were performed using the radionuclide inventories 

11 given in Table 6-10. The resulting risk estimates were then multiplied by the assumed annual 

12 spent-fuel shipments to derive estimates of the annual accident risks associated with spent-fuel 

13 shipments from the VCSNS site and alternative sites to the proposed geologic repository at 

14 Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As was done for normal transport exposures, the NRC staff 

15 assumed that the number of shipments of spent fuel per year is equivalent to the annual 

16 discharge quantities. 

17 For this assessment, release fractions for current-generation LWR fuel designs (Sprung et al. 

18 2000) were used to approximate the impacts of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor spent-fuel 

19 shipments. This assumes that the fuel materials and containment systems (i.e., cladding, fuel 

20 coatings) behave similarly to current LWR fuel under applied mechanical and thermal 

21 conditions. 

22 The NRC staff used RADTRAN 5.6 to calculate the population dose from the released 

radioactive material from four of five possible exposure pathways.(a) 23 These pathways are as 

24 follows: 

25  external dose from exposure to the passing cloud of radioactive material (cloudshine) 

26  external dose from the radionuclides deposited on the ground by the passing plume 

27 (groundshine). The NRC staff's analysis included the radiation exposure from this pathway 

28 even though the area surrounding a potential accidental release would be evacuated and 

29 decontaminated, thus preventing long-term exposures from this pathway. 

30  internal dose from inhalation of airborne radioactive contaminants (inhalation) 

31  internal dose from resuspension of radioactive materials that were deposited on the ground 

32 (resuspension). The staff's analysis included the radiation exposures from this pathway 

 

(a) Internal dose from ingestion of contaminated food was not considered because the staff assumed 

evacuation and subsequent interdiction of foodstuffs following a postulated transportation accident. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-36 April 2010 

1 even though evacuation and decontamination of the area surrounding a potential accidental 

2 release would prevent long-term exposures. 

3 Table 6-11 presents the environmental consequences of transportation accidents when shipping 

4 spent fuel from the VCSNS site and alternative sites to the proposed geologic repository at 

5 Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The shipping distances and population-distribution information for 

6 the routes were the same as those used for the normal “incident-free” conditions (see 

7 Section 6.2.2.1). The results are normalized to the WASH-1238 reference reactor (880-MW(e) 

8 net electrical generation, 1100-MW(e) reactor operating at 80-percent capacity) to provide a 

9 common basis for comparison to the impacts listed in Table S-4. Note that the impacts for all 

10 site alternatives are less than the reference LWR impacts. Also, although there are slight 

11 differences in impacts among the alternative sites, none of the alternative sites would be clearly 

12 favored over the VCSNS site. 

13 Table 6-11. Annual Spent-Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for a Westinghouse AP1000 

14 Reactor at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to the Reference 

15 1100-MW(e) LWR Net Electrical Generation 

Normalized Population Impacts, 

Person-rem/yr(a)

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 2.7 × 10-5

VCSNS site(b) 1.8 × 10-5

CGS 2.0 × 10-5

Saluda 1.7 × 10-5

SR 3.9 × 10-5

(a) Multiply person-rem/yr times 0.01 to obtain person-Sv/yr. 

(b) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site are not explicitly analyzed in this 

EIS. Shipping distances, population distributions, and transportation 

impacts are approximately the same as those for the VCSNS Site. 

LWR = light water reactor 

16 Using the linear no-threshold dose-response relationship discussed in Section 6.2.1.1, the 

17 annual risk to the public from accidents during transportation of spent fuel from the VCSNS site 

18 and alternative sites to Yucca Mountain is lower than the value of 1754 person-rem that ICRP 

19 (2007) and NCRP (1995) suggest would most likely result in zero excess health effects. This 

risk is very small compared to the estimated 2.1 × 104 20 person-rem that the same population 

21 along the route from the proposed VCSNS site to Yucca Mountain would incur annually from 

22 exposure to natural sources of radiation. Note that the estimated population dose to persons 

23 along the VCSNS-to-Yucca-Mountain route is different than the population dose calculated by 

24 the NRC staff for unirradiated fuel shipments in Section 6.2.1.1 because the route 

25 characteristics are different. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-37 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The NRC staff performed a confirmatory evaluation of SCE&G’s spent-fuel transportation 

2 accident risk analysis. It was noted that SCE&G used a different, though valid, methodology for 

3 the ER calculations. The primary difference was that SCE&G assumed aggregated route 

4 parameters, whereas in this EIS the NRC staff used state-by-state shipping distances and 

5 population densities. The staff concluded that SCE&G’s analysis was reasonable and 

6 comprehensive and thus was considered to meet the intent of 10 CFR 51.52(b). 

7 6.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impact of Spent-Fuel Shipments 

8 The general approach used to calculate nonradiological impacts of spent-fuel shipments is the 

9 same as that used for unirradiated fuel shipments. The main difference is that the spent-fuel 

10 shipping route characteristics are better defined so the State-level accident statistics from 

11 Saricks and Tompkins (1999) may be used. State-by-state shipping distances were obtained 

12 from the TRAGIS output file and combined with the annual number of shipments and accident, 

13 injury, and fatality rates by state from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) to calculate nonradiological 

14 impacts. In addition, the accident, injury, and fatality rates from Saricks and Tompkins (1999) 

15 were adjusted to account for under-reporting (see Section 6.2.1.3). The results are listed in 

16 Table 6-12. 

17 Table 6-12. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the VCSNS Site and 

18 Alternative Sites to the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, 

19 Nevada, Normalized to the Reference LWR 

Site 

One-Way Shipping 

Distance, km 

Nonradiological Impacts, per year 

Accidents/yr Injuries/yr Fatalities/yr 

VCSNS (preferred site)(a) 4096 1.1 × 10-1 7.1 × 10-2 5.6 × 10-3

CGS 4202 1.2 × 10-1 7.4 × 10-2 5.9 × 10-3

Saluda 4077 1.1 × 10-1

 7.0 × 10-2 5.5 × 10-3

SR 4094 1.3 × 10-1

 8.0 × 10-2 5.7 × 10-3

Note: The number of shipments of spent fuel assumed in the calculations is 46 shipments/yr after normalizing to the 

reference light water reactor. 

(a) The transportation impacts for the FA-1 site are not explicitly analyzed in this EIS. Shipping distances, population 

distributions, and transportation impacts are approximately the same as those for the VCSNS Site. 

20 6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste Other Than Spent Fuel 

21 This section discusses the environmental effects of transporting radioactive waste other than 

22 spent fuel from the VCSNS site and alternative sites. The environmental conditions listed in 

23 10 CFR 51.52 that apply to shipments of radioactive waste are as follows: 

24  Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be packaged and in solid form. 

25  Radioactive waste (except spent fuel) would be shipped from the reactor by truck or railroad. 

26  The weight limitation of 73,000 lb per truck and 100 tons per cask per railcar would be met. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-38 April 2010 

1  Traffic density would be less than the one truck shipment per day or three railcars per month 

2 condition. 

3 Radioactive waste other than spent fuel from the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is expected to 

4 be capable of being shipped in compliance with Federal or State weight restrictions. Table 6-13 

5 presents estimates of annual waste volumes and annual waste-shipment numbers for a 

6 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor normalized to the reference 1100-MW(e) LWR defined in 

7 WASH-1238 (AEC 1972). The expected annual radioactive waste volumes for the 

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, except for spent fuel, was estimated at 1964 ft3 8 /yr per unit, and 

9 the annual number of waste shipments was estimated at 21 shipments per year 

10 (SCE&G 2009a). The expected annual waste volume is less than that for the 1100-MW(e) 

11 reference reactor that was the basis for Table S-4. Therefore, the number of radioactive waste 

12 shipments for the Westinghouse AP1000 is smaller than the reference LWR. The NRC staff 

13 reviewed the radioactive waste generation and shipment data in the ER (SCE&G 2009a) and 

14 concluded that the information is consistent with current LWR operating experience. Therefore, 

15 the number of shipments of radioactive waste, other than spent fuel, to disposal facilities is 

16 expected to be smaller than the reference LWR in WASH-1238. 

17 The sum of the daily shipments of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and radioactive waste for a 

18 Westinghouse AP1000 reactor located at the VCSNS site and alternative sites is less than the 

19 one-truck-shipment-per-day condition given in 10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4. 

20 Dose estimates to the MEI from transport of unirradiated fuel, spent fuel, and waste under 

21 normal conditions are presented in Section 6.2.1.1. 

22 Nonradiological impacts of radioactive waste shipments were calculated using the same general 

23 approach used for unirradiated and spent-fuel shipments. For this EIS, the shipping distance 

24 was assumed to be 500 mi one way (AEC 1972). Because the actual destination is uncertain, 

25 national median accident, injury, and fatality rates were used in the calculations (Saricks and 

26 Tompkins 1999). These rates were adjusted to account for under-reporting, as described in 

27 Section 6.2.1.3. The results are presented in Table 6-14. As shown, the calculated 

28 nonradiological impacts for transportation of radioactive waste other than spent fuel from the 

29 VCSNS site and alternative sites to waste disposal facilities are less than the impacts calculated 

30 for the reference LWR in WASH-1238. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-39 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 6-13. Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site and Alternative 

2 Sites

Reactor Type 

Waste 

Generation 

Information 

Annual 

Waste 

Volume, 

m3

/yr 

per Unit 

Electrical 

Output, 

MW(e) 

per Unit 

Normalized 

Rate, m3

/1100-

MW(e) Unit (880 

MW(e) Net)(a)

Shipments/ 

1100-MW(e) 

(880 MW(e) Net) 

Electrical 

Output(b)

Reference LWR 

(WASH-1238) 

3800 ft3/yr 

per unit 

108 1100 108 46(b)

VCSNS and alternative 

sites Westinghouse 

AP1000 reactor 

(expected) 

1964 ft3

/yr 

per unit(c)

56 1107 48 21(d)

VCSNS and alternative 

sites Westinghouse 

AP1000 reactor 

(maximum) 

5717 ft3

/yr 

per unit(c)

162 1107 138 60(d)

Conversions: 1 m3 = 35.31 ft3. Drum volume = 210 L (0.21 m3). 

(a) Capacity factors used to normalize the waste generation rates to an equivalent electrical generation output are 

80 percent for the reference LWR (AEC 1972) and 93 percent for the Westinghouse AP1000 (SCE&G 2009a). 

Waste generation for the Westinghouse AP1000 is normalized to 880 MW(e) net electrical output (1100-MW(e) 

unit with an 80-percent capacity factor). 

(b) The number of shipments per 1100 MW(e) was calculated assuming the WASH-1238 average waste-shipment 

capacity of 2.34 m3

 (82.6 ft3) per shipment. 

(c) These values were taken from the ER (SCE&G 2009a) and are the same as the waste-generation estimates in 

the AP1000 Design Control Document (Westinghouse 2007). 

(d) This value was obtained by normalizing the SCE&G (2009a) estimate (15 shipments/yr) to the reference-LWR 

electrical generation output. If the WASH-1238 shipment capacity is used (2.34 m3

 per shipment) in lieu of the 

SCE&G (2009a) annual shipment estimate, the normalized shipments from the Westinghouse AP1000 would be 

about 53 shipments per year. 

3 Table 6-14. Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the VCSNS Site

Normalized 

Shipments 

per Year 

One-Way 

Distance, 

km 

Accidents 

per Year 

Injuries 

per Year 

Fatalities 

per Year 

Reference LWR (WASH-1238) 46 800 3.4 × 10-2 1.7 × 10-2 1.1 × 10-3

VCSNS Westinghouse AP1000 

reactor (expected waste volume) 21 800 1.6 × 10-2 7.8 × 10-3 4.9 × 10-4

Note: The shipments and impacts have been normalized to the reference light water reactor (LWR); the expected 

waste volumes and shipments from the Westinghouse AP1000 (SCE&G 2009a) were used. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-40 April 2010 

1 6.2.4 Conclusions 

2 The NRC staff conducted independent confirmatory analyses of potential impacts under normal 

3 and accident conditions of transporting fuel and wastes to and from a Westinghouse AP1000 

4 reactor proposed to be located at the VCSNS site and alternative sites. To make comparisons 

5 with Table S-4, the environmental impacts were adjusted (that is, normalized) to the 

6 environmental impacts associated with the reference LWR in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972) by 

7 multiplying the Westinghouse AP1000 impact estimates by the ratio of the total electric output 

8 for the reference reactor to the electric output of the proposed reactor. 

9 Because of the conservative approaches and data used to calculate impacts, the actual 

10 environmental effects are not likely to exceed those calculated in this EIS. Thus, the NRC staff 

11 concludes that the environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and radioactive wastes to and 

12 from the VCSNS site and alternative sites would be SMALL, and would be consistent with the 

13 environmental impacts associated with transportation of materials, personnel, fuel, and 

14 radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors presented in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. 

15 The NRC staff notes that on March 3, 2010, (DOE 2010), DOE submitted a motion to the Atomic 

16 Safety and Licensing Board to withdraw with prejudice its application for a permanent geologic 

17 repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the NRC staff 

18 concludes that transportation impacts are roughly proportional to the distance from the reactor 

19 site to the repository site, in this case South Carolina to Nevada. The distance from the VCSNS 

20 site or any of the alternate sites to any new planned repository in the contiguous United States 

21 would be no more than double the distance from the VCSNS site to Yucca Mountain. Doubling 

22 the environmental impact estimates from the transportation of spent reactor fuel, as presented 

23 in this section, would provide a reasonable bounding estimate for the impacts for NEPA 

24 purposes. The NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of these doubled estimates 

25 would still be SMALL. 

26 6.3 Decommissioning Impacts 

27 At the end of the operating life of a power reactor, NRC regulations require that the facility 

28 undergo decommissioning. Decommissioning is the safe removal of a facility from service and 

29 the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC license. The 

30 regulations governing decommissioning of power reactors are found in 10 CFR 50.75 and 

31 10 CFR 50.82. 

32 An applicant for a COL is required to certify that sufficient funds will be available for radiological 

33 decommissioning at the end of power-generation operations. As part of its COL application for 

34 the proposed Units 2 and 3 on the VCSNS site, SCE&G included a Decommissioning Funding 

35 Assurance Report (SCE&G 2008). SCE&G and Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-41 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 water utility, formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority) would establish an 

2 external sinking-funds account to accumulate funds for decommissioning. 

3 Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor 

4 before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental 

5 Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Supplement I, Regarding the 

6 Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (GEIS-DECOM), NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 

7 (NRC 2002). Environmental impacts of the DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB 

8 decommissioning methods are evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. A COL applicant is not required 

9 to identify a decommissioning method at the time of the COL application. The staff’s evaluation 

10 of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in the GEIS-DECOM identifies a 

11 range of impacts for each environmental issue for a range of different reactor designs. The 

12 NRC staff concludes that the construction methods that would be used for the AP1000 are not 

13 sufficiently different from the construction methods used for the current plants to significantly 

14 affect the impacts evaluated in the GEIS-DECOM. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

15 impacts discussed in the GEIS-DECOM remain bounding for reactors deployed after 2002, 

16 including the AP1000. 

17 The GEIS-DECOM does not specifically address the carbon footprint of decommissioning 

18 activities. However, it does list the decommissioning activities and states that the 

19 decommissioning workforce would be expected to be smaller than the operational workforce 

20 and that the decontamination and demolition activities could take up to 10 years to complete. 

21 Finally, it discusses SAFSTOR, in which decontamination and dismantlement are delayed for a 

22 number of years. Given this information, the NRC staff estimated the CO2 footprint of 

decommissioning to be of the order of 6.3 × 104 23 metric tons without SAFSTOR. This footprint is 

24 about equally split between decommissioning workforce transportation and equipment usage. 

25 The details of the NRC staff’s estimate are presented in Appendix I. A 40-year SAFSTOR 

26 period would increase the footprint of decommissioning by about 40 percent. These CO2

27 footprints are roughly three orders of magnitude lower than the CO2 footprint presented in 

28 Section 6.1.3 for the uranium fuel cycle. 

29 Therefore, the staff relies upon the bases established in the GEIS-DECOM, and concludes the 

30 following: 

31 1. Doses to the public would be well below applicable regulatory standards, regardless of 

32 which decommissioning method considered in the GEIS-DECOM is used. 

33 2. Occupational doses would be well below applicable regulatory standards during the license 

34 term. 

35 3. The quantities of Class C or greater-than Class C wastes generated would be comparable 

36 to or smaller than the amounts of solid waste generated by reactors licensed before 2002. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-42 April 2010 

1 4. The air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible at the end of the 

2 operating term. 

3 5. Measures are readily available to avoid potential significant water-quality impacts from 

4 erosion or spills. The liquid radioactive-waste system design includes features to limit 

5 release of radioactive material to the environment, such as pipe chases and tank collection 

6 basins. These features will minimize the amount of radioactive material in spills and leakage 

7 that would have to be addressed at decommissioning. 

8 6. The ecological impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible. 

9 7. The socioeconomic impacts would be short-term and could be offset by decreases in 

10 population and economic diversification. 

11 On the basis of the GEIS-DECOM, and the evaluation of air quality impacts from greenhouse 

12 gas emissions above, the NRC staff concludes that, as long as the regulatory requirements on 

13 decommissioning activities to limit the impacts of decommissioning are met, the 

14 decommissioning activities would result in a SMALL impact. 

15 6.4 References 

16 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

17 Protection Against Radiation.” 

18 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

19 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

20 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

21 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

22 10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, “Disposal of High23 Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

24 10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, “Packaging and 

25 Transportation of Radioactive Material.” 

26 10 CFR Part 961. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 961, “Standard Contract 

27 for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste.” 

28 49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Protection of Environment, Part 173, 

29 “Shippers-General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings.” 

30 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

31 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-43 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 40 CFR Part 197. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 197, 

2 “Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” 

3 61 FR 65120. December 10, 1996. “Resolution of Dual Regulation of Airborne Effluents of 

4 Radioactive Materials; Clean Air Act.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

5 73 FR 59551. October 9, 2008. “Waste Confidence Decision Update.” Federal Register. U.S. 

6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

7 73 FR 72370. November 28, 2008. “Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary 

8 Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation and Waste Confidence Decision 

9 Update: Extension of Comment Period.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

10 Commission. 

11 Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Inc. 1983. United 

12 States Reports. 

13 Energy Policy Act of 2005. 42 USC 15801 et seq. 

14 Griego N.R., J.D. Smith, and K.S. Neuhauser. 1996. “Investigation of RADTRAN Stop Model 

15 Input Parameters for Truck Stops.” In: Waste Management ‘96: Proceedings of the Symposium 

16 on Waste Management: HLW, LLW, Mixed Wastes and Environmental Restoration – Working 

17 Towards a Cleaner Environment. Arizona Board of Regents, Tucson, Arizona. 

18 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 2003. Early Site Permit 

19 Environmental Report Sections and Supporting Documentation. Engineering Design File 

20 Number 3747, Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

21 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007. The 2007 

22 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP 

23 Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP 37(2-4), Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

24 Jablon S., Z. Hrubec, J.D. Boice, Jr., and B.J. Stone. 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near 

25 Nuclear Facilities. NIH Pub. No. 90-874, National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C. 

26 Johnson, P.E. and R.D. Michelhaugh. 2003. Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic 

27 Information System (TRAGIS) User’s Manual. ORNL/NTRC-006, Rev. 0. Oak Ridge National 

28 Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

29 National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

30 Radiation: BEIR VII – Phase 2. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low 

31 Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council, National Academies Press, 

32 Washington, D.C. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-44 April 2010 

1 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1995. Principles and 

2 Application of Collective Dose in Radiation Protection. NCRP Report No. 121, NCRP 

3 Publications, Bethesda, Maryland. 

4 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Ionizing Radiation 

5 Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, NCRP Publications, 

6 Bethesda, Maryland. 

7 Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978. 22 USC 3201, et seq. 

8 Saricks, C.L. and M.M. Tompkins. 1999. State-Level Accident Rates for Surface Freight 

9 Transportation: A Reexamination. ANL/ESD/TM-150. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

10 Illinois. 

11 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2008. Application for Combined License for V.C. 

12 Summer Nuclear Stations Units 2 and 3; Project Number 743. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South 

13 Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. ML081300460. 

14 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

15 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

16 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

17 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

18 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

19 Accession No. ML092170463. 

20 Sprung J.L., D.J. Ammerman, N.L. Breivik, R.J. Dukart, F.L. Kanipe, J.A. Koski, G.S. Mills, 

21 K.S. Neuhauser, H.D. Radloff, R.F. Weiner, and H.R. Yoshimura. 2000. Reexamination of 

22 Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates. NUREG/CR-6672, Vol. 1, SAND2000-0234, U.S. Nuclear 

23 Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

24 University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). 2003. Evaluation of the 

25 Motor Carrier Management Information System Crash File, Phase One. UMTRI, Ann Arbor, 

26 Michigan. 

27 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

28 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C. 

29 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel 

30 Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C. 

31 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002a. A Resource Handbook on DOE Transportation Risk 

32 Assessment. DOE/EM/NTP/HB-01, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

April 2010 6-45 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a 

2 Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste 

3 at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

4 Management, Washington, D.C. 

5 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. DOE Standard Radiation Control. DOE-STD-1098-

6 99, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. Electric Power Monthly, August 2009. DOE/EIA8 0226 (2009/08), Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and 

9 Alternate Fuels, Washington, D.C. Accessed August 24, 2009, at 

10 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/epm/02260908.pdf. 

11 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 2003. What Aircrews Should Know About Their 

12 Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. DOT/FAA/AM-3/16, Federal Aviation 

13 Administration, Washington, D.C. 

14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Environmental Survey of Transportation of 

15 Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1. WASH-1238, NUREG16 75/038, Washington, D.C. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing 

18 and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0116 (Supplement 1 to 

19 WASH-1248), Washington, D.C. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Final Environmental Statement on 

21 Transportation of Radioactive Material by Air and Other Modes. NUREG-0170, Vol.1, 

22 Washington, D.C. 

23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Public Comments and Task Force 

24 Responses Regarding the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management 

25 Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. NUREG-0216 (Supplement 2 to WASH-1248), Washington, 

26 D.C. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

28 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (1999). Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

30 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. 
Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

Draft NUREG-1939 6-46 April 2010 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 2, 

3 Washington, D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008. Letter from Michael F. Weber, (Office of 

5 Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to Edward F. 

6 Sproat, III, (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy) 

7 dated September 8, 2008, “Subject: Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Department of 

8 Energy’s License Application for Authority to Construct a Geologic Repository at a Geologic 

9 Repository Operations Area at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” Available at 

10 http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/yucca-lic-app/doc-review.html. Accession No. 

11 ML082490751. 

12 The Ux Consulting Company, LLC (UxC). 2009. UxC Nuclear Fuel Price Indicators: Spot Price 

13 of Uranium. Accessed May 15, 2009 at http://www.vxc.com/review/vxc_prices.aspx. 

14 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2007. AP1000 Design Control 

15 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 16, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

16 ML071580939. 

17 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse). 2008. AP1000 Design Control 

18 Document. APP-GW-GL-700, Revision 17, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accession No. 

19 ML083230868. 

20 Weiner R.F., D.M. Osborn, D. Hinojosa, T.L. Heames, J. Penisten and D.J. Orcutt. 2008. 

21 RadCat 2.3 User Guide. SAND2006-6315, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, 

22 New Mexico. 

23 
April 2010 7-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 7.0 Cumulative Impacts 

2 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires Federal agencies 

3 to consider the cumulative impacts of proposals under its review. Cumulative impacts may 

4 result when the environmental effects associated with the proposed action are overlaid or added 

5 to temporary or permanent effects associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

6 future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively 

7 significant, actions taking place over a period of time. When evaluating the potential impacts of 

8 two new units at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site proposed by South 

9 Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) in its application for combined construction permits and 

10 operating licenses (COLs) (SCE&G 2008), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff 

11 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) staff considered potential cumulative impacts on 

12 resources that could be affected by the construction, preconstruction, and operation of two 

13 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) 

14 pressurized water reactors at the VCSNS site. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an 

15 action are added to or interact with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

16 effects on the same resources. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions are those prior to 

17 the receipt of the COL application. Present actions are those related to resources from the time 

18 of the COL application until the start of NRC-authorized construction of the proposed new units. 

19 Future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through building and operating 

20 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including decommissioning. The geographic area over which 

21 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could contribute to cumulative impacts 

22 is dependent on the type of resource considered and is described below for each resource area. 

23 The review team considered, among other things, cumulative effects of proposed Units 2 and 3 

24 with current operations at VCSNS Unit 1. 

25 The approach for evaluating cumulative impacts in this environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

26 outlined in the following discussion. To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a 

27 proposed action or alternative actions, the NRC has established a standard of significance for 

28 impacts based on guidance developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (Title 40 

29 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.27). The three significance levels established 

30 by the NRC – SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE – are defined as follows: 

31 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

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

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

34 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

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

36 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-2 April 2010 

1 The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Chapters 4 and 5, are combined with other 

2 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions near the VCSNS site that would affect 

3 the same resources affected by proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, regardless of what agency 

4 (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. These combined impacts are 

5 defined by CEQ as “cumulative” in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively 

6 significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be 

7 SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when considered in 

8 combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource 

9 is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it 

10 contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline. 

11 The description of the affected environment in Chapter 2 serves as the baseline for the 

12 cumulative impacts analysis, including the effects of past actions. The incremental impacts 

13 related to the construction activities requiring NRC authorization (10 CFR 50.10(a)) are 

14 described and characterized in Chapter 4 and those related to operations are described in 

15 Chapter 5. These impacts are summarized for each resource area in the sections that follow. 

16 The level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for each resource area. 

17 The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the 

18 proposed action and other actions in the same geographic area were assessed. This 

19 assessment includes the impacts of construction and operation of the proposed new units as 

20 described in Chapters 4 and 5; impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; 

21 impacts of fuel cycle, transportation, and decommissioning as described in Chapter 6; and 

22 impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

23 actions that could affect the same resources affected by the proposed actions. 

24 The review team visited the VCSNS site from March 8 through 13, 2009. The team then used 

25 the information provided in the Environmental Report, responses to Requests for Additional 

26 Information, information from other Federal and State agencies, and information gathered 

27 during the visits to the VCSNS site to evaluate the cumulative impacts of building and operating 

28 two new nuclear power plants at the site. To inform the cumulative analysis, the review team 

29 researched Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) databases for recent EISs, used an EPA 

30 database for permits for water discharges in the geographic area to identify water-use projects, 

31 and used the www.recovery.gov website to identify projects in the geographic area funded by 

32 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5). Other actions and 

33 projects that were identified during this review and considered in the review team’s independent 

34 analysis of the potential cumulative effects are described in Table 7-1. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 7-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions Considered 

2 in the Cumulative Analysis

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of one 

996-MW(e) nuclear power 

generating plant. 

<1 mi north of 

proposed 

VCSNS Units 

2 and 3 

VCSNS Unit 1 is currently 

operational and is licensed to 

continue operations through August 

6, 2042(a)

Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage 

Installation 

Dry spent-fuel storage Same general 

location as 

VCSNS Units 

2 and 3 

Proposed(b)

Old Steam Generator 

Recycle Facility 

Decommissioned steam 

generator storage 

Same general 

location as 

VCSNS Unit 2 

and 3 

Operational(c)

Carolinas-Virginia Tube 

Reactor (CVTR) 

Experimental pressurized tube 

heavy water nuclear power 

reactor 

About 2 miles 

south of 

VCSNS Unit 1 

Undergoing Decommissioning(d)

SCE&G Parr 

Hydroelectric 

Generating Station 

(Parr Hydroelectric 

Plant) 

14-MW(e) hydroelectric plant <1 mi south of 

VCSNS on 

Broad River 

Operational(e)

SCE&G Fairfield 

Pumped Storage 

Facility (FPSF) 

511.2-MW(e) hydroelectric plant. 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would use 

water supply from this facility 

<2 mi 

northwest of 

VCSNS on 

Parr Reservoir 

(Broad River) 

Operational(b)

SCE&G Parr Steam 

Plant 

71-MW(e) natural gas electric 

generating plant 

About 2 mi 

south of 

VCSNS 

Operational 

Lee Nuclear Station Two 1199.5-MW(e) 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

About 52 mi 

north 

Proposed new nuclear plant. 

Operation would begin in 2021(e) 

Catawba Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2 

Two 1129-MW(e) Westinghouse 

reactors 

About 54 mi 

northnortheast 

Operational(f)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2

Nuclear power generating plant 

with one 710-MW(e) unit 

About 66 mi 

east 

Operational(g)

McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2 

Two 1100-MW(e) Westinghouse 

reactors 

About 80 mi 

northnortheast 

Operational(h)

3 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-4 April 2010 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant 

(VEGP) 

Nuclear power generating plant 

with 2 units, VEGP 1 (1109 

MW(e)) and VEGP 2 (1127 

MW(e)) 

Approx 80 mi 

southsouthwest 

Operational(k)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating plant 

with two 1117-MW(e) 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

Approx 80 mi 

southsouthwest 

Proposed.(j) Commercial operations 

are estimated to begin in 2016 for 

Unit 3 and 2017 for Unit 4. 

Oconee Nuclear 

Station, Units 1, 2 and 

3 

Three 846-MW(e) Babcock and 

Wilcox reactors 

About 96 mi 

west-northwest 

Operational(b)

Buzzard Roost 

Combustion Turbine 

Station 

196-MW oil/gas-fired peaking 

facility 

Approx 35 mi 

westsouthwest 

Operational(k)

Buzzard’s Roost Dam 15-MW hydroelectric facility Approx 35 mi 

westsouthwest 

Operational(l)

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia SC 

Design and fabricate completed 

nuclear fuel assemblies and 

fuel-related products, such as 

top and bottom nozzles, control 

rods, and Zirconium Diboride 

and Erbia integral fuel burnable 

absorbers for pressurized water 

reactors and Vodo-Vodyanoi 

Energetichesky Reactors. 

About 26 mi 

southwest 

Operational(m)

Six Broad River 

Hydroelectric Projects 

Hydroelectric facilities 5 upstream on 

the Broad 

River and 1 

downstream on 

the Broad 

River 

Operational(b)

Mining Projects 

Vulcan Materials 

Company/ Blair Quarry 

Products include asphalt 

aggregate, base material, 

concrete, aggregate, and 

manufactured sand 

Approximately 

10 mi north of 

VCSNS 

Operational(n)

Transportation Projects 

South Carolina 

Strategic Corridor 

System Plan 

Strategic system of corridors 

forming the backbone of the 

state’s transportation system. 

State-wide Planning document with no explicit 

schedules for projects, however, 

many strategic corridors coincide with 

routes which would/could be used for 

development at the VCSNS site(o)
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities 

Sumter National Forest 371,000-ac National Forest. Located 

about 9 mi 

northwest of 

VCSNS 

boundary 

Currently managed by U.S. Forest 

Service(p)

Parr Hydro Wildlife 

Management Area 

4400-ac wildlife management 

area 

Adjacent to 

VCSNS 

Currently managed by the South 

Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources(b)

Other Actions/Projects

City of Columbia Municipal water withdrawals 

from the Broad River 

About 26 mi 

southeast 

Ongoing(b)

Various hospitals and 

industrial facilities that 

use radioactive 

materials 

Medical isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in Columbia, Lexington, 

Newberry, Rock Hill, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Greenwood, and Camden 

Cone Mills Carlisle 

Finishing Co. 

Fabric finisher About 22 mi. 

north of 

VCSNS on 

Broad River 

Operational(q)

Chemtrade 

Performance 

Chemicals LLC 

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals About 23 mi 

north of 

VCSNS on 

Broad River 

Operational(r)

Newberry County 

Water and Sewer 

Authority

(NCW&SA)/Cannons 

Creek Waste Water 

Treatment Plant 

(WWTP) 

Waste water treatment About 8 mi 

west of 

VCSNS 

Operational(s)

NCW&SA Broad River 

Wastewater Treatment 

Facility (WWTF) 

Phase 1 

WWTF currently maintains a 

non-major National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit. 

About 12 mi 

west of 

VCSNS 

Operational(t)

SCE&G Combined Site 

Emergency Operations 

Facility 

A new combined site emergency 

operations facility 

10 mi from 

VCSNS 

Proposed(b)

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, bridges, and 

railroad; construction of waterand/or wastewater-treatment 

and distribution facilities and 

Throughout 

region 

Construction would occur in the 

future, as described in State and local 

land-use planning documents. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-6 April 2010 

Table 7-1. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use 

planning documents. There is a 

low-to-moderate potential for 

increase urbanization within the 

Broad River watershed in 

Newberry and Fairfield 

Counties, South Carolina. The 

highest potential for 

development would be 

associated with residential 

development around the 

reservoirs, the Towns of 

Prosperity and Pomaria, and the 

City of Newberry Sumter. 

National Forest would limit 

urbanization north of VCSNS. 

(a) Source: NRC 2004 

(b) Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(c) Source: NRC GEIS (NRC 1996) 

(d) Source: EPA 2009a 

(e) Source: NRC 2009a 

(f) Source: NRC 2009b 

(g) Source: NRC 2009c 

(h) Source: NRC 2009d 

(i) Source: NRC 2009e 

(j) Source: NRC 2009f 

(k) Source: Duke 2009a 

(l) Source: Greenwood County 2008 

(m) Source: Westinghouse 2009 

(n) Source: SCDHEC 2007b 

(o) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(p) Source: USFS 2004 

(q) Source: EPA 2009b 

(r) Source: EPA 2009c 

(s) Source: EPA 2009d 

(t) Source: EPA 2009e 

1 7.1 Land Use 

2 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.2 serves as a baseline for the 

3 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.1, the impacts 

4 of NRC-authorized construction activities on land-use impacts would be SMALL, and no further 

5 mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.1 of this EIS, the review team 

6 concludes that the impacts of operations on land use would also be SMALL, and no further 

7 mitigation would be warranted. 

8 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.1 and 

9 were determined to be MODERATE locally where new transmission-line corridors would be 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 developed and SMALL in all other areas. In addition to the impacts from construction, 

2 preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and 

3 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect land use. For this cumulative analysis, 

4 the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region described in Section 2.2.3, 

5 plus any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all of the 

6 transmission-line corridor length falls within a 50-mi radius of the site. Although Fairfield County 

7 has adopted a zoning ordinance and developed a comprehensive plan specific to the county, 

8 land-use planning for transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of 

9 adjoining counties and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering one county in 

10 isolation. Further, in predominately rural settings such as that surrounding the VCSNS site, 

11 land-use changes occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially 

12 influence land-planning decisions close to the site. Roads and other public facilities and 

13 services in rural areas tend to serve people who are spread thinly but broadly over large 

14 portions of the landscape. Therefore, land-use changes can affect roads and other facilities at 

15 greater distances than similar changes in more densely populated areas. 

16 The VCSNS site is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small 

17 farms composing the dominant land use. This Piedmont terrain varies from gently rolling to hilly 

18 and is punctuated by relatively narrow stream valleys. Historically, most upland areas have 

19 been used for crop production, but presently they are used for silviculture. Jenkinsville and 

20 Peak are the closest communities. Monticello Reservoir was created by impounding Frees 

21 Creek as part of the Unit 1 development, and since then portions of the shoreline have 

22 experienced private residential and public recreational development. Several electric 

23 transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. 

24 Industries and facilities that have historically affected the land use near VCSNS are described in 

25 Table 7-1. The proposed project would result in land conversions to residential areas, roads, 

26 and businesses to accommodate growth, new workers, and services related to the proposed 

27 nuclear facility. Other reasonably foreseeable projects in the area that could contribute to an 

28 increase in urbanization include potential residences along the Monticello Reservoir. This would 

29 result in a conversion of open areas, forests, and wetlands to residential areas. There are no 

30 specific plans to build new or widen existing roads in the area, other than those described for 

31 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The amount of land to be converted to residences, roads, or 

32 businesses would be minimal compared to the amount of land available in the area. 

33 Because the other projects described in Table 7-1 do not include any reasonably foreseeable 

34 changes in types of land use within 50 mi of the VCSNS, other than the Monticello Reservoir 

35 shoreline development discussed above, there would not be any significant additional 

36 cumulative impacts on land use from those activities. 

37 As described in Section 4.1, approximately 86 mi of entirely new transmission-line corridors 

38 would be built to support the VCSNS new units. In addition, approximately 88 mi of 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-8 April 2010 

1 transmission lines serving the proposed reactors would be built within or along side of existing 

2 transmission-line rights-of-way. Because these transmission lines would be co-located with 

3 existing transmission-line corridors, they would not noticeably alter the land-use classification 

4 within the geographic area of interest. However, the 86 mi of new transmission-line corridors 

5 would noticeably alter the land-use classification acreage proportions within the geographic area 

6 of interest. 

7 Cumulative land-use impacts within the geographic area of interest are expected to be 

8 manageable because the activities would be consistent with existing land-use plans and zoning. 

9 However, due to the potential reclassification of acreage caused by transmission-line 

10 development, especially for the 86 mi that would not be constructed within or adjacent to 

11 existing transmission-line rights-of-way, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use 

12 impacts associated with the proposed Units 2 and 3, related transmission-line corridors, and 

13 other projects in the geographic area of interest would be MODERATE. The incremental 

14 impacts from NRC-authorized activities for proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL, because 

15 impacts on land use, while noticeable at and in the vicinity of the site, would not noticeably alter 

16 the surrounding regional landscape. 

17 7.2 Water Use and Quality 

18 This section addresses the cumulative impacts of the proposed new units, the existing VCSNS 

19 units, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on water use and 

20 quality. 

21 7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts 

22 This section describes the cumulative water-use impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

23 and operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

24 projects. 

25 7.2.1.1 Surface-Water-Use Impacts 

26 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

27 baseline for surface-water use. As described in Section 4.2.2.1, the impacts from NRC28 authorized construction on surface-water use would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

29 be warranted. As described in Section 5.2.2.1, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

30 operations on surface-water use would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

31 warranted. 

32 The combined surface-water-use impacts from construction and preconstruction are described 

33 in Section 4.2.2.1 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for surface-water use 

2 also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

3 potentially affect this resource. For the cumulative analysis of impacts of surface water, the 

4 geographic area of interest is considered to be the drainage basin of the Broad River upstream 

5 and downstream of the VCSNS site because other actions within this region could result in a 

6 cumulative impact. The Broad River has provided water for agricultural, industrial, and 

7 municipal use since colonial times. Dams have been installed on the river to provide flood 

8 control, increase the reliability of water supply to the region, and to provide power. Key actions 

9 that have current and reasonably foreseeable future potential impacts on surface-water supply 

10 in the Broad River basin include operation of VCSNS Unit 1, operation of the Fairfield Pumped 

11 Storage Facility (FPSF) that connects Monticello Reservoir with Parr Reservoir, the SCE&G 

12 Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (or Plant), and the proposed William States Lee III 

13 Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, South Carolina (Lee Nuclear Station). 

14 Peak water needs during construction and preconstruction, as described in Section 4.2.2.1, are 

15 estimated to be 420 gpm (approximately 1 cfs) (SCE&G 2009a). This represents less than 1 

16 percent of the 7Q10 (lowest flow for 7 consecutive days expected to occur once per decade) 

17 estimated for Broad River (SCE&G 2009a) and the impact of its use would not be noticeable. 

18 The surface-water-use impacts of construction, preconstruction, and operation are dominated 

19 by the higher demands that would occur under normal operation. The projected consumptive 

20 water use of proposed Units 2 and 3 is expected to be about 27,828 gpm (62 cfs) or 1 percent 

of the average river discharge of 2.828 × 106 21 gpm (6300 cfs) near the site, as described in 

22 Section 5.2.2.1. This average river flow reflects upstream cumulative consumptive uses of 

23 current users including the consumptive use associated with VCSNS Unit 1. Increases in 

24 consumptive use of water in the Broad River drainage is anticipated in the future. For example, 

25 Duke Energy is proposing to build two nuclear reactors at the Lee Nuclear Station (Duke 

26 2009b). Duke has prepared an assessment of water availability and projected use for the Broad 

27 River to determine the availability of water to support expansions of Duke’s generating capability 

28 (Duke 2007). Duke considered future agriculture and irrigation projects, power projections, 

29 public water supplies and wastewater projections, and future industrial use. Duke also 

30 considered future trends in water use such as water reuse, water conservation, and changes in 

31 regulations and the regional economy. The Duke study does not consider the impact of climate 

32 change. The study indicates that consumptive water use would increase in the Broad River 

33 drainage from the 241.5 cfs (0.33 acre-feet per year) in 2006 to 412.9 cfs (0.57 acre-feet per 

34 year) by 2070. Duke asserts in the document that the study will enable it to plan for water 

35 needs and develop water-storage facilities necessary to support the operation of its proposed 

36 facilities. Similarly, SCE&G asserts that the impact of consumptive use by VCSNS Units 1, 2, 

37 and 3 during low flows can be mitigated by using water from Monticello Reservoir. Because 

38 both the Lee Nuclear Station and VCSNS Units 1, 2, and 3 would rely on water from reservoirs 

39 during period of low flow, impacts would not likely noticeably alter surface-water resources in 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-10 April 2010 

1 the Broad River. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 7-1 are considered in the analysis 

2 included in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 or would have little or no impact on surface-water use. 

3 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect the water 

4 resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water resources for 

5 other users. A recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (Karl et al. 2009) 

6 has been considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the 

7 region during the life of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 site include an increase in average 

8 temperature of 2 to 3°F and a decrease in precipitation in the winter, spring, and summer and a 

9 small increase in the fall (Karl et al. 2009, figures on pp. 28, 29, 31). Changes in climate during 

10 the life of proposed Units 2 and 3 could result in either an increase or decrease in the amount of 

11 runoff; the divergence in model projections for the southeastern United States precludes a 

12 definitive estimate (Karl et al. 2009, figures on p. 45). While the changes that are attributed to 

13 climate change in these studies are not insignificant, the review team did not identify anything 

14 that suggests the cumulative impacts would noticeably alter this resource. 

15 The review team has examined the cumulative consumptive use of surface water from the 

16 operation of VCSNS Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3 and other consumptive uses (existing or 

17 reasonably foreseeable user) and potential impacts from climate change. Although the 

18 cumulative effects on surface-water use may be detectable, they would not noticeably alter the 

19 resource. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on 

20 surface-water use would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

21 7.2.1.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts 

22 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

23 baseline for groundwater use. As described in Section 4.2.2.2, the impacts from NRC24 authorized construction on groundwater use would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 

25 be warranted. As described in Section 5.2.2.2, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

26 operations on groundwater use would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

27 warranted. 

28 The combined groundwater-use impacts from construction and preconstruction are described in 

29 Section 4.2.2.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

30 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for groundwater use also 

31 considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could potentially 

32 affect this resource. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on groundwater two geographic 

33 areas of interest have been identified – the VCSNS site and Fairfield County, South Carolina. 

34 The geographic area of interest affected by dewatering activities for construction and 

35 preconstruction activities is limited to the VCSNS site because local bodies of surface water 

36 along the project boundaries (Mayo Creek, Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and Monticello 

37 Reservoir) limit the influence of dewatering beyond those features. Fairfield County is 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 considered a region of interest for groundwater production because water from the Jenkinsville 

2 water-supply system would be used for construction and preconstruction of proposed Units 2 

3 and 3 until SCE&G completes the proposed water-treatment plant. The Jenkinsville water4 supply system obtains a portion of its water from groundwater wells and is located in Fairfield 

5 County. 

6 Impacts on groundwater use on the VCSNS site would be localized and temporary during both 

7 construction and preconstruction, as discussed in Section 4.2.2.2. As mentioned above, the 

8 groundwater withdrawals on the VCSNS site would not contribute to a cumulative impact offsite 

9 because local bodies of surface water along the project boundaries (Mayo Creek, Broad River, 

10 Parr Reservoir, and Monticello Reservoir) limit the influence of onsite withdrawals beyond those 

11 features. 

12 Impacts on groundwater use in Fairfield County would be minimal. As described in Section 4.2, 

13 SCE&G has indicated that a portion of the water needed for construction and preconstruction 

14 would be supplied by the Jenkinsville Water District. SCE&G estimated that less than 

15 15,000 gpd would be required from this source to meet potable water needs during construction 

16 and preconstruction. Additional water would be supplied for the concrete batch plant. The 

17 Jenkinsville Water District obtains a portion of its water from groundwater wells but also has an 

18 excess capacity of 1 Mgd through its agreements with other nearby water districts (SCE&G 

19 2009a). As mentioned in Section 4.2.2.2 the excess capacity is from surface-water sources. 

20 Groundwater supplies less than 10 percent of the water used for public water supplies in 

21 Fairfield County (SCDHEC 2007a). South Carolina requires that any user withdrawing more 

22 than 3 million gallons per month in any given month from surface water or groundwater report its 

23 withdrawal to the State. The 2006 water-use summary report for South Carolina reports no 

24 groundwater use for industrial, agricultural, or power generation for Fairfield County (SCDHEC 

25 2007a). 

26 As discussed in Section 5.2.2.2, impacts on groundwater use during operations are anticipated 

27 to be localized because there is no plan to use groundwater or to discharge waste to 

28 groundwater during operations. No other projects listed in Table 7-1 would affect groundwater 

29 at the VCSNS site. As mentioned in Section 3.4.2.1, impacts on groundwater use in Fairfield 

30 County during operations are not anticipated because VCSNS would obtain all water for 

31 operations from Monticello Reservoir. Given that the potable water needed for Units 2 and 3 

32 represents less than 2 percent of the excess capacity available, the potable water demand on 

33 ground water resources would be temporary until the VCSNS water-treatment plant is 

34 completed, and no industrial, agricultural or power generation uses are identified for 

35 groundwater, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative impact on groundwater use in 

36 Fairfield County would be minimal. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-12 April 2010 

1 The review team has examined the cumulative consumptive use of groundwater including the 

2 operation of Unit 1 and the proposed Units 2 and 3, and other consumptive uses (existing and 

3 reasonably foreseeable users). Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

4 cumulative impacts on groundwater use would be SMALL, and no mitigation would be 

5 warranted. 

6 7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts 

7 This section describes cumulative water-quality impacts resulting from construction, 

8 preconstruction, and operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and impacts from other 

9 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. 

10 7.2.2.1 Surface-Water-Quality Impacts 

11 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 serves as a baseline for this resource 

12 area. As described in Section 4.2.3.1, the impacts from NRC-authorized construction on 

13 surface-water quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As 

14 described in Section 5.2.3.1, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on 

15 surface-water quality would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

16 The combined surface-water-quality impacts from construction and preconstruction are 

17 described in Section 4.2.3.1 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

18 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for surface-water quality 

19 also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

20 potentially affect this resource. The geographic area of interest is the same as that described 

21 for surface-water use (Section 7.2.1.1). 

22 The impacts from building and operating proposed Units 2 and 3 were determined to be 

23 minimal, and were evaluated using the current conditions in the Broad River. The current 

24 conditions include the impact of operations of the VCSNS Unit 1, the FPSF, and the Parr 

25 Hydroelectric Plant. The hydrological conditions described in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 also include 

26 the impact of the activities listed as currently operational in Table 7-1 that are distinct from the 

27 activities at the VCSNS site. Those activities include facilities with National Pollutant Discharge 

28 Elimination System (NPDES) permits to discharge water to the river and its tributaries, including 

29 the Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority (NCW&SA) Broad River Waste-Water 

30 Treatment Plant (WWTP) and NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP. The NCW&SA Broad River 

31 WWTP has an active NPDES permit for discharge of 34.7 gpm (0.078 cfs) to Cannons Creek, 

32 which ultimately flowed into Parr Reservoir up until the permit expired in September of 2007 

33 (EPA 2009e). Currently, only the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP has a current NPDES 

34 permit (SC0048313) with a discharge of 65,972 gpm (147 cfs) to Cannons Creek (EPA 2009d). 

35 Discharge from this WWTP is monitored for compliance with NPDES permitting regulations. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The review team performed an independent assessment of the primary water-quality impacts on 

2 the Parr Reservoir and the Broad River in its analysis of the estimated blowdown discharge of 

3 Units 2 and 3 (see Section 5.3). The review team determined that both the thermal impacts and 

4 the impact of discharging solutes and solids concentrated through evaporation in the cooling 

5 towers would be minimal and localized to the zone defined by the thermal plume. Table 7-1 

6 identifies the proposed construction of two nuclear reactors at the Lee Nuclear Station. The 

7 review team anticipates that operation of this facility would result in a thermal discharge to the 

8 Broad River. However, given that it is located more than 50 mi upstream of the discharge for 

9 the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, any thermal impact of the proposed Lee station would be 

10 undetectable by the time the water reaches Parr Reservoir. The impacts of other projects listed 

11 in Table 7-1 are either considered in the analysis included in Sections 4.2 and 5.2 or would have 

12 little or no impact on surface-water quality. 

13 Although the cumulative effects on surface-water quality may be detectable, they would not 

14 noticeably alter the resource; therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts of 

15 surface-water quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in 

16 Chapters 4 and 5 would be warranted. 

17 7.2.2.2 Groundwater-Quality Impacts 

18 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.3 of this document serves as a 

19 baseline for this resource area. The groundwater-quality impacts from NRC-authorized 

20 construction are described in Section 4.2.3.2 and were determined to be SMALL. As described 

21 in Section 5.2.3.2, the review team concludes that groundwater quality impacts from operation 

22 of the two proposed units would be SMALL 

23 The combined groundwater-quality impacts from construction and preconstruction are described 

24 in Section 4.2.3.2 and were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from 

25 construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative analysis for groundwater quality 

26 also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

27 potentially impact this resource. The geographic area of interest is the same as that described 

28 for groundwater use (Section 7.2.1.2). 

29 As discussed in Section 4.2.3.2, impacts on groundwater quality would be localized and 

30 temporary during construction. Impacts on groundwater quality during operations, as discussed 

31 in Section 5.2.3.2, are anticipated to be localized because there is no plan to use groundwater 

32 or to discharge waste to groundwater during operations. No other projects listed in Table 7-1 

33 would affect groundwater at the VCSNS site. 

34 Although the cumulative effects on groundwater quality may be detectable, they would not 

35 noticeably alter the resource; therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts of 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-14 April 2010 

1 groundwater quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond that described in 

2 Chapters 4 and 5 would be warranted. 

3 7.3 Ecology 

4 This section addresses the cumulative impacts on terrestrial, wetlands, and aquatic ecological 

5 resources as a result of activities associated with the proposed new units at the proposed 

6 VCSNS site and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the 

7 geographic area of interest of each resource. 

8 7.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Wetlands 

9 The description of the affected environment in Chapter 2.4.1 provides the baseline for the 

10 cumulative impacts assessments for terrestrial ecological resources. As described in 

11 Section 4.3.1, the impacts from NRC-authorized construction on terrestrial and wetlands 

12 ecology would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in 

13 Section 5.3.1, the review team concludes that the impacts of operations on terrestrial and 

14 wetlands ecology would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

15 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.3.1 

16 and determined to be SMALL for the site and MODERATE for transmission-line corridors. In 

17 addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and operations, the cumulative 

18 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

19 could affect terrestrial resources. For the cumulative analysis of terrestrial ecology, the 

20 geographic area of interest is considered to be the 6-mi vicinity of the VCSNS site and the 

21 macro-corridors associated with the proposed transmission lines (as defined in Chapter 4). This 

22 area is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features and species 

23 potentially affected by proposed Units 2 and 3. Current projects within the geographic area of 

24 interest include operation of VCSNS Unit 1, the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Plant, the FPSF and 

25 urbanization. There are no other major current projects in the geographic area of interest that 

26 would contribute to cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecological resources. Reasonably 

27 foreseeable projects within the geographic area of interest that could affect terrestrial resources 

28 include continued regional commercial and residential development, such as new residences 

29 along Monticello Reservoir. 

30 The geographic area of interest is located primarily in the South Carolina Southern Outer 

31 Piedmont ecoregion and portions occur within the Sandhills and Coastal Plain ecoregions. 

32 These ecoregions have been altered considerably since European settlement primarily due to 

33 farming, agriculture, and forestry (Godfrey 1980). During the time of early settlement, the 

34 forests were primarily a mixture of oaks, hickories, and pines (Kirkman et al. 2007). Currently, 

35 most forests in the geographic area of interest are dominated by planted and naturally 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 vegetated pine. The 6-mi geographic area of interest has also changed dramatically since the 

2 damming of the Broad River and of Frees Creek to create the Parr and Monticello reservoirs 

3 (SCE&G 2009a; FPC 1974; SCE&G 1977; see historical photos in Chapter 2 [Figure 2-13]). 

4 Prior to impoundment, the land currently inundated was primarily forest land, riparian land, and 

5 farmland (SCE&G 1977; FPC 1974). There also has been ongoing residential and commercial 

6 urbanization within the geographic area of interest. 

7 The geographic area of interest includes open water and rural forested land with scattered small 

8 farms. The habitats and wildlife that would be disturbed are common in the region, and are not 

9 considered to be unique or critical for the survival of Federally listed threatened or endangered 

10 species or for the other important species identified in Section 2.4.1. In addition, the percentage 

11 of wetlands and riparian habitats that would be lost due to the preconstruction, construction, and 

12 operations of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 represents only a small fraction of the wetlands in the area. 

13 7.3.1.1 Site-Preparation and Site-Development Impacts 

14 The impacts on terrestrial habitats, wetlands, and important species from site preparation and 

15 development of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and associated transmission lines are 

16 described in Section 4.3.1. Proposed future actions that have the potential to result in 

17 cumulative impacts on terrestrial resources would include regional urbanization that is expected 

18 to continue. The nearby Parr Hydro Wildlife Management Area, however, would continue to be 

19 managed for the benefit of wildlife, helping offset habitat losses in the future. 

20 Activities from the projects mentioned above that could contribute to cumulative impacts for 

21 terrestrial ecological resources include land clearing and grading (temporary and permanent), 

22 filling and/or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy equipment operation, 

23 traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would likely displace or destroy 

24 wildlife that inhabit affected areas. Some wildlife, including some individuals of important 

25 species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above projects as a 

26 consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining resources. Less 

27 mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be at greater risk of 

28 incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which would be displaced 

29 to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to areas of activity could provide habitat to 

30 support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and resources could 

31 affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, 

32 and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife from each 

33 noise-generating activity is expected to be temporary and minor. The creation of new 

34 transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit 

35 early successional habitat or use forest edge environments, such as white-tailed deer 

36 (Odocoileus virginianus), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), eastern meadowlark 

37 (Sturnella magna), and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, such as red-
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-16 April 2010 

1 tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) would likely exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested 

2 wetlands within the corridors would be converted to, and maintained in, a herbaceous or scrub3 shrub condition that could provide improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading 

4 birds. However, fragmentation of forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on 

5 large tracts of continuous forested habitat. Fragmentation would result in noticeable, but not 

6 destabilizing, impacts on continuously forested habitats. 

7 7.3.1.2 Operational Impacts 

8 As described in Section 5.3.1, potential operational impacts would include cooling-tower noise, 

9 salt drift from vapor plumes, and avian collisions with tall structures, and transmission-line 

10 operation. During the review of the VCSNS COL application, no other past, present, or 

11 reasonably foreseeable actions in the region were identified that would substantially affect 

12 terrestrial ecological resources that would be affected by the operation of the VCSNS Units 2 

13 and 3. 

14 7.3.1.3 Statement 

15 Cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecology and wetland resources from construction, 

16 preconstruction, and operation of the VCSNS and other past, present, and reasonably 

17 foreseeable projects are estimated based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

18 review team’s independent review. Due to the extent of habitat loss and fragmentation that 

19 would be caused by the proposed transmission-line development, especially where the 

20 transmission lines would be routed away from existing transmission-line rights-of-way, the 

21 review team concludes that cumulative impacts would be MODERATE. Such fragmentation 

22 would result in noticeable, but not destabilizing, impacts on species that are highly dependent 

23 on large tracts of continuous forest. 

24 Construction of transmission lines does not require NRC authorization; therefore, the NRC staff 

25 concludes that the incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities at the proposed VCSNS 

26 site would be SMALL and would not noticeably alter the ecology within the geographic area of 

27 interest. The incremental impacts associated with developing the proposed transmission lines, 

28 especially the 86 mi of transmission line not routed within or adjacent to existing transmission29 line corridors, are the principal contributor to the MODERATE rating of cumulative impacts 

30 because the proposed new transmission lines could result in habitat fragmentation, which could 

31 affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous forested habitat. 

32 7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts 

33 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.4.2 serves as a baseline for the 

34 cumulative impacts assessment for aquatic ecological resources. As described in Section 4.3.2, 

35 the impacts of NRC-authorized construction on aquatic biota would be SMALL, and no further 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.3.2, the review team concludes that 

2 impacts of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 operations on aquatic resources inhabiting onsite waterbodies, 

3 Monticello Reservoir, and Broad River from Neal Shoals Dam to Parr Shoals Dam, and along 

4 the six new offsite transmission lines would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 

5 warranted. 

6 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.3.2 

7 and determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

8 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

9 foreseeable actions that could affect aquatic ecology. For this analysis, the geographic area of 

10 interest is considered to be the drainage basin of the Broad River from Neal Shoals Dam 

11 downriver approximately 30 mi to the Parr Shoals Dam, Monticello Reservoir, and 

12 corresponding intermittent and seasonal streams on the VCSNS site, as the most likely to show 

13 the impact of water-use and water-quality criteria for aquatic biota. In addition, waterbodies 

14 crossed by the transmission-line corridors are considered within each macro-corridor as 

15 described for terrestrial resources in Section 4.3.1, and include the Santee River basin, 

16 Ashepoo, Combahee, Edisto (ACE) river basin, and Pee Dee River basins. Other actions listed 

17 in Table 7-1 within the geographic area of interest that have present and reasonably 

18 foreseeable future potential impacts on Monticello and Parr reservoirs include operation of 

19 VCSNS Unit 1, operation of the FPSF that connects Monticello Reservoir to Parr Reservoir, the 

20 NCW&SA Broad River WWTP, the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP, and SCE&G’s Parr 

21 Hydroelectric Plant located on the Broad River less than 1 mi southwest of proposed Units 2 

22 and 3. The evaluation of cumulative impacts from these actions on aquatic biota is described 

23 below. 

24 Monticello Reservoir was formed in 1977 by impounding Frees Creek, a tributary to Parr 

25 Reservoir. Monticello Reservoir was designed to serve as a source of cooling water for VCSNS 

26 Unit 1, to receive thermal and chemical discharge from the VCSNS Unit 1, and to serve as the 

27 upper pool for the FPSF located on Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). Water elevations within 

28 Monticello Reservoir are maintained via operation of the FPSF, which pumps water between the 

29 Monticello and Parr reservoirs. The increased consumption of water from the Monticello 

30 Reservoir for cooling purposes for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 is expected to be about 1 percent of 

31 the average annual Broad River flow at Alston (SCE&G 2009a). Parr Reservoir was created in 

32 1914 by impounding a segment of the Broad River to provide a pool for the original Parr 

33 Hydroelectric Plant. In 1977, the size of Parr Reservoir increased to approximately 4400 ac 

34 when the height of the dam was increased to accommodate operation of the FPSF (SCE&G 

35 2009a). 

36 Operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would increase the level of impingement and 

37 entrainment of aquatic biota in Monticello Reservoir and introduce discharge of effluent to Parr 

38 Reservoir. The Unit 1 intake structure impingement and entrainment estimates are discussed in 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-18 April 2010 

1 Section 5.3.2. The new circulating-water system (CWS) proposed for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

2 would operate at a reduced intake velocity (<0.5 fps versus 0.72 fps for VCSNS Unit 1), with 

3 water withdrawal rates varying between 81 cfs for normal operations and 131 cfs for maximum 

4 use operations. In addition, the new water-treatment plant (for plant service, potable, 

5 demineralized, and fire protection systems) would withdraw 2.2 cfs during normal operations 

6 and 6.7 cfs during maximum operations (SCE&G 2009a). Given that the impingement and 

7 entrainment rates for Unit 1 are based on a cooling-water withdrawal rate of 1190 cfs, the 

8 planned cooling-water withdrawal rate for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 should result in at least a 

9 ninefold less potential for impingement and entrainment when compared to Unit 1 impingement 

10 and entrainment rates, which were found to result in minimal impacts (NRC 2004). Organisms 

11 most vulnerable to impingement and entrainment (Section 5.3.2.1) at the VCSNS Unit 1 intake 

12 structure include taxa that are common and represent appreciable proportions of the standing 

13 stocks of fish in Monticello Reservoir (Christie and Stroud 1997). Further, many of these fish, 

14 such as gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), are typically 

15 highly fecund and prolific spawners (Rohde et al. 2009). 

16 Blowdown from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would enter the Parr Reservoir. Because the 

17 discharge structure for VCSNS Unit 1 is located on Monticello Reservoir, there would be no 

18 direct interaction between the thermal plume from Unit 1 and the plume associated with 

19 proposed Units 2 and 3. The proposed blowdown discharge to Parr Reservoir is not likely to 

20 noticeably affect the biota, water quality, or consumptive use of the Parr Hydroelectric Plant, 

21 and is described in more detail in Section 5.3.2.1. The proposed water-treatment plant 

22 associated with VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would discharge effluent into an existing Unit 1 discharge 

23 canal in Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009a). Effluent from the water-treatment plant has the 

24 potential to affect aquatic biota in Monticello Reservoir; however, the impacts on aquatic biota 

25 are expected to be minimal because the discharge waste stream is quite small (from 0.1 to 

26 0.3 fps) and chemical constituents would be regulated by an NPDES permit. 

27 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources within Monticello and Parr reservoirs may also include 

28 activities or events that are distinct from the VCSNS site. Water quality may be affected by 

29 discharges from other plants or facilities that reach the Monticello and Parr reservoirs, such as 

30 wastewater treated discharge that enters Parr Reservoir through Cannons Creek with the 

31 current discharge point approximately 8 mi to the west of the VCSNS site. The NCW&SA Broad 

32 River WWTP had an active NPDES permit for discharge of 0.05 Mgd to Cannons Creek. This 

33 discharge ultimately flowed into Parr Reservoir until September of 2007, when the WWTP 

34 ceased operations (EPA 2009e). Currently only the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP has a 

35 current NPDES permit (SC0048313) with a discharge of 0.95 Mgd to Cannons Creek (EPA 

36 2009d). Discharge from this operating WWTP is monitored for compliance with NPDES 

37 permitting regulations to make sure water-quality metrics do not exceed allowable levels. Given 

38 that current discharges do not exceed allowable levels, operations of the NCW&SA Cannons 

39 Creek WWTP has minor impacts on aquatic biota. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Another potential cumulative impact may come from the continued operation of the FPSF that 

2 maintains water elevation within Monticello Reservoir. SCDNR has active fish-stocking 

3 programs in the Broad River for smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and robust redhorse 

4 (Moxostoma robustum), both of which were recently collected in Monticello Reservoir perhaps 

5 via FPSF intake operation from Parr Reservoir to Monticello Reservoir (SCDNR 2009). 

6 Section 7.2.1 concludes that the cumulative impacts on surface waters from operation of the 

7 FPSF would have little to no impact regarding water use. It is therefore anticipated that FPSF 

8 would not result in significant cumulative impacts on these species in addition to the already 

9 negligible impingement, entrainment, and discharge impacts. 

10 Parr Shoals Dam is located approximately 1 mi from the proposed discharge location for 

11 VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The Parr Hydroelectric Plant at the Parr Shoals Dam generates up to 

12 15 MW through operation of six turbine units (SCE&G 2009a). A minimum daily average flow of 

13 800 cfs results in the transport of aquatic biota within the influence of the turbine intake systems 

14 downriver below Parr Shoals. The operation of the hydroelectric plant influences aquatic 

15 communities within Parr Reservoir by preventing any organisms that pass through the 

16 hydropower facility from returning upstream of the facility. In addition, the operation of the 

17 FPSF, which can produce over 511 MW of electricity, results in a daily average fluctuation of 4 ft 

18 in water elevation in Parr Reservoir as water is pumped from the Parr Reservoir into Monticello 

19 Reservoir and then flows back to Parr Reservoir through the hydroelectric turbines (NRC 2004). 

20 This daily pump-and-discharge operation may result in injury or mortality for some aquatic biota, 

21 thus contributing to the overall impact on aquatic populations. However, the overall impact is 

22 minor with no noticeable changes in local aquatic populations as a result of continuous 

23 operations. 

24 No Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species are known to occur at the VCSNS 

25 site; however, six Federally protected aquatic species are known to occur within counties 

26 proposed for siting the six new transmission lines. Some of the aquatic taxa encountered during 

27 onsite aquatic inventories have been identified as State conservation priority species. 

28 Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), sunfishes (Lepomis spp.), and catfish 

29 (Ictalurus spp.) are important recreational species in both Parr Reservoir and Monticello 

30 Reservoir. 

31 The construction of six new transmission lines for Units 2 and 3 would have a minor effect on 

32 these and other aquatic species because best management practices (BMPs) would be 

33 employed during construction and environmentally responsible practices would be followed 

34 during transmission line maintenance activities once the lines are completed and energized. 

35 Although no impact on populations of threatened or endangered, State-listed, or recreationally 

36 important species is expected, there is the possibility that individuals of these important species 

37 may be taken. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-20 April 2010 

1 Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

2 nuclear facility can present additional constraints on aquatic resources. Future activities may 

3 include shoreline development (i.e., removal of habitat), increased water needs, and increased 

4 discharge of effluents into the Broad River, Parr Reservoir, and/or Monticello Reservoir. There 

5 is a low-to-moderate potential for additional residential development within the geographic area 

6 of interest, and one new residential area is under construction along the Monticello Reservoir. 

7 In addition to direct anthropogenic activities, physical disturbance and climatic events may 

8 impose external stressors on aquatic communities. Aquatic ecosystem responses to these 

9 events are difficult to predict. At certain times of the year, VCSNS operation, other 

10 anthropogenic stressors, and climatic events could combine to adversely affect the aquatic 

11 populations of Parr and Monticello reservoirs. The level of impact resulting from these activities 

12 or events would depend on the intensity of the perturbation and the resiliency of the aquatic 

13 communities. 

14 7.3.2.1 Summary of Aquatic Ecology Impacts 

15 Cumulative impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information 

16 provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. Given the minimal levels of 

17 impingement and entrainment found at Units 1 and 2, the smaller likelihood for impingement 

18 and entrainment at Unit 3 compared to Units 1 and 2, and the high fecundity and prolific 

19 spawning habitats of many of the potentially affected fish species, impingement and entrainment 

20 from Units 1, 2, and 3 and other current and reasonably foreseeable projects would have minor 

21 impacts on aquatic resources. Cumulative impacts from thermal or chemical discharges are 

22 also expected to have minimal impacts on aquatic species because dischargers are operating 

23 within allowable levels that prevent water-quality degradation. The construction of six new 

24 transmission-line corridors for Units 2 and 3 would have a minor effect on Federally listed 

25 threatened or endangered species and other aquatic species because BMPs would be used 

26 during construction and environmentally responsible practices would be followed during 

27 transmission-line maintenance activities once the lines are completed and energized. Other 

28 direct and indirect anthropogenic stressors in the geographic area of interest, such as additional 

29 residential development and other changes in land use and global climate change, would 

30 cumulatively lead to some adverse effects on the aquatic communities, but they likely would be 

31 minor during the time period encompassing the building, operating, and decommissioning of 

32 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Therefore, the review team concludes that cumulative impacts 

33 on aquatic biota related to proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and other past, present, and 

34 reasonably foreseeable projects would be SMALL. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

2 The evaluation of cumulative impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice is described 

3 in the following sections. 

4 7.4.1 Socioeconomics 

5 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5 serves as a baseline for the 

6 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.4, the NRC 

7 staff concludes that any negative impacts of the NRC-authorized construction activities on all 

8 socioeconomics categories would be SMALL, with one exception. The NRC staff determined 

9 there would be a MODERATE and adverse traffic impact on Fairfield County in the vicinity of 

10 Jenkinsville for NRC-authorized construction. As described in Section 5.4, the review team 

11 concludes that all elements of socioeconomics would be SMALL and adverse, with the following 

12 exception. Operations would result in SMALL and beneficial tax revenue impacts in the region, 

13 and LARGE and beneficial impacts on Fairfield County. 

14 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.4 and 

15 determined to be SMALL and adverse, with one exception. The review team determined that 

16 traffic impacts in the vicinity of the site would be MODERATE and adverse. The cumulative 

17 analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

18 affect socioeconomics. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is 

19 considered to be Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richard Counties, as that is where the 

20 review team expects the socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. The geographic area of 

21 interest was modified as appropriate for specific impact analyses. For example, for some 

22 analyses the review team considered the entire 50-mi region surrounding the proposed VCSNS 

23 site, and for other analyses or specific taxation jurisdictions were considered. As the economic 

24 hub of the Central Midlands, the City of Columbia is the center of government and industry for a 

25 wide area in central South Carolina. Relatively recently, the Interstate-26 corridor has seen 

26 significant commercial and residential development in the areas of West Columbia and Irmo. 

27 The University of South Carolina and several regional medical facilities have attracted a well28 educated workforce to this area. Fort Jackson, a large military installation in Columbia, is 

29 supported by nearly 4000 civilian employees. 

30 The construction of Unit 1 provides context for what the potential cumulative impacts of building 

31 the new units would be. The NRC was completing its Final Environmental Statement (FES) for 

32 the Operating License (OL) for VCSNS Unit 1 just as final construction of that unit was winding 

33 down over the 1979–1981 period. As such, the OL FES provides a glimpse at the observed 

34 socioeconomic impacts from that construction project. At that time, the review team noted that 

35 the construction contractor commissioned a workforce survey to ascertain information such as 

36 the residence pattern of the construction workers. Of the approximately 2400 workers 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-22 April 2010 

1 surveyed, 1913, or about 80 percent came from within the VCSNS region, and 927, or nearly 

2 50 percent came from either Lexington or Richland Counties (NRC 1981). The review team 

3 also observed that more than 70 percent of the workers came from the Central Midlands area, 

4 with the remainder coming from outside the region. 

5 The impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 are cumulative by nature. Economic impacts 

6 associated with activities listed in Table 7-1 already have been considered as part of the 

7 socioeconomic baseline presented in Section 2.5. For example, the economic impacts of 

8 existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, etc., are part of the base used for 

9 establishing the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS) II multipliers. Regional 

10 planning efforts and associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s 

11 assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. Thus, there are no cumulative impacts 

12 associated with building and operating VCSNS Units 2 and 3 beyond those already evaluated in 

13 Chapters 4 and 5. 

14 The review team considered the impacts of the NRC-authorized activities plus past, present, 

15 and reasonably foreseeable future activities over the life of the two new units. Based on the 

16 above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, and the review team’s independent 

17 review, the review team concludes that NRC-authorized construction of proposed VCSNS Units 

18 2 and 3 could make a temporary detectable adverse contribution to the cumulative effects 

19 associated with some socioeconomic issues. Adverse cumulative impacts would include 

20 physical impacts (workers and the local public, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) 

21 and impacts on local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; 

22 housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and 

23 schools). 

24 The review team concludes there would be a LARGE and beneficial cumulative impact 

25 associated with tax revenues in Fairfield County. The incremental impact from NRC-authorized 

26 activities would be LARGE and beneficial. The review team also identified a MODERATE and 

27 adverse cumulative traffic impact in the Jenkinsville area that would be localized and temporary 

28 (limited to only “rush hour” traffic and the peak building activity period). The incremental impact 

29 from NRC-authorized activities would be MODERATE. The review team concludes that 

30 cumulative impacts on other socioeconomic impact categories would be SMALL and adverse. 

31 7.4.2 Environmental Justice 

32 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.6 serves as a baseline for the 

33 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.5, the NRC 

34 staff concludes that the NRC-authorized construction traffic-related activities may create 

35 disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations and, therefore, the 

36 environmental justice can be characterized as MODERATE for traffic impacts in the vicinity for 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the building period. Because traffic is so much less for operations, the review team determined 

2 there would be no disproportionate and adverse impacts on minorities or low-income 

3 populations due to traffic-related activities during operations and, therefore, the impact would be 

4 SMALL. As described in Sections 4.5 and 5.5 for all other environmental justice impacts, the 

5 review team determined there would be no disproportionate or adverse impacts on minority or 

6 low-income populations, and therefore the impact would be SMALL. 

7 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.5 and 

8 determined to impose no disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or low-income 

9 populations and, therefore the impact can be considered SMALL, with one exception. The 

10 review team determined traffic-related activities may create disproportionate and adverse 

11 impacts on minority or low-income populations and, therefore, the environmental justice impact 

12 would be MODERATE. The cumulative analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

13 foreseeable future actions that would cause environmental justice impacts on minority and low14 income populations. For this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is considered 

15 to be the entire 50-mi region surrounding the proposed VCSNS site. 

16 From an environmental justice perspective, there is a potential for minority and low-income 

17 populations to be disproportionately affected by environmental impacts. Although Richland 

18 County and immediately adjacent counties are urban population centers, there are a number of 

19 farms within the region. Throughout the area of interest, the review team found low-income, 

20 African American, and aggregated minority populations that met the identification criteria 

21 established in Section 2.6.1 but did not identify any low-income populations that exceed the 

22 criteria in the vicinity of the VCSNS site. The impact analyses in Chapters 4 and 5 are 

23 cumulative by nature. Any environmental justice impacts associated with activities listed in 

24 Table 7-1 already have been considered as part of the environmental justice baseline presented 

25 in Sections 2.6 and 7.4.1. Thus, there are no environmental justice cumulative impacts 

26 associated with building and operating of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 beyond those already evaluated 

27 in Chapters 4 and 5. 

28 Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, and the staff’s 

29 independent review, the NRC staff concludes that NRC-authorized construction of proposed 

30 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would not contribute additional environmental justice cumulative impacts 

31 beyond those described in Chapters 4 and 5. The impacts would include physical impacts 

32 (workers and the local public, noise, air quality, buildings, transportation, and visual aesthetics) 

33 and impacts on local infrastructures and community services (transportation; recreation; 

34 housing; water and wastewater facilities; police, fire, and medical services; social services; and 

35 schools). The NRC staff concludes that the environmental justice impacts of the NRC36 authorized activities plus past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities over the life 

37 of the two new units depends on the impact category being considered. For example, the 

38 review team concludes there may be disproportionate and adverse cumulative impacts on 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-24 April 2010 

1 minority and low-income populations from traffic during limited periods of time during the peak 

2 building period in the Jenkinsville area, and that those impacts could be considered 

3 MODERATE. The incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities would be MODERATE. 

4 Impacts from building and operating Units 2 and 3 in combination with other projects described 

5 in Table 7-1 would have minimal disproportionate and adverse cumulative impacts on minority 

6 and low-income populations from all other environmental justice impact categories can be 

7 considered SMALL. 

8 7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources 

9 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.7 serves as a baseline for the 

10 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.6, impacts on 

11 cultural resources from NRC-authorized construction activities would be SMALL. As described 

12 in Section 5.6, the review team concludes that the impacts on cultural resources from 

13 operations are SMALL. Mitigative actions may be warranted only in the event of an 

14 unanticipated discovery during any ground-disturbing activities associated with construction or 

15 maintenance of the operating facility; these actions would be determined by SCE&G in 

16 consultation with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). To address the 

17 SHPO’s request for a Programmatic Agreement, SCE&G and Santee Cooper have agreed to 

18 pursue a management agreement with the SHPO to formalize avoidance and protective 

19 measures listed above as well as any updates made to the Environmental Management Plan 

20 regarding cultural resources awareness training and inadvertent discovery procedures (SCE&G 

21 2009b). 

22 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.6 and 

23 determined to be MODERATE. If preconstruction activities associated with the transmission 

24 lines result in significant alterations to the cultural environment, then the impact could be greater. 

25 Chapter 2 defines the direct effects and viewshed Area of Potential Effect (APE) for cultural 

26 resources as the SCE&G property boundary, which is the geographic area of interest for this 

27 cumulative impacts assessment. The cumulative impacts assessment considers the eligibility of 

28 historical properties for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Discussions with the 

29 SHPO provides information on cultural resources and potential impacts on cultural resources 

30 with respect to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic 

31 area of interest. 

32 Historically, several groups of American Indians lived in South Carolina, many of which became 

33 extinct or merged with other groups due to non-American Indian encroachment by Spanish, 

34 French, and British explorers and settlers by the mid-1700s. The largest groups were the 

35 Catawba and the Cherokee who likely used the Broad River region for resource gathering. 

36 Several Tribal groups and descendants of earlier groups are present today in South Carolina 

37 (descendants of the Cherokee, the Catawba, Pee Dee, Chicora, Edisto, Santee, and Chicora-
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Waccamaw Tribes). In 1838, the Cherokee were forced to leave the eastern United States and 

2 resettle in Oklahoma. European settlement and colonization of South Carolina began in the 

3 early 1600s with more permanent settlement occurring along the Broad River in the early 1740s. 

4 Cotton production and plantations began flourishing during the 1800s, but were later affected by 

5 social and economic upheavals during the Civil War and later by the Great Depression of the 

6 1930s. 

7 Table 7-1 identifies other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and other actions 

8 considered in the cumulative analysis of the VCSNS site. Projects within the geographic area of 

9 interest that may have a potential cumulative impact on cultural resources include continued 

10 operation and decommissioning for VCSNS Unit 1 and future urbanization. Such projects could 

11 affect cultural resources if ground-disturbing activities occur that affect cultural resources. As 

12 described in Section 4.6, there are no significant cultural resources that would be adversely 

13 affected by building activities or operation of Units 2 and 3 because the four significant cultural 

14 resources located within the APE of the VCSNS site would be protected by SCE&G, pending a 

15 signed management agreement between SCE&G and the South Carolina SHPO. 

16 Approximately 86 mi of new transmission line would be installed and approximately 88 mi of 

17 existing corridor would be widened to support the proposed new VCSNS units. As described in 

18 Sections 4.6 and 5.6, the incremental impacts from installation of transmission lines would be 

19 minimal if there are no significant alterations (either physical alteration or visual intrusion) to the 

20 cultural environment. If these activities result in significant alterations to the cultural 

21 environment, then the impact could be greater. For impacts greater than small, mitigation would 

22 occur as described in Section 4.6. 

23 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

24 is cumulative. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative cultural 

25 resources impact from preconstruction, construction, operation and other projects would be 

26 MODERATE. However, if activities related to transmission lines and urbanization have the 

27 potential to affect cultural resources within the APEs. If these activities result in alterations to 

28 the cultural environment, then the impact could be greater. The review team further concludes 

29 that the incremental impacts associated with the NRC-authorized activities would be SMALL 

30 because no significant cultural resources would be affected by these activities. The incremental 

31 impacts associated with onsite preconstruction activities are the principal contributor to the 

32 MODERATE rating of cumulative impacts. 

33 7.6 Air Quality 

34 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.9 serves as a baseline for the 

35 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.7, the impacts 

36 of NRC-authorized construction on air quality would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-26 April 2010 

1 be warranted. As described in Section 5.7, the review team concludes that the impacts on air 

2 quality from operations would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

3 7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants 

4 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.7 and 

5 were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

6 and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

7 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts on air quality. The 

8 geographic area of interest defined for this evaluation is Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

9 single county was selected because designations of attainment or nonattainment by the EPA 

10 are made on a county-by-county basis. 

11 The VCSNS site is located in an area that is in attainment for all criteria pollutants for which 

12 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) have been established (40 CFR 81.341). 

13 Emissions from building proposed Units 2 and 3 are expected to be temporary and limited in 

14 magnitude, as described in Section 4.7. During operations of proposed Units 2 and 3, 

15 emissions of water vapor and some salt drift would be associated with the operation of the 

16 mechanical draft cooling towers, as described in Section 5.7. Air emissions from operations 

17 would be primarily from cooling towers, diesel generators, and auxiliary power supplies. These 

18 systems would be permitted and operated in accordance with State and Federal regulatory 

19 requirements and emissions would be infrequent and negligible compared to other sources 

20 within the Columbia Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. 

21 Other sources of permitted air emission sources within Fairfield County include the SCE&G 

22 VCSNS Unit 1 and the SCE&G Parr Steam Plant. Gaseous emissions from Unit 1 include sulfur 

23 oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides associated with the intermittent 

24 operation of diesel generators (NRC 2004). The SCE&G Parr Steam Plant is located 

25 approximately 2 mi south of the VCSNS and uses four natural gas turbines to generate 

26 electricity. Gaseous emissions from the Parr Steam Plant include sulfur oxides, carbon 

27 monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. This facility has a Part 70 Air Quality (Title V 

28 Operating) Permit (SCDHEC permit AIR-1000-0021), indicating that it could potentially emit 

29 more than 100 T/yr of any air pollutant. Both the SCE&G VCSNS Unit 1 and the SCE&G Parr 

30 Steam Plant are operating under regulated air quality permits. In addition, Fairfield County, 

31 South Carolina is in attainment, indicating that the total level of regulated pollutants within the 

32 county are within NAAQSs set by EPA. 

33 Future development of the region around the VCSNS site could lead to increases in gaseous 

34 emissions related to transportation. Table 7-1 lists low-to-moderate potential for growth within 

35 Fairfield County. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Given the intermittent operation of the diesel generators at both the existing VCSNS Unit 1 and 

2 proposed Units 2 and 3, the current attainment status of Fairfield County, and the low-to3 moderate potential for growth in the county, and limited gaseous emissions from other projects 

4 identified in Table 7-1, the review team concludes the cumulative impacts on air quality would 

5 be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

6 7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

7 As discussed in the state of the science report issued by the U.S. Global Change Research 

8 Program (GCRP), it is the “... production and use of energy that is the primary cause of global 

9 warming, and in turn, climate change will eventually affect our production and use of energy. 

10 The vast majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, about 87 percent, come from energy 

11 production and use...” Approximately one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions are the result 

12 of generating electricity and heat (Karl et al. 2009). This assessment is focused on greenhouse 

13 gas emissions. Other elements of climate change are discussed in the EIS sections on 

14 hydrology and ecology. 

15 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with building, operating, and decommissioning a nuclear 

16 power plant are addressed in Sections 4.7, 5.7.2, 6.1.3, and 6.3. The review team concludes 

17 that the atmospheric impacts of the emissions associated with each aspect of building, 

18 operating, and decommissioning a single plant are minimal. The review team also concludes 

19 that the impacts of the combined emissions for the full plant life cycle are minimal. 

20 For the following reasons, it is difficult to evaluate cumulative impacts of a single or combination 

21 of greenhouse gas sources: 

22  The impact is global rather than local or regional. 

23  The impact is not particularly sensitive to location of the release point. 

24  The magnitudes of individual greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no matter 

25 how large compared to other sources, are small when compared to the total mass of 

26 greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

27  The total number and variety of greenhouse gas sources is extremely large and the sources 

28 are located everywhere. 

29 These points are illustrated by the following comparison of annual carbon dioxide emission rates 

30 (Table 7-2). 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-28 April 2010 

1 Table 7-2. Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates 

Source 

Metric Tons per 

Year 

Global Emissions 28,000,000,000(a)

United States 6,000,000,000(a)

1000-MW Nuclear Power Plant (including fuel cycle, 90-percent capacity factor) 400,000(b)

1000-MW Nuclear Power Plant (operations only, 90-percent capacity factor) 5000(b)

Average U.S. Passenger Vehicle 5(c)

(a) EPA 2009f 

(b) Appendix J of this EIS 

(c) FHWA 2006 

2 Evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of a global 

3 climate model. The Karl et al. (2009) report referenced above provides a synthesis of the 

4 results of numerous climate modeling studies. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

5 impacts of greenhouse emissions around the world as presented in the report are the 

6 appropriate basis for its evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based on the impacts set forth in the 

7 Karl et al. (2009) report, the review team concludes that the national and worldwide cumulative 

8 impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team 

9 further concludes that the cumulative impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or 

10 without the greenhouse gas emission of the proposed project. 

11 Consequently, the review team has determined an appropriate approach to addressing the 

12 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gases emissions, including carbon dioxide, is to recognize 

13 that the emissions contribute to climate change and that the carbon footprint is a relevant factor 

14 in evaluating energy alternatives. Section 9.2.5 contains a comparison of carbon footprints of 

15 the viable energy alternatives. 

16 7.6.3 Summary 

17 Cumulative impacts on air quality resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

18 SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation. Other past, present, and reasonably 

19 foreseeable activities exist in the geographic areas of interest (local for criteria pollutants and 

20 global for greenhouse gas emissions) that could affect air quality resources. The cumulative 

21 impacts on criteria pollutants from emissions of effluents from the VCSNS site and other 

22 projects would be minimal. The national and worldwide cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas 

23 emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing. The review team concludes that the cumulative 

24 impacts would be noticeable but not destabilizing, with or without the greenhouse gas emissions 

25 from the VCSNS site. The review team concludes that cumulative impacts from other past, 

26 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on air quality resources in the geographic 

27 areas of interest would be SMALL to MODERATE. The incremental contribution of impacts on 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-29 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 air quality resources from building and operating proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL. The 

2 incremental contribution of impacts on air quality resources from the NRC-authorized activities 

3 would also be SMALL. 

4 7.7 Nonradiological Health 

5 The description of the affected environmental in Section 2.10 serves as a baseline for the 

6 nonradiological health cumulative impact assessment. As described in Section 4.8, the impacts 

7 from NRC-authorized construction on nonradiological health would be SMALL, and no further 

8 mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.8, the review team concludes that the 

9 impacts of operations on nonradiological health would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation 

10 would be warranted. 

11 As described in Section 4.8, the combined nonradiological health impacts from construction and 

12 preconstruction would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted beyond what is 

13 described in SCE&G’s ER. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, and 

14 operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

15 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts to nonradiological health 

16 (see Table 7-1). Based on the localized nature of nonradiological health impacts, the 

17 geographic area of interest for this cumulative impacts analysis includes projects within the 

18 10-km (6- mi) radius of the VCSNS site and the macro-corridors associated with the proposed 

19 transmission lines (as defined in Chapter 4). This area is expected to encompass areas where 

20 public and worker health could be influenced by the proposed project and associated 

21 transmission lines, in combination with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

22 actions. 

23 Other than the continued operation of VCSNS Unit 1, there are no major current projects in the 

24 geographic area of interest that would contribute to the cumulative impacts for nonradiological 

25 health. Future non-major projects that would be expected to occur within the geographic area of 

26 interest include urbanization. 

27 There are no existing or future projects that could contribute to cumulative nonradiological 

28 health impacts of occupational injuries. Existing and potential development of new transmission 

29 lines could increase nonradiological health impacts from exposure to acute electromagnetic 

30 fields (EMFs). However, as stated in Section 5.8.3, adherence to Federal criteria and State 

31 utility codes would create minimal cumulative nonradiological health impacts. With regard to 

32 chronic effects of EMFs, the scientific evidence on human health does not conclusively link 

33 extremely low frequency EMFs to adverse health impacts. Cumulative impacts from noise and 

34 vehicle emissions associated with current urbanization, current operations of VCSNS Unit 1, 

35 Parr Hydroelectric Station, FPSF, and Parr Steam Plant, along with further removed 

36 hydroelectric stations along the Broad River could occur. However, as discussed in 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-30 April 2010 

1 Sections 4.8 and 5.8, the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 contribution to these impacts would be 

2 temporary and minimal, and existing facilities would likely comply with local, State, and Federal 

3 regulations governing noise and emissions. Section 7.10.1 discusses cumulative 

4 nonradiological health impacts related to additional traffic on the regional and local highway 

5 networks leading to and from the VCSNS site, and the review team determines that these 

6 impacts would be minimal. 

7 The health impacts of operating the existing unit (Unit 1) and proposed two new units (Units 2 

8 and 3) at the VCSNS site were evaluated relative to the ambient temperature of Monticello 

9 Reservoir and Parr Reservoir and the potential propagation of thermophilic or other etiological 

10 microorganisms. The proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station near Gaffney, South 

11 Carolina, also on the Broad River, is sufficiently remote from the Monticello and Parr reservoirs 

12 that thermal discharges to the Broad River would not interact with those from the existing and 

13 proposed units at VCSNS. The review team’s independent evaluation indicated that because 

14 the thermal discharge from Unit 1 goes into Monticello Reservoir and proposed Units 2 and 3 

15 would discharge to Parr Reservoir, the addition of two proposed new units is not likely to 

16 increase populations of thermophilic or other etiological microorganisms in either reservoir. 

17 Furthermore, the low incidence of waterborne diseases in the geographic area of interest 

18 indicates that the public uses these waters for recreation in a manner that minimizes their 

19 potential exposure to these organisms. 

20 The review team is also aware of the potential climate changes that could affect human health; 

21 a recent compilation of the state of the knowledge in this area (Karl et al. 2009) has been 

22 considered in the preparation of this EIS. Projected changes in the climate for the region during 

23 the life of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 include an increase in average temperature and a 

24 decrease in precipitation. This may result in an increase in water temperature and frequency of 

25 downpours, which may alter the presence of microorganisms and parasites. While the changes 

26 that are attributed to climate change in these studies are not inconsequential, the review team 

27 did not identify anything that would alter its conclusion regarding the presence of etiological 

28 agents or change the incidence of waterborne diseases. 

29 Cumulative impacts on nonradiological health are based on information provided by SCE&G 

30 and the review team’s independent evaluation of impacts resulting from proposed Units 2 and 3, 

31 along with a review of potential impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

32 projects and urbanization located in the geographic areas of interest. The review team 

33 concludes that cumulative impacts on public and worker nonradiological health would be 

34 SMALL, and that mitigation beyond what is discussed in Sections 4.8 and 5.8 would not be 

35 warranted. The review team acknowledges, however, that there is still uncertainty associated 

36 with chronic effects of EMFs. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-31 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 7.8 Radiological Impacts 

2 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.11 serves as a baseline for the 

3 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Section 4.9, the NRC 

4 staff concludes that the radiological impacts from NRC-authorized construction would be 

5 SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. As described in Section 5.9, the NRC 

6 staff concludes that the radiological impacts from operations would be SMALL, and no further 

7 mitigation would be warranted. 

8 The combined impacts from construction and preconstruction were described in Section 4.9 and 

9 were determined to be SMALL. In addition to the impacts from construction, preconstruction, 

10 and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably 

11 foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative radiological impacts. For the 

12 purposes of this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the area within the 50-mi radius of 

13 the VCSNS site. Historically, the NRC has used the 50-mi radius as a standard bounding 

14 geographic area to evaluate population doses from routine releases from nuclear power plants. 

15 Located on the VCSNS site are the existing VCSNS Unit 1 reactor, the decommissioned 

16 Carolinas-Virginia Tube Reactor, and decommissioned steam generators at the steam17 generator recycle-facility vault. SCE&G plans to construct an independent spent-fuel storage 

18 installation (ISFSI) on the VCSNS site. Offsite, but within the 50-mi radius area, are the 

19 Westinghouse nuclear fuel fabrication facility (south of Columbia, South Carolina) and hospitals 

20 using medical isotopes (in Columbia, Lexington, Newberry, Rock Hill, Lancaster, Laurens, 

21 Greenwood, and Camden, South Carolina). 

22 As stated in Section 2.11, SCE&G has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring 

23 program (REMP) around the VCSNS site since 1982. The REMP measures radiation and 

24 radioactive materials from all sources, including the existing Unit 1 at the VCSNS site. In 2008, 

25 the REMP detected small concentrations of tritium at two locations, one in Monticello Reservoir 

26 very near Unit 1 and one in Parr Reservoir. All samples had maximum levels less than 5 

27 percent of the EPA drinking-water standard, which is 20,000 pCi/L for tritium. 

28 As described in Section 4.9, the estimate of dose to construction workers during the building of 

29 proposed Units 2 and 3 is well within NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 100 mrem per year), 

30 which are designed to protect the public health. For workers at Units 2 and 3, the estimate 

31 includes exposure from Unit 1, the steam generator recycle facility, and the proposed ISFSI. 

32 After Unit 2 begins operation, this estimate also includes exposure to workers at Unit 3 from 

33 operation of Unit 2. As described in Section 5.9, the public and occupational doses predicted 

34 from the proposed operation of two new units at the VCSNS site are well below regulatory limits 

35 and standards. In addition, the site-boundary dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) 

36 from existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site would be well within the 

37 regulatory standard in 40 CFR Part 190. The decommissioned tube reactor, the steam-
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-32 April 2010 

1 generator recycle facility, and the planned ISFSI do not contribute significantly to the dose 

2 offsite. Also, based on results of the REMP and the estimates of doses to biota given in 

3 Chapter 5.9, the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impact on biota would not be 

4 significant. The results of the REMP indicate that effluents and direct radiation from the distant 

5 nuclear fuel fabrication plant, area hospitals, and industrial facilities that use radioactive 

6 materials, do not contribute measurably to the cumulative dose. 

7 Currently, there are no other nuclear facilities planned within 50 mi of the VCSNS site. The 

8 NRC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the State of South Carolina would regulate or control 

9 any reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region that could contribute to cumulative 

10 radiological impacts. 

11 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts of operating two 

12 new units, along with the existing unit at VCSNS and the influence of other man-made sources 

13 of radiation nearby would be SMALL. 

14 7.9 Postulated Accidents 

15 As described in Section 5.11.5, the staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts 

16 (risk) from a postulated accident from the operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be 

17 SMALL. Section 5.11 considers both design basis accidents (DBAs) and severe accidents. 

18 As described in Section 5.11, the staff concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs 

19 at the VCSNS site would be SMALL for an AP1000 reactor. DBAs are addressed specifically to 

20 demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. The 

21 consequences of DBAs are bounded by the consequences of severe accidents. 

22 As described in Section 5.11.2, the NRC staff concludes that the severe-accident probability23 weighted consequences (i.e., risks) of an AP1000 reactor at the VCSNS site are SMALL 

24 compared to risks to which the population is generally exposed, and no further mitigation would 

25 be warranted. The cumulative analysis considers risk from potential severe accidents at all 

26 other existing and proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase risks at any 

27 location within 50 mi of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Existing reactors within the geographic 

28 area include VCSNS Unit 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, Catawba Units 1 

29 and 2, McGuire Units 1 and 2, and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2 

30 nuclear generating stations. Also, within the geographic area of interest, new reactors have 

31 been proposed for the existing Vogtle site and the new Lee site in South Carolina. 

32 Tables 5-18 and 5-19 in Section 5.11.2.1 provide comparisons of estimated risk for the 

33 proposed AP1000 units at the VCSNS site and current-generation reactors. The estimated 

34 population dose risk for the proposed AP1000 units at the VCSNS site is well below the mean 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-33 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 and median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, estimates of average individual 

early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s (a) 2 safety goals 

3 (51 FR 30028). For existing plants within the geographic area of interest, namely VCSNS Unit 

4 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3, Catawba Units 1 and 2, McGuire Units 1 and 

5 2, and Vogtle Units 1 and 2 nuclear generating stations, the Commission has determined that 

6 the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL (10 CFR 51, 

7 Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the Lee Nuclear Station Environmental Report 

8 (Duke 2009b) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Vogtle Early Site Permit 

9 (NRC 2008), the risks from these proposed reactors would also be well below risks for current10 generation reactors and would meet the Commission’s safety goals. The severe accident risk 

11 due to any particular nuclear power plant gets smaller as the distance from that plant increases. 

12 However, the combined risk at any location within 50 mi of the VCSNS site would be bounded 

13 by the sum of risks for all of these operating and proposed nuclear power plants. Even though 

14 there would be potentially several plants included in the combination, this combined risk would 

15 still be low. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe 

16 accidents at any location within 50 mi of the VCSNS likely would be SMALL, and no further 

17 mitigation would be warranted. 

18 7.10 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

19 The cumulative impacts related to the fuel cycle, transportation of radioactive materials (fuel and 

20 waste), and facility decommissioning for the proposed site are described below. 

21 As described in Section 6.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts of the fuel 

22 cycle due to operation of proposed Units 2 and 3 would be SMALL. Fuel-cycle impacts would 

23 occur not only at the VCSNS site but would also be scattered through other locations in the 

24 United States or, in the case of foreign-purchased uranium, in other countries as described in 

25 Section 6.1. 

26 In addition to fuel-cycle impacts from proposed Units 2 and 3, this cumulative analysis also 

27 considers fuel-cycle impacts from existing Unit 1. There are no other nuclear power plants 

28 within 50 mi of the VCSNS site. The fuel-cycle impact of Unit 1 would be similar to that of 

29 proposed Unit 2 or Unit 3. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.51(a), the NRC staff considers the 

30 impacts to be acceptable for a 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. The impacts of producing and 

31 disposing of nuclear fuel include mining of the uranium ore, milling of the ore, conversion of the 

32 uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment of the uranium hexafluoride, fuel fabrication 

33 (where the uranium hexafluoride is converted into uranium oxide fuel pellets), and disposition of 

34 the spent fuel in a proposed Federal waste repository. As discussed in Section 6.1, advances in 

 

(a) The Commission is the body of up to five NRC commissioners that formulates policies, develops regulations 

governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal matters. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-34 April 2010 

1 reactors since the development of Table S–3 in 10 CFR 51.51 reduce environmental impacts 

2 relative to the operating reference reactor. For example, a number of fuel-management 

3 improvements have been adopted by nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and 

4 to reduce fuel and separative work (enrichment) requirements. The Westinghouse nuclear fuel 

5 fabrication facility near Columbia, South Carolina, is an impact of the fuel-cycle, and is implicitly 

6 included in the discussion in Section 6.1. In Section 6.1, the NRC staff multiplied the values in 

7 Table S-3 by a factor of three to scale the impacts up from the 1000-MW(e) LWR model to 

8 address the fuel-cycle impacts of proposed Units 2 and 3. Adding the fuel-cycle impacts from 

9 Unit 1 would increase the scaling to no more than a factor of four. Therefore, the staff considers 

10 the cumulative fuel-cycle impacts of operating the VCSNS site to be SMALL. 

11 7.10.1 Transportation 

12 The description of the affected environment in Section 2.5.2 serves as the baseline for the 

13 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. As described in Sections 4.8.3 and 5.8.6, 

14 the review team concludes that impacts of transporting personnel and nonradiological materials 

15 to and from the VCSNS site would be SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, 

16 construction, and operations, the cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and 

17 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. 

18 For this analysis, the geographic area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the 

19 VCSNS site. 

20 Nonradiological transportation impacts are related to the additional traffic on the regional and 

21 local highway networks leading to and from the VCSNS site. Additional traffic would result from 

22 shipments of construction materials and movements of construction personnel to and from the 

23 sites. However, the additional traffic increases the risk of traffic accidents, injuries, and 

24 fatalities. A review of the projects listed in Table 7-1 indicates that other projects in the region 

25 could potentially increase nonradiological impacts. The most significant cumulative 

26 nonradiological impacts in the vicinity of the VCSNS site would result from major construction 

27 projects. However, there are no planned major construction projects in the region surrounding 

28 the VCSNS site. Operation of existing facilities could also result in cumulative nonradiological 

29 impacts if traffic to and from the VCSNS site will interact with traffic traveling to and from 

30 operating facilities in the region. For the VCSNS site, nearby operating facilities that could 

31 contribute to traffic hazards include the existing VCSNS Unit 1, Parr Hydroelectric Plant, FPSF, 

32 and the Blair Quarry facility. There are also a number of recreation projects, such as park 

33 improvements, identified in Table 7-1. These types of improvements are generally of much 

34 smaller scope and have much lower resource and personnel requirements than constructing a 

35 new nuclear power plant or highway, and are therefore less likely to result in a measurable 

36 addition to cumulative impacts. In this EIS, it was shown that the impacts of transporting 

37 construction material and personnel to and from the VCSNS site and alternative sites is a small 

38 fraction of the existing nonradiological accidents, injuries, and fatalities in the counties in which 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-35 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the alternative sites are located. Mitigation measures designed to improve traffic flow at the 

2 VCSNS have been proposed by SCE&G (2009a). Based on this conclusion and the magnitude 

3 of nonradiological transportation impacts of nuclear power plant construction and operations 

4 relative to the other construction and operating activities listed above, the review team considers 

5 the cumulative nonradiological transportation impacts associated with constructing and 

6 operating the proposed new reactor at the VCSNS site to be minimal, and no further mitigation 

7 would be warranted. 

8 As described in Section 6.2, the NRC staff concludes that impacts of transporting unirradiated 

9 fuel to the VCSNS site and irradiated fuel and radioactive waste from the VCSNS site would be 

10 SMALL. In addition to impacts from preconstruction, construction, and operations, the 

11 cumulative analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

12 actions that could contribute to cumulative transportation impacts. For this analysis, the 

13 geographic area of interest is the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site. 

14 Historically, the radiological impacts on the public and environment associated with 

15 transportation of radioactive materials in the 50-mi region surrounding the VCSNS site are 

16 dominated by shipments of fuel and waste to and from the existing VCSNS Unit 1. The 

17 Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant in Columbia, South Carolina, may also contribute to the 

18 cumulative radiological impacts of transportation due to sharing highway links with some 

19 VCSNS shipments. Radiological impacts of transporting radioactive materials would occur 

20 along the routes leading to and from the VCSNS site and would also be scattered throughout 

21 the United States. For all these historical, current, and potential future projects, the radiological 

22 transportation impacts are a small fraction of the impacts from natural background radiation. 

23 The impacts of transporting this fuel and radioactive waste to and from the VCSNS site would 

24 be consistent with the environmental impacts associated with transportation of fuel and 

25 radioactive wastes from current-generation reactors presented in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. 

26 In accordance with 10 CFR 51.52, the NRC staff considers the impacts to be acceptable for the 

27 1000-MW(e) reference reactor. Advances in reactors since the development of Table S–4 of 

28 10 CFR 51.52 will have the effect of reducing environmental impacts relative to the operating 

29 reference reactor. For example, fuel-management improvements have been adopted by 

30 nuclear power plants to achieve higher performance and to reduce fuel requirements. This 

31 leads to fewer unirradiated and spent-fuel shipments than for the 1000-MW(e) reference reactor 

32 in 10 CFR 51.52. In addition, advances in shipping cask designs to increase their capacities will 

33 result in fewer shipments of spent fuel to offsite storage or disposal facilities. 

34 Therefore, the NRC staff considers the cumulative radiological and nonradiological 

35 transportation impacts of operating the proposed new reactors at the VCSNS site to be SMALL, 

36 and no further mitigation would be warranted. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-36 April 2010 

1 7.10.2 Decommissioning 

2 As discussed in Section 6.3 of this EIS, the environmental impacts of decommissioning 

3 proposed Units 2 and 3 are expected to be SMALL. 

4 In this cumulative analysis, the geographic area of interest is within a 50-mi radius of the 

5 VCSNS site. In addition to the proposed Units 2 and 3, the only other nuclear power plant 

6 within this area is the existing VCSNS Unit 1. The impacts of decommissioning nuclear power 

7 plants are bounded by the assessment in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586, Generic 

8 Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. In that document, 

9 the NRC found the impacts on radiation dose to workers and the public, waste management, 

10 water quality, air quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomics to be small (NRC 2002). In 

11 addition, in Section 6.3 the review team concluded that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions 

12 on air quality during decommissioning would be small. Therefore, the cumulative impacts for 

13 the VCSNS site would be SMALL, and further mitigation would not be warranted. 

14 7.11 Staff Conclusions 

15 The review team considered the potential cumulative impacts resulting from construction, 

16 preconstruction, and operation of two additional nuclear units at the VCSNS site together with 

17 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The specific resources that could be 

18 affected by the incremental effects of the proposed action and the other actions listed in 

19 Table 7-1 in the same geographic area were assessed. This assessment included the impacts 

20 of construction and operations for the proposed new units as described in Chapters 4 and 5: 

21 impacts of preconstruction activities as described in Chapter 4; impacts of fuel cycle, 

22 transportation, and decommissioning described in Chapter 6; and impacts of past, present, and 

23 reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that could affect the same 

24 resources affected by the proposed action. 

25 Table 7-3 summarizes the cumulative impacts by resource area. The cumulative impacts for 

26 the majority of resource areas would be SMALL, although there could be MODERATE or 

27 LARGE impacts for some resources, as discussed below. For example, the cumulative impacts 

28 for land use and terrestrial ecology would be MODERATE, primarily due to new transmission 

29 lines. The incremental impact from NRC-authorized activities on land use would be SMALL 

30 because the effects to land use, and terrestrial ecology from constructing and operating Unit 2 

31 and 3 would be minimal and because construction of transmission lines does not require NRC 

32 authorization. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-37 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 7-3. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of 

2 Proposed Units 2 and 3 

Resource Category Impact level 

Land-Use MODERATE 

Water-Related 

Surface-Water Use SMALL 

Groundwater Use SMALL 

Surface-Water Quality SMALL 

Groundwater Quality SMALL 

Ecology 

 Terrestrial Ecosystems MODERATE 

 Aquatic Ecosystems SMALL 

Socioeconomic 

 Physical Impacts SMALL 

 Demography SMALL 

 Economic Impacts on the Community SMALL to LARGE (beneficial) 

 Infrastructure and Community Services SMALL to MODERATE 

Aesthetics and Recreation SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL to MODERATE 

Historic and Cultural Resources MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE 

Nonradiological Health SMALL 

Radiological Health SMALL 

Severe Accidents SMALL 

Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning SMALL 

3 For socioeconomics, most categories would have SMALL impacts. However, the review team 

4 concludes there would be a LARGE and beneficial cumulative impact associated with tax 

5 revenues in Fairfield County. The incremental impact from NRC authorized activities would be 

6 LARGE and beneficial. The review team also identified a MODERATE and adverse cumulative 

7 traffic impact in the Jenkinsville area that would be localized and temporary (limited to only “rush 

8 hour” traffic and the peak building activity period). The incremental impact from NRC authorized 

9 activities would be MODERATE. Cumulative impacts to other socioeconomic impact categories 

10 would be SMALL. For environmental justice, most categories would have SMALL impacts. 

11 However, there may be disproportionate and adverse cumulative impacts to minority and low 

12 income populations from traffic during limited periods of time during the peak building period in 

13 the Jenkinsville area, and that those impacts could be considered MODERATE. The 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-38 April 2010 

1 incremental impacts from NRC-authorized activities would be MODERATE. Cumulative impacts 

2 to other environmental justice impact categories would be SMALL. 

3 There would be a MODERATE cumulative impact to cultural and historic resources, primarily 

4 due to preconstruction activities. The incremental impact from NRC-authorized activities would 

5 be SMALL. 

6 For air quality, the cumulative impacts would be MODERATE primarily due to national and 

7 world-wide impacts of greenhouse gases emissions. The incremental impacts from NRC8 authorized activities would be SMALL since such impacts would be minimal. 

9 7.12 References 

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

11 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

12 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

13 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

14 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

15 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

16 40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

17 “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

18 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

19 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

20 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy 

21 Statement.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

22 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Public Law 111-5. 

23 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1997. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

24 IV July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1997. Annual Progress Report F-63-3-4, South Carolina Department 

25 of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300700. 

26 Duke Energy (Duke). 2007. Broad River Water Supply Study, Final Report, Analysis of Water 

27 Supply Needs. Prepared by HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas. Charlotte, North Carolina. 

28 Duke Energy (Duke). 2009a. Buzzard Roost Station. Available at http://www.duke29 energy.com/power-plants/oil-gas-fired/buzzard-roost-station.asp. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-39 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke). 2009b. William States Lee III Nuclear Station COL 

2 Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage 

3 (Environmental Report), Revision 1. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Charlotte, South Carolina. 

4 Accession No. ML090990348. 

5 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Statistics 2005 (Table Vm-1). Office 

6 of Highway Policy Information, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 

7 Federal Power Commission (FPC). 1974. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Parr 

8 Hydroelectric Project, No. 1894 – South Carolina. No. FPC-PWR-1894, Federal Power 

9 Commission, Washington, D.C. 

10 Godfrey, M.A. 1980. Field Guide to the Piedmont: The Natural Habitats of America’s Most 

11 Lived-in Region, from New York City to Montgomery, Alabama. The University of North 

12 Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

13 Greenwood County, Public Safety Division, Emergency Management Office (Greenwood 

14 County). 2008. Buzzard Roost Dam Failure Preparedness. Available at 

15 http://emergency.greenwoodsc.gov/eop-k.html. 

16 Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, eds. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

17 United States. Cambridge University Press, New York. 

18 Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native Trees of the Southeast: An 

19 Identification Guide. Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon. 

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

21 Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

22 Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. 

23 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007a. South 

24 Carolina Water Use Report 2006 Summary. Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

25 Accession No. ML093270551. 

26 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007b. 

27 Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Broad River Basin. Technical Report No.006-07. 

28 Bureau of Water, Columbia, S.C. Available at 

29 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/bd_doc.pdf.
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-40 April 2010 

1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009. Letter from Vivianne 

2 Vejdani (SCDNR) to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

3 Commission, dated March 6, 2009, “Reference: Request for Participation in the Scoping 

4 Process and List of State Listed Protected Species for the Environmental Review for the Virgil 

5 C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Combined License Application.” Columbia, South 

6 Carolina. Accession No. ML090840384. 

7 South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009. South Carolina Strategic 

8 Corridor System Plan. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

9 http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/StrategicCorridorPlan.pdf. Accession No. 

10 ML093421433. 

11 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 1977. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Operating 

12 License Environmental Report (Volume II). Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. 

13 ML100690241. 

14 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. Letter from Stephen A. Byrne (SCE&G 

15 Senior Vice-President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

16 Commission dated March 27, 2008, “Subject V.C. Summer Nuclear Stations Units 2 and 3; 

17 Project Number 743 Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear 

18 Stations Units 2 and 3.” Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

19 ML081300460. 

20 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

21 3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

22 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

23 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

24 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

25 July 21, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

26 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

27 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

28 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): CR-4, 5, 7,,8,9,and 10, 

29 and TLine-1.” NND-09-0204. Accession No. ML092040676. 

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) – 

31 Detailed Reports – SCE&G/Parr Hydro Station. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

32 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0001864&npvalue=1&npvalu

33 e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

34 e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. Accession No. ML100200614. 
Cumulative Impacts 

April 2010 7-41 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

2 Detail Report – Cone Mills Carlisle Finishing Company. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

3 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000587188. 

4 Accession No. ML100200476. 

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

6 Detail Report – Chemtrade Performance Chemicals LLC. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

7 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110002182138. 

8 Accession No. ML100200469. 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009d. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) – 

10 Detailed Reports – NCW&SA/Cannons Creek WWTP. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

11 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0048313&npvalue=1&npvalu

12 e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

13 e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. Accession No. ML100200549. 

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009e. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

15 Detail Report – NCW&SA/Broad RV. WWTF Phase 1A. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

16 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SC0048020&p

17 gm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. Accession No. ML100200469. 

18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009f. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas 

19 Emissions, Global Greenhouse Gas Data. Available at 

20 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html. Accession No. ML100221499. 

21 United States Forest Service (USFS). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

22 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan: Sumter National Forest. U.S. Department of 

23 Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

25 the Operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No. 1. Docket No. 50-395. South 

26 Carolina Electric and Gas Company. NUREG-0719, Washington, D.C. 

27 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Statement for 

28 License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

30 Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Vols. 1 and 

31 2, Washington, D.C. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Draft NUREG-1939 7-42 April 2010 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

3 Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 

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

5 an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

6 Washington D.C. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. William States Lee III Nuclear Station, 

8 Units 1 and 2 Application. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.html. 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. 

10 Available at: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/cat2.html. 

11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009c. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, 

12 Unit 2. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/rob2.html. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009d. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 

14 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/mcg1.html. 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009e. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1. 

16 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/vog1.html. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009f. Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 Application. 

18 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html. 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009g. Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 

20 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/oco1.html. 

21 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. (Westinghouse). 2009. Columbia Site. Accessed 

22 December 3, 2009 at 

23 http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Businesses/nuclear_fuel/columbia_site.shtm. Accession 

24 No. ML100200634. 
April 2010 8-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 8.0 Need for Power 

2 Chapter 8 of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Environmental Standard 

3 Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000) guides the staff’s review and analysis of the need for power 

4 for a proposed nuclear power plant. The guidance states: 

5 Affected states or regions continue to prepare need-for-power evaluations for 

6 proposed energy facilities. The NRC will review the evaluation for the proposed 

7 facility and determine if it is (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

8 confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty. If the State’s or 

9 region’s need-for-power evaluation is found acceptable, no additional 

10 independent review by NRC is needed, and the State’s analysis can be the basis 

11 for ESRPs 8.2 through 8.4 (NRC 2000). 

12 In a 2003 response to a petition for rulemaking, the NRC reviewed whether the need for power 

13 should be considered in NRC environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared in conjunction 

14 with applications that could result in new plant construction (68 FR 55905). The NRC concluded 

15 that “...need for power must be addressed in connection with new power plant construction so 

16 that the NRC may weigh the likely benefits (e.g., electrical power) against the environmental 

17 impacts of constructing and operating a nuclear power reactor.” The NRC also stated in its 

18 response to the petition discussed above that (1) the NRC does not supplant the States, which 

19 have traditionally been responsible for assessing the need for power-generating facilities, for 

20 their economic feasibility, and for regulating rates and services; and (2) the NRC has 

21 acknowledged the primacy of State regulatory decisions regarding future energy options 

22 (68 FR 55905). 

23 As identified in Section 1.3 of this EIS, the purpose and need for the project is to provide for 

24 additional baseload electric generating capacity. Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) 

25 Units 2 and 3 would provide a combined net electrical output of approximately 2214 MW(e) of 

26 baseload electric generating capacity. Unit 2 is projected to enter commercial service in mid27 2016, while Unit 3 is projected to enter commercial service in 2019. As a joint venture, SCE&G 

28 would be a 55-percent owner of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and receive the commensurate power 

29 output, and Santee Cooper (the State-owned public utility, formally called the South Carolina 

30 Public Service Authority [SCPSA]) would own 45 percent of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 and receive 

31 the commensurate power output. The State of South Carolina frames the term “base load plant” 

32 by offering the following: “units or facility that is designed to be operated at a capacity factor 

33 exceeding seventy percent annually, has a gross initial generation capacity of 350 MW(e) or 

34 more, and is intended in whole or in part to serve retail customers of a utility of South Carolina” 

35 (South Carolina [SC] Code Ann. 58-33-220). The purpose of the proposed project is consistent 

36 with the definition as offered by the State. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-2 April 2010 

1 The proposed action is subject to the regulatory review and approval by the State of South 

2 Carolina through the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC), as well as the 

3 Board of Directors of the SCPSA. Both the PSCSC and the Board of Directors of the SCPSA 

4 evaluated the proposed need for power. Finding that the State’s evaluations and ensuing 

5 directions from these regulatory bodies conformed to the NRC’s four criteria as previously 

6 discussed, the NRC staff relied on their analysis to provide the basis for its conclusion that there 

7 is a need for power from proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Specific information regarding the 

8 application of the criteria is addressed in Section 8.4. 

9 The following sections describe the need for baseload electric generating capacity. Section 8.1 

10 reviews the current power system, including geographic considerations, and describes the 

11 regional characteristics. Section 8.1 also reviews and discusses the State’s regulatory guidance 

12 characterizing both the determination of the need for power and the approval of the proposed 

13 project through the PSCSC and SCPSA processes. Section 8.2 provides a review of pertinent 

14 details describing the demand for power, including an assessment of aspects that can impact 

15 the demand for power such as regional, State and Federal policies, energy efficiency and 

16 demand-side management, and econometric indicators. Section 8.3 is a discussion of power 

17 supply, including a review of past, present, and future generating capacity, power purchasing, 

18 and policies that may impact supply-side resources. Section 8.4 provides the staff’s 

19 conclusions regarding the determination of the need for power as proposed by the applicant and 

20 verified by the PSCSC and SCPSA evaluation processes, and concludes with a description of 

21 how the need-for-power evaluation performed by the State of South Carolina meets the four 

22 required criteria provided by the NRC. 

23 Where necessary, data and details may be supplemented by information from other resources 

24 such as State Energy Offices, regional reliability and power planning entities such as the 

25 Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC), Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates, 

26 and neighboring electric generating utilities. 

27 8.1 Description of the Power System 

28 The following sections describe the SCE&G and Santee Cooper relevant service areas, the 

29 regional reliability of the bulk power-supply system infrastructure related to the South Carolina 

30 power system, and the regulatory framework of the State of South Carolina under which the 

31 need for power has been evaluated and validated. 

32 8.1.1 SCE&G Relevant Service Area 

33 SCE&G is an investor-owned utility in the Southeast United States operating wholly within the 

34 State of South Carolina with a franchised service territory. The utility maintains a summer peak35 generating capacity of approximately 5745 MW(e) including power purchases, and provides 

36 electrical service to approximately 640,000 customers in 24 counties across central and 

37 southern South Carolina (PSCSC 2008b) as shown in Figure 8-1. 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 

3 Figure 8-1. The Combined Service Territory of SCE&G and Santee Cooper (including State 

4 electric cooperatives) (SCG&E 2009a) 

5 The major native load centers within SCE&G’s relevant service territory include municipal areas 

6 in South Carolina such as Columbia, Aiken, and the coastal regions up to and including the 

7 Charleston area. The territory includes portions of the quickly growing Interstate 95 and 

8 southern coastal corridors, with municipalities in that area continuing to show consistent growth 

9 in residential population and associated light commercial supporting industries. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-4 April 2010 

1 8.1.2 Santee Cooper Relevant Service Area 

2 The SCPSA, operating as Santee Cooper, is a 100-percent State-owned electric and water 

3 utility, supplying electricity to more than 163,000 retail customers in Berkeley, Georgetown, and 

4 Horry Counties, as well as to 30 large industrial facilities, the cities of Bamberg and 

5 Georgetown, and the Charleston Air Force Base. Santee Cooper also generates the power 

6 distributed by the State's 20 electric cooperatives to more than 700,000 customers in all 46 

7 counties of South Carolina. Santee Cooper maintains a winter peak demand of approximately 

8 5850 MW(e). 

9 Santee Cooper provides transmission and electrical services to a geographic area that is 

10 considerably larger than the franchised service territory of SCE&G. For the purposes of this 

11 EIS, the geographic boundary under consideration for the determination of the need for power is 

12 the SCE&G franchised service territory in addition to the retail and wholesale customer base of 

13 Santee Cooper as described above. The combined service territory of SCE&G and Santee 

14 Cooper (including State electric cooperatives) is illustrated in Figure 8-1. 

15 8.1.3 Regional Reliability 

16 SCE&G and Santee Cooper transmission systems operate entirely within the Virginia-Carolinas 

17 (VACAR) subregion of the SERC region, and are interconnected with both privately owned and 

18 State-owned utility systems. SERC serves as a regional entity with delegated authority from the 

19 North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) for the purpose of proposing and 

20 enforcing reliability standards within the SERC region. SERC is a nonprofit corporation 

21 responsible for promoting and improving the reliability, adequacy, and critical infrastructure of 

22 the bulk power-supply systems in all or portions of 16 central and southeastern states. Owners, 

23 operators, and users of the bulk power-supply system in these states cover the SERC region, 

which, as shown in Figure 8-2, is an area of approximately 560,000 mi2 24 (NERC 2008). 

25 

26 Figure 8-2. The SERC Service Territory (NERC 2008)
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 As participants in the regional production and distribution of energy, SCE&G and Santee 

2 Cooper, in conjunction with other members of the VACAR subregion, develop current and future 

3 power-flow and stability models of the integrated transmission system to assess the reliability of 

4 the system and to ensure compliance with regional and Federal reliability standards. The 

5 models are routinely adjusted to accommodate variations in power-generation capacity, 

6 seasonal changes or regional impacts such as drought, and planning margins, and include both 

7 long-term and short-term reliability and power-flow assessments (SCE&G 2009b). 

8 SCE&G and Santee Cooper’s annual demand forecasts and electrical growth estimates are 

9 generally consistent with the most recent SERC forecasts. SCE&G stated for the PSCSC 

10 hearing record that it forecasted firm territorial demand growth of 1.7 percent per year for the 

11 next 15 years (PSCSC 2008b). Santee Cooper, through its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), is 

12 forecasting average demand to increase 2 percent per year for the next 15 years (Santee 

13 Cooper 2008). This is consistent with the SERC forecast of approximately 2-percent annual 

14 growth for the next 10 years (NERC 2008) and the VACAR subregion of SERC forecast of 

15 approximately 1.9-percent annual growth for the next 10 years (NERC 2008). 

16 Nonregulated (merchant) capacity exists in neighboring, balancing authority areas with direct 

17 interconnection to the SCE&G and Santee Cooper balancing authority areas. This capacity is 

18 primarily natural-gas-fired generation. Due to the unknown commitment status of this capacity, 

19 transmission access limitations, and physical transmission constraints, the reliable deliverability 

20 of this capacity cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the 

21 purchase and distribution of merchant capacity within the service territory or in neighboring 

22 areas and the capacity can neither be considered nor modeled as a viable supply of baseload 

23 capacity. This premise is consistent with a review of nonregulated power capacity within the 

24 South Carolina service territories, which indicates a limited amount of total available capacity 

25 (EPA 2007). 

26 8.1.4 South Carolina Regulatory Framework 

27 The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project was reviewed and evaluated by the PSCSC, which 

28 issued the final findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Certificate of Environmental 

29 Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) giving legal authority to SCE&G to 

30 proceed with construction and operation of a two-unit nuclear power plant, after SCE&G met the 

31 State of South Carolina’s statutory requirements for the commencement of the project. The 

32 authority granted by the PSCSC does not supersede the authority of the NRC to approve and 

33 authorize a COL. SCE&G was the sole applicant petitioning the PSCSC to grant the CPCN; 

34 however, SCE&G and the SCPSA (the latter operating as Santee Cooper) would be co-owners 

35 of the two-unit nuclear power plant and the power output. As such, both SCE&G and Santee 

36 Cooper have had to effectively demonstrate a need for power in their respective operating 

37 territories that is commensurate with the power output of the proposed project. They have done 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-6 April 2010 

1 so through separate, yet analogous, proceedings, each of which is governed and controlled 

2 ultimately by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina. 

3 Broadly, the South Carolina General Assembly has numerous responsibilities directed toward 

4 the effective control and oversight of both public and private utilities operating within the State. 

5 The General Assembly directly contributes legislative membership and appoints public 

6 participants to the State Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee. The committee is then 

7 tasked with evaluating and nominating leaders to each of the following entities (SC Code Ann. 

8 58-3 Article 5): 

9  PSCSC, which controls regulated utilities such as SCE&G 

10  SCPSA Board of Directors, which represents the State of South Carolina operating as 

11 Santee Cooper 

12  South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, which serves as a public interest advocate and 

13 provides independent overview of the PSCSC. 

14 8.1.4.1 SCE&G’s Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

15 A provision in South Carolina State law, the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection 

16 Act, requires all persons desiring to construct major utility facilities to obtain a CPCN from the 

17 PSCSC prior to the commencement of any construction activities. This process is governed by 

18 Chapter 103, Article 3, Subarticle 1 of the South Carolina Code of Regulations and by Title 58, 

19 Chapter 33 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. 

20 Pursuant to the Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act, the PSCSC may not 

21 grant a certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a major utility facility, 

22 either as proposed or as modified, unless it shall find and determine the basis of the need for 

23 the facility; the nature of probable environmental impact; that the impact of the facility upon the 

24 environment is justified considering the alternatives; that the facilities serve in the interests of 

25 system economy and reliability; that there is reasonable conformance to applicable State and 

26 local laws and regulations; and that public convenience and necessity require the construction 

27 of the facility (PSCSC 2009). It is important to note that while the CPCN authorizes the 

28 construction of two units, the PSCSC does not have jurisdiction over Santee Cooper (PSCSC 

29 2009). Therefore, no ruling by the PSCSC through the CPCN evaluation is extended to the 

30 45 percent of the project that would be owned by Santee Cooper. However, as a joint owner in 

31 the proposed project, Santee Cooper’s need for power is discussed in the following sections. 

32 The PSCSC reviewed and evaluated SCE&G’s petition for a determination of the need for 

33 power in the proceedings governing the Combined Application for the CPCN and Base Load 

34 Review Order (PSCSC 2008a) pursuant to provisions in South Carolina’s Utility Facility Siting 

35 and Environmental Protection Act. Consistent with the preceding discussion, SCE&G submitted 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a Certificate of 

2 Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a Base Load 

3 Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in Jenkinsville, South 

4 Carolina, to the PSCSC on May 30, 2008. 

5 The final order provided by the PSCSC approving the combined application and CPCN was 

6 issued to SCE&G on March 2, 2009, granting SCE&G approval for the construction and 

7 operation of two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 

8 (AP1000) pressurized water reactors at the VCSNS site (PSCSC 2008b). The PSCSC further 

9 ruled that the impact of the proposed project would be justified based on the demonstrated need 

10 for additional baseload capacity (PSCSC 2008b). The CPCN application review proceedings 

11 provided full disclosure of expert and independent testimony provided by representative parties 

12 to the certification proceedings including the applicant, the South Carolina Office of Regulatory 

13 Staff, the Department of Health and Environmental Control, Department of Natural Resources, 

14 Department of Parks and Tourism, as well as public hearing and testimony. 

15 Because the formal State process has been completed and the need for power has been 

16 demonstrated and documented by order of the PSCSC, the staff, in accordance with NUREG17 1555 criteria, relies on the State’s evaluation of the need for power for its own independent 

18 analysis of the applicant’s determination of need. 

19 8.1.4.2 South Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper) 

20 Santee Cooper is the State-owned public utility operating under direct authorization of the 

21 SCPSA Board of Directors to produce, distribute, and sell electric power in accordance with 

22 good business practices and the requirements of applicable licenses, laws, and regulations 

23 (SC Code Ann. 58-31-30(A) and 58-31-55(A)(3)(c)). Because Santee Cooper is a State-owned 

24 utility, the State prepares, or designates the preparation of, all analyses as required by statute 

25 such as IRPs and rate cases. The analyses are provided to the South Carolina State Energy 

26 Office for review and comment, and must be consistent with the processes imposed on 

27 regulated utilities by the PSCSC (SC Code Ann. 58-37-40). The resource plan, which includes 

28 a review of the load forecast, energy efficiency and conservation programs, and options to meet 

29 expected load growth and reserve requirements, is also submitted to the Board of Directors of 

30 the SCPSA. The Board of Directors authorizes auditing of the resource plan by both 

31 independent parties as well as affected parties, and upon final consideration provides final 

32 adoption of the plan through a formal SCPSA Board of Directors resolution (SCE&G 2009c).

33 The SCPSA Board of Directors adopted several board resolutions that provide a coordinated 

34 framework directly aligning Santee Cooper with the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project. Individually, 

35 the resolutions address the following: (1) company-wide resource planning through IRPs that 

36 have been substantiated through independent audits; (2) the need for South Carolina to 

37 aggressively pursue goals toward expanding the deployment of power-generating resources 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-8 April 2010 

1 that do not emit greenhouse gases, and improving energy efficiency and conservation; and 

2 (3) the need to provide the authority and mechanisms by which Santee Cooper as the State 

3 public utility may partner with SCE&G for the construction, operation, and rate-recovery of the 

4 proposed two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS site located in Fairfield County. 

5 In successive review and in support of the preceding discussion detailing Santee Cooper’s 

6 ability to become a joint owner of a power plant in Fairfield Country, the Board of Directors 

7 representing the State of South Carolina, fully adopted the following resolutions (SCE&G 

8 2009c): 

9  Mar. 27, 2006 (MB06-09): Adoption of the 2005/2006 Generation Resource Plan, which 

10 detailed the need for additional capacity as independently audited and corroborated by the 

11 R.W. Beck consulting company based on current data and acceptable forecasting methods. 

12 The resolution further authorized management to take actions deemed necessary or 

13 appropriate to obtain a construction and operating permit for an ownership share not to 

14 exceed 50 percent of a two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS site. 

15  Oct. 20, 2006 (MB06-25): Santee Cooper management was authorized to continue to take 

16 actions necessary to design, permit, procure, construct, and install two nuclear units at the 

17 VCSNS site. 

18  Oct. 19, 2007 (MB07-14): The Board of Directors established a goal of generating 

19 40 percent of the gross electrical generation needs by non-greenhouse-gas-emitting 

20 resources, biomass fuels, energy efficiency, and conservation by 2020. 

21  Apr. 25, 2008 (MB08-06): Adoption of the 2008 Generation Resource Plan that reflected the 

22 necessary addition of new generating resources to meet projected load growth. The plan 

23 was independently audited and corroborated by the R.W. Beck consulting company, which 

24 concluded that the processes and assumptions were reasonable and accurate. 

25 Management was further authorized to take actions deemed necessary or appropriate to 

26 obtain a construction and operating permit for an ownership share not to exceed 50 percent 

27 of a two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS site. 

28  May 22, 2008 (MB08-07): The resolution appointed SCE&G to act as the SCPSA’s agent in 

29 connection with the execution and performance of the Engineer, Procure, Construct contract 

30 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project. The resolution further authorized management to 

31 continue taking actions necessary to permit, design, procure, and install two nuclear units at 

32 the VCSNS site and allowed an expenditure of an additional sum of money through 

33 December 31, 2011. 

34 With authority granted by the South Carolina General Assembly, the above resolutions 

35 constitute the State’s evaluation and direct assessment of the need for power-generating 

36 facilities, their economic feasibility, and the regulation of rates and services. These resolutions, 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 as reviewed and approved by the SCPSA Board of Directors, established both precedence and 

2 further guidance for Santee Cooper’s commitment to the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project. 

3 The following sections characterize the basis provided by the State via issuance of the CPCN. 

4 Further, because Santee Cooper is a participant in the project, the following review includes 

5 relevant sections and conclusions from its 2008 and 2009 IRP, as well as responses to 

6 Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) as issued by the NRC staff, which describes the 

7 need for power for Santee Cooper. 

8 8.1.5 Description of the South Carolina Analytical Process 

9 In accordance with NUREG-1555, the staff reviewed the analytical process and need for power 

10 evaluation performed by the State of South Carolina. The staff found that this evaluation 

11 process met the four NRC criteria for being (1) systematic, (2) comprehensive, (3) subject to 

12 confirmation, and (4) responsive to forecasting uncertainty. The following details how the four 

13 NRC criteria were met. 

14 Systematic: Regulatory provisions in South Carolina as previously described, state that on an 

15 annual basis SCE&G and Santee Cooper must provide the most up-to-date forecast and 

16 expected resource portfolio, respective of all known current conditions. SCE&G and Santee 

17 Cooper have a systematic and iterative process for load forecasting, which is updated and 

18 reviewed annually, as directed by the State either through the PSCSC or through the Board of 

19 Directors of the SCPSA. The load forecasts use utility industry best practices and 

20 methodological approaches to determine the utility’s need for power and the most cost-effective 

21 strategies to meet its regulatory obligations. In the PSCSC hearings regarding the applicant’s 

22 request for a CPCN the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff and other witnesses indicated 

23 that SCE&G’s forecasts were reasonable for planning purposes, with the PSCSC finding that 

24 SCE&G had provided a reliable and appropriate basis for assessing the need for Units 2 and 3 

25 (PSCSC 2008b). The Board of Directors of the SCPSA approved the 2008 Santee Cooper 

26 Generation plan through Resolution MB-08-06 (April 25, 2008). 

27 Comprehensive: The need for power as evaluated by the PSCSC and the Board of Directors 

28 of the SCPSA was found to be comprehensive. Peak and energy forecasts for both SCE&G 

29 and Santee Cooper incorporate key influencing factors, such as economic and demographic 

30 trends, weather, and implemented load-reduction programs such as new EE/DSM programs. 

31 Forecasts generated included each sector of the economy, and separate forecasts are 

32 developed to determine both short- and long-term demand. Power-supply forecasts include a 

33 comprehensive evaluation of present and planned generating capabilities as well as present 

34 and planned power purchases and sales in the service territory. All analyses are performed 

35 with forecasting and statistical modeling and methodological approaches appropriate for the 

36 power industry. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-10 April 2010 

1 Subject to Confirmation: The process, models, and estimations used in SCE&G’s petition to 

2 the PSCSC for review and issuance of the CPCN are documented and subject to evidentiary 

3 review by the PSCSC, the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, and the general public. 

4 The CPCN proceedings and relevant findings are all documented in the final order issued by the 

5 PSCSC (PSCSC 2008b). Santee Cooper’s annual resource plan is independently verified 

6 through third-party review, and is subject to the State’s approval through issuance of a 

7 resolution. The resolutions provide details specific to the presented annual resource plan such 

8 as interactions with relevant parties (Customer Advisory Council, SCPSA Executive Council, 

9 industrial customers, etc.); instructions for future actions including those related to permitting, 

10 additional capacity requirements and development; and other directives regarding the 

11 implementation of stated goals such as obtaining 40 percent of gross electrical generation from 

12 non-greenhouse-gas-emitting resources, renewable energy sources, and EE/DSM. 

13 Responsive to Forecasting Uncertainty: SCE&G and Santee Cooper test the validity of their 

14 overall forecast by analyzing the impact of alternative load forecasts (high, medium, and low). 

15 In addition, uncertainty in the load forecast is quantified by evaluating the resource portfolios 

16 against variations in future sensitivities, such as fuel and construction costs, load forecasts, 

17 environmental laws and regulations, and risk. In doing so, SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

18 developed resource portfolios that quantify the long-term cost to customers under varying 

19 potential sensitivities, while understanding the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of 

20 various resource configurations. The PSCSC hearing record indicated that the forecast 

21 presented by SCE&G was comparatively analyzed against the previous 7 years as well as other 

22 utilities within the region and they were found to be not only accurate, but conservative as well 

23 (PSCSC 2008b). Santee Cooper’s integrated resource plan (IRP) as developed by GDS 

24 Associates was independently verified by R.W. Beck, an independent consulting company 

25 specializing in the objective assessment of utility operations and management, who concluded 

26 that the assumptions and processes used were reasonable. Further, the generating plan, 

27 assumptions, and results were provided to affected parties for review, including the Central 

28 Electric Power Cooperative, Central Executive Committee, Customer Advisory Council, 

29 industrial customers, and the SCPSA Board of Directors. The final plan was adopted via 

30 SCPSA Board of Directors Resolution MB 08-06 (SCE&G 2009c). 

31 8.2 Power Demand 

32 In Section 8.2.1, the demand for power is discussed for SCE&G as described through the 

33 State’s PSCSC process that culminated in the issuance of the CPCN. In Section 8.2.2, the 

34 demand for power is discussed for Santee Cooper as provided by its most recent IRP. 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 8.2.1 SCE&G 

2 SCE&G is an investor-owned utility operating in South Carolina with a well-defined franchised 

3 service territory. As such, SCE&G is subject to the regulatory purview and jurisdiction of the 

4 PSCSC as granted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, which charges the 

5 PSCSC with the broad supervision and regulation of the rates and services of every public utility 

6 in the State (SC Code Ann. 58-3-140). 

7 8.2.1.1 Factors Affecting Demand 

8 Pursuant to the Siting Act as previously described, SCE&G must provide for and justify the 

9 basis of need for the proposed facility (PSCSC 2008b). The following sections describe 

10 relevant information from the PSCSC proceedings regarding SCE&G’s CPCN filing, and the 

11 basis for final issuance of the CPCN. 

12 Reliability of Load Forecasting and Margin 

13 The PSCSC reviewed the assertion that SCE&G energy forecasts incorporate extensive 

14 economic, population, and weather-based analysis, and that the forecasting accuracy compares 

15 favorably to actual growth rates on the SCE&G electrical system. Expert witnesses audited and 

16 corroborated the forecasting methodology and conclusions, and provided direct testimony 

17 supporting the forecasted growth in energy sales (1.3 percent per year) and growth in territorial 

18 peak demand (1.7 percent per year). It was also noted in the final order that current forecasts 

19 are 35 percent lower than historical growth rates for the prior 15-year period, and that the 

20 conservative nature of the assumptions would tend to understate the need for the proposed 

21 project rather than overstate the need. The South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff expert 

22 witness also compared the SCE&G forecast to other utility forecasts and concluded that the 

23 forecast was consistent with others’ forecasts within the region (PSCSC 2008b). 

24 Testimony was provided during the PSCSC CPCN application hearing regarding reserve and 

25 capacity margin analysis that demonstrated the need for additional capacity within the time 

26 frame under consideration. SCE&G has established a minimum of 12-percent and a maximum 

27 of 18-percent reserve margin of the firm peak forecasted demand for planning purposes. This 

28 reserve margin was corroborated as being appropriate by the South Carolina Office of 

29 Regulatory Staff, and is included in the CPCN hearing record (PSCSC 2008b). The CPCN 

30 application hearings were based on the SCE&G 2008 IRP forecast, which showed reserve 

31 margin declining to 2 percent in 2016 (thought to represent the commercial operation of Unit 2) 

32 if no additional capacity was added prior to that time (PSCSC 2008b). This is below the 

33 accepted range of generating reserves, and would likely render the utility in breach of its service 

34 obligations to the reserve sharing group in which SCE&G participates. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-12 April 2010 

1 Responsiveness to Forecast Uncertainty 

2 As an industry-accepted standard, SCE&G develops its forecast incorporating relevant variables 

3 as they pertain to its service territory. The forecasts are heavily data driven including but not 

4 limited to aspects of weather-related variability, such as heating degree days and cooling degree 

5 days; historic consumption; integration of new efficiency standards; and numerous others. The 

6 hearing record showed that as part of the audit of SCE&G’s application filing, the forecasts 

7 offered were not only reasonable, but conservative as well (PSCSC 2008b). 

8 The PSCSC reviewed the assertion that VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would likely not be needed when 

9 collective variations in supply and demand variables such as the implementation of new 

10 demand-side management and energy-efficiency programs, or adverse economic conditions are 

11 considered. Expert witness testimony was provided and the hearing record demonstrated that 

12 even if persistent adverse economic conditions significantly reduced SCE&G load capacity 

13 requirements in the future, VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would still be quite valuable (PSCSC 2008b). 

14 Further testimony demonstrated that the most recent economic data were contained in the load 

15 forecast used to evaluate the combined application up to the time of the hearing, and that 

16 SCE&G regularly receives and updates load forecasts with data from national economic 

17 consulting firms (PSCSC 2008b). The data indicated that the impact of the current economic 

18 downturn on load forecasting, while potentially significant in the near term, would have only a 

19 minor impact on load forecasts in the 2016 and 2019 time frame (coinciding with commercial 

20 operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3), and that the impacts did not change the forecasted need for 

21 VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The PSCSC concurred with the position that long-term decisions related 

22 to energy capacity should be based on the long-range needs of the system, and not on short23 term considerations (PSCSC 2008b). 

24 Demand-Side Management and Energy Efficiency 

25 SCE&G demand-side management (DSM) programs depend heavily on supply-side generation 

26 resources such as the Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility and Saluda Hydro to reduce peak 

27 demand. When combined with additional DSM resources, SCE&G maintains the capability to 

28 reduce demand by approximately 4 percent, which is well above industry standards for utilities 

29 in the region (PSCSC 2008b). 

30 Based on the hearing record, the PSCSC found that SCE&G had accurately reflected DSM 

31 efforts and the proposed impacts of energy-efficiency measures in its resource planning, and 

32 that they were not a viable substitute for the baseload capacity that SCE&G was seeking in the 

33 application (PSCSC 2008b). The PSCSC further found that SCE&G had included substantial 

34 reductions in demand due to current and forecasted DSM contributions and that the resource 

35 plans provided room for increased DSM contributions even with the addition of VCSNS Units 2 

36 and 3 to the system (PSCSC 2008b). 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The PSCSC considered expert testimony on the impact of current and projected energy2 efficiency programs in the resource plan and determined, though accurate, SCE&G could have 

3 done more in general with its energy-efficiency programs in the past, particularly in regard to the 

4 expansion of residential energy-efficiency programs (PSCSC 2008b). In response to these 

5 specific concerns and previous feedback from PSCSC findings, SCE&G has performed a 

6 comprehensive study of potential new DSM programs. The suite of programs was submitted on 

7 June 30, 2009, for PSCSC review and approval and is currently undergoing the PSCSC and 

8 public vetting process (PSCSC 2009). The staff reviewed the information available regarding 

9 the nine proposed new DSM programs and determined that the targeted 131 MW(e) demand 

10 reduction expected by the end of the third year of implementation does not materially affect the 

11 need for power (PSCSC 2009). This is consistent with the PSCSC finding in the hearing record 

12 (PSCSC 2008b) that stated “DSM is a useful supplement to the generation capacity needed on 

13 SCE&G’s system. It is not a substitution for it.” 

14 System Economy and Reliability 

15 The Utility Facility Siting and Environmental Protection Act requires that the proposed project 

16 “serve the interests of system economy and reliability” (SC Code Ann. 58-33-160 (1)(d)). The 

17 PSCSC heard expert witness testimony from SCE&G staff, the South Carolina Office of 

18 Regulatory Staff, and independent outside experts, and found that the projections and 

19 comparative analysis on which the selection of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 was based were 

20 reasonable and appropriate. The PSCSC further found that SCE&G properly concluded that the 

21 construction and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would provide the greatest and most 

22 dependable contribution to system economy of all reasonable competitive alternatives (PSCSC 

23 2008b). 

24 The PSCSC assessed the ability of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to provide reliable electricity to 

25 SCE&G customers. Although primarily limited to concerns regarding water availability and 

26 transmission planning, the PSCSC found that neither water supply nor transmission issues were 

27 likely to compromise the reliability of the plant to deliver power to SCE&G customers, and 

28 further found that the proposed location in Jenkinsville, South Carolina, provides a site that is 

29 appropriately located close to load centers in the central part of the State, thereby minimizing 

30 the impact on transmission issues (PSCSC 2008b). 

31 SCE&G maintains a 12- to 18-percent reserve margin as discussed above. The reserve margin 

32 must also include SCE&G’s pro-rata share of approximately 200 MW(e) (SCE&G 2009b) as part 

33 of its VACAR Reserve Sharing Agreement. 

34 8.2.2 Santee Cooper 

35 The following sections describe Santee Cooper’s demand for power based on the adopted 

36 resource plan of 2008. After independent review by outside consultants and affected parties, 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-14 April 2010 

1 the 2008 resource plan was adopted by the full Board of Directors of the SCPSA via Resolution 

2 MB 08-06 (April 25, 2008). This Resolution constitutes the State of South Carolina’s approval of 

3 the resource plan and the findings therein and provides the basis for the following analysis. As 

4 necessary, changes to that resource plan are reflected and noted by the most recent forecast in 

5 RAI Response NND-09-0320 (SCE&G 2009d). 

6 8.2.2.1 Factors Affecting Demand 

7 There are several contingencies currently impacting the future demand for power in the Santee 

8 Cooper service territory. Key among those that will affect the forecast estimates are the recent 

9 economic downturn, proposed Federal legislation that may increase the operating costs from 

10 fossil-fired generation, and the potential loss of a current power purchaser (SCE&G 2009d). 

11 These impacts are modeled using industry accepted standards and incorporated into the most 

12 current forecast to reflect the best known and currently available information. 

13 Reliability in Load Forecasting 

14 The Santee Cooper service territory is somewhat unique in that it provides energy to three 

15 electric systems that have widely varying characteristics. Accordingly, Santee Cooper prepares 

16 separate forecasts for each area, and then combines them for a total territorial energy and peak 

17 demand prediction (SCE&G 2009d). The forecasts are independently updated and validated by 

18 GDS Associates, Inc. (Santee Cooper 2008); the forecast and generation plan is further 

19 evaluated by R.W. Beck as a condition of acceptance by the Board of Directors of the SCPSA. 

20 The 2008 IRP, which was reviewed and approved the Board of Directors of the SCPSA (MB 

21 08-06), projected energy growth at 1.8 percent. 

22 In its 2009 IRP energy forecast, Santee Cooper indicates that energy sales are expected to 

23 grow at 1.6 percent for the next 15 years (SCE&G 2009d). The forecast includes future energy 

24 projections based on econometric modeling for weather, temperatures, non-weather-related 

25 components, and historical trends. The model also accounts for the potential loss of energy 

26 sales to the Central Electric Cooperative as indicated in RAI response NND-09-0320 (SCE&G 

27 2009d). 

28 Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Management 

29 Santee Cooper actively pursues cost-effective energy-efficiency and DSM (EE/DSM) programs. 

30 Formalized in 2007, the Santee Cooper Conservation and Renewable Energy Department has 

31 been tasked with developing and implementing new energy-efficiency and conservation 

32 programs, in addition to evaluating and acquiring renewable generating capacity to serve load. 

33 Discussion regarding Santee Cooper’s effort to expand on renewable energy can be found in 

34 Section 8.3.2. 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Currently, EE/DSM programs collectively account for almost 300 MW(e) of peak demand 

2 reduction and are effectively embedded in the system peak demand forecast (Santee Cooper 

3 2008). Santee Cooper also maintains an additional 300 MW of load-taking service, which is 

4 governed primarily through interruptible power rate structures. 

5 To the extent that these programs are accurately reflected in the current and projected load 

6 forecasts, have been independently verified through third-party analysis, and have been judged 

7 to be acceptable projections based on known information through Board of Directors approval, 

8 the staff finds that the EE/DSM programs proposed by Santee Cooper reasonably reflect the 

9 utility’s effort to reduce energy and peak demand in the service territory. However, these 

10 programs, though effective, do not represent a viable substitute for the baseload capacity that 

11 Santee Cooper would receive as a partner in the proposed project. 

12 System Economy and Reliability 

13 Santee Cooper maintains a planning reserve margin from 10 to 13 percent to meet firm load 

14 requirements, and to assess the adequacy of its resources for long-term power planning. The 

15 total load-requiring reserve that Santee Cooper is responsible for does not include power 

16 requirements that are served by other resources, such as the power supplied by the 

17 Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA) (Santee Cooper 2008). Much like SCE&G, Santee 

18 Cooper is a participant in the VACAR reliability group, which requires maintenance of a pro-rata 

19 daily reserve margin. This additional capacity is factored into Santee Cooper’s reserve-margin 

20 analysis and directly contributes to the minimum acceptable capacity that must be available to 

21 service peak load(s). If existing company generating resources are not able to service the peak 

22 power demand, firm capacity purchases of additional power must be used to meet the shortfall 

23 (SCE&G 2009d). Additional information regarding the reserve-margin analysis can be found in 

24 the Santee Cooper IRP (Santee Cooper 2008). 

25 Purchase of long-term wholesale power in the region is challenging. The reasons for this 

26 include the lack of excess baseload capacity available, excessive costs when compared to self27 build options, limited transmission paths that can effectively bring power into the service 

28 territory, and risk. An example of this is Santee Cooper’s 2005 Request for Proposal for 

29 additional capacity that received no bids (SCE&G 2009d). 

30 8.2.3 Demand Forecast 

31 The following is a summary of the forecasted cumulative demand for the combined SCE&G and 

32 Santee Cooper service territories. Table 8-1 lists the 2022 forecasted demand. The forecasted 

33 cumulative demand is evaluated for 2022, which would represent 3 years of commercial 

34 operation of both proposed units. The analysis accounts for all known demand-side influencing 

35 resources as provided through utility IRPs, and from information contained in the CPCN 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-16 April 2010 

1 Table 8-1. 2022 Forecasted Demand

IRP and CPCN-Related 

Forecasted Demand 

(MW(e)) 

SCE&G Firm Peak Demand(a) 6076 

SCE&G Reserve(b) 729 

Santee Cooper Firm Peak Demand(c) 6796 

Santee Cooper Reserve(d) 677 

Final Electricity Demand for the Service Territory 14,278 

IRP = Integrated Resource Plan; CPCN = Certificate of Environmental Compatibility 

and Public Convenience and Necessity 

(a) From SCE&G 2009b 

(b) 12-percent reserve margin 

(c) From SCE&G 2009d 

(d) 10-percent reserve margin 

2 proceedings. The following analysis provides the projected demand for capacity and does not 

3 make assumptions regarding generating alternatives. The final demand and supply analysis is 

4 provided in Section 8.4. 

5 Based on preceding information, the staff determined that the conclusions are acceptable as 

6 reviewed, verified, and approved by respective State regulatory bodies. Electricity demand for 

7 the combined utilities, including the minimum acceptable reserve margin, is forecast to be 

8 approximately 14,278 MW(e) in 2022. 

9 8.3 Power Supply 

10 This section discusses the expected supply of electricity in the relevant service area that would 

11 be available three years after full operation of both proposed units. In Section 8.3.1, the supply 

12 of power is discussed for SCE&G as described through the State’s PSCSC process that 

13 culminated in the issuance of the CPCN. In Section 8.3.2, the supply of power is discussed for 

14 Santee Cooper as provided in its most recent IRP, and the revised forecast provided via RAI 

15 response NND-09-0320 (SCE&G 2009d). 

16 8.3.1 SCE&G 

17 The reliable supply of power is inherent to SCE&G’s legal obligations in South Carolina. 

18 Accordingly, the PSCSC annually reviews the proposed forecasts and/or annual updates in 

19 addition to supporting documentation that may materially affect forecasting accuracy and power20 supply requirements. For the proposed project, which requires a full public vetting process, the 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 energy forecast and its distinct components were also subject to independent third-party review 

2 and testimony addressing the accuracy and completeness of the forecast. 

3 In the comprehensive energy forecast submitted to the PSCSC as part of the proceedings that 

4 led to issuance of the CPCN, SCE&G factored in its full resource portfolio, including present and 

5 planned generating capabilities, present and planned purchases and sales of power, and the 

6 impact from EE/DSM programs. 

7 8.3.1.1 Present and Planned Generating Capacity 

8 By annually reviewing and adjusting capacity resources over a rolling 15-year planning period, 

9 SCE&G is able to account for new capacity, proposed unit retirements, capacity uprates and 

10 derates, policy drivers such as improved energy standards or Federal legislation regarding 

11 emissions, and their impact on the generating resource portfolio. In doing so, the forecasted 

12 variable (e.g., customer class) is modeled against multiple sensitivities of a broad range of 

13 possible indicators such as economic environment, weather, conservation, and price (SCE&G 

14 2009b). From this, multiple resource portfolios are generated and tested against cumulative 

15 capacity requirement projections and the likely combinations of forecast sensitivities. The 

16 resource portfolios do not specify preference or partiality for capacity type; rather, they provide a 

17 systematic analysis of a range of potential capacity resources necessary for the development of 

18 a balanced and cost-effective resource portfolio and include both purchased alternatives and 

19 self-build options. 

20 As part of the PSCSC CPCN application hearing record, SCE&G indicated that it maintained 

21 5687 MW(e) of generating capacity broken out by capacity type as the following: coal-fired 

22 (2484), co-generation (90), natural-gas/oil fired combined cycle (1319), peaking combustion 

23 turbine (347), hydropower (227), pumped storage (576), and nuclear (644). SCE&G also has 

24 two long-term power purchase agreements that bring its total supply capacity to 5745 MW(e) 

25 (PSCSC 2008b). In servicing a 2007 peak power demand of 5248 MW(e), SCE&G’s existing 

capacity provided for a 9-percent online reserve margin,(a) 26 which is below its established reserve 

27 margin target of 12 percent as previously indicated. To meet its reserve margin target, SCE&G 

28 has been required to purchase short-term, off-system capacity to supplement and satisfy the 

29 growing demand for power. 

30 8.3.1.2 Need for Baseload Capacity 

31 The PSCSC heard testimony from SCE&G company witnesses regarding the need to add 

32 baseload capacity to the power-generation mix. The record shows that the last baseload 

33 capacity addition to the fleet was completed in 1996. From 1996 to the present, only peaking 

34 and intermediate capacity additions have been made to meet the 31-percent growth in demand 

 

(a) (Capacity – Peak) / Peak 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-18 April 2010 

1 over the same time period. By 2020, at the time when both Units 2 and 3 would be in 

2 commercial operation, the growth in energy demand is forecasted to have grown by 44 percent 

3 since 1996 (PSCSC 2008b). 

4 Review of SCE&G current operating practices demonstrates the value of baseload “preferred” 

5 capacity. Baseload capacity currently represents approximately 56 percent of total capacity in 

6 the SCE&G system, while providing over 80 percent of the energy used by SCE&G customers 

7 (PSCSC 2008b). Without the capacity additions represented by the proposed operation of 

8 VCSNS Units 2 and 3, baseload capacity as a percentage of total capacity would shrink to 

9 45 percent by 2020, indicating a significantly higher reliance on intermediate duty cycle 

10 technologies (such as natural-gas-fired combined-cycle power plants) to make up the need for 

11 more energy. With the additional capacity of the proposed nuclear project, both fossil-fired 

12 technologies listed in Table 8-2 would likely experience lower demands for their capacity than 

13 are currently observed. The table outlines the potential impact the proposed project would have 

14 on baseload capacity resources and fuel diversity. 

15 Table 8-2. Potential Impact the Proposed Project Would Have on Baseload Capacity 

16 Resources and Fuel Diversity 

SCE&G 

Percent of 

Capacity in 

Baseload 

Total 

Capacity 

(MW(e)) 

Percent Capacity of Total 

Coal Nuclear Gas 

Current 56 5687 43 11 30 

2020 w/Nuclear 63 6888 37 27 24 

2020 w/o Nuclear(a)

 45 6888 36 9.4 41 

Sources: SCE&G 2009b and PSCSC 2008b 

(a) Calculated using existing nuclear and coal capacity and forecasted capacity requirements for 2020. 

17 The PSCSC hearing record further demonstrated that even with the addition of the baseload 

18 capacity resources as proposed in the project, at no time does SCE&G actually exceed its 

19 reserve planning target. In 2016, at the time Unit 2 is proposed to be in commercial operation, 

20 the reserve margin in that year would go from 2 percent (if no capacity additions are made in the 

21 interim), up to 13 percent. Likewise, in 2019, at the time Unit 3 is proposed to be in commercial 

22 operation, the reserve margin in that year would increase to 17 percent; this is still below the 

23 targeted maximum reserve margin of 18 percent (PSCSC 2008b). 

24 8.3.1.3 Fuel Diversity 

25 The PSCSC heard relevant testimony from the SCE&G resource planning experts, as well 

26 independent review and auditing from the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff 

27 demonstrating the appropriate selection and mix of power-generating resources that would 

28 function to minimize exposure to future fuel costs and environmental compliance costs. The 

29 assessed SCE&G generation plans provided analysis comparing the “base case” scenario (two 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 nuclear units) to combinations of various fossil-fired alternatives, such as coal-fired and natural2 gas-fired plants either in simple cycle or combined cycle, including sensitivity analysis based on 

3 factors such as uranium pricing, lower gas prices, reduced reliability of aging fossil plants, and 

4 associated emissions considerations. 

5 SCE&G is heavily dependent on fossil-fired capacity at 73 percent of existing resources. The 

6 utility’s exposure to future variations in fuel costs, environmental compliance, and operational 

7 risks were qualitatively assessed against the strengths and weaknesses of the current power8 generation fleet, and what the proposed generating alternatives might entail. The PSCSC 

9 CPCN application hearing record states that company leaders determined that the nuclear 

10 option would serve to strengthen SCE&G’s aging baseload capacity portfolio, diversify the 

11 company’s fuel mix, and reduce customer exposure to the risks and volatility of fossil fuel 

12 markets and supply (PSCSC 2008b). As discussed in Section 8.2.1, this was further validated 

13 by the PSCSC in its conclusion indicating that VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would provide the “greatest 

14 and most dependable contribution to system economy of all reasonably competitive 

15 alternatives” (PSCSC 2008b). 

16 SCE&G company witnesses also confirmed the useful flexibility of adding VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

17 to the capacity supply mix by providing testimony addressing the potential benefit to reducing 

18 company reliance on an aging coal-fired fleet. Allowing older fossil-fired plants to be retired or 

19 used less intensively in the future could benefit the electrical system in terms of reliability, 

20 compliance, and fuel efficiency (PSCSC 2008b). 

21 8.3.2 Santee Cooper 

22 In developing the power-supply and capacity forecasts for its service territory, Santee Cooper 

23 factored in its present and planned generating capabilities, present and planned purchases and 

24 sales of power, distributed and self-generation power sources, and demand-side reduction. The 

25 power-supply analysis is bound by the description of Santee Cooper’s current customer base, 

26 and any known proposals or conditions that may materially affect forecasting accuracy and 

27 power-supply requirements. An example of such is the recent decision by the SCPSA to 

28 suspend all efforts to further permit and expand generating capacity at the Pee Dee site due to 

29 the potential loss of energy sales to the Central Electric Power Cooperative (SCE&G 2009d). 

30 The reliable supply of power is inherent to Santee Cooper’s legal obligation to the constituents 

31 of the State of South Carolina as reviewed in Section 8.2.2. Accordingly, the Board of Directors 

32 of the SCPSA annually reviews the proposed forecasts through the IRP, and formally issues a 

33 resolution indicating both its approval of the IRP as well as ensuing instructions or 

34 authorizations regarding future directions such as the continued investment in the VCSNS Units 

35 2 and 3 project. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-20 April 2010 

1 8.3.2.1 Present and Planned Generating Capacity 

2 As a power generator, Santee Cooper is engaged in the operation of baseload, intermediate, 

3 and peaking duty cycle power plants. Santee Cooper owns and maintains a summer peak 

4 generating capacity of approximately 5672 MW(e). The capacity mix currently includes very 

5 high exposure to fossil-based generating resources, such as coal at 70 percent of all capacity, 

6 and gas-oil fired at 22 percent of all capacity (SCE&G 2009d). These fossil-based generating 

7 resources produce and supply approximately 81 percent of the energy required by Santee 

8 Cooper; the remainder being supplied by hydropower (1 percent), nuclear (9 percent), and 

9 power purchases (9 percent). Santee Cooper also indicates that approximately 70 percent of all 

10 its generation resources operate in baseload (SCE&G 2009d). 

11 By annually reviewing and adjusting capacity resources over a rolling 20-year planning period, 

12 Santee Cooper is able to account for new capacity, unit retirements, capacity uprates and 

13 derates, policy drivers such as Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards and potential Federal 

14 greenhouse gas legislation, and their impact on the resource mix. From this, multiple resource 

15 portfolios are generated and tested against cumulative capacity requirement projections and 

16 combinations of forecast sensitivities. The resource portfolios do not specify preference or 

17 partiality for capacity type; rather, they provide a systematic analysis of a range of potential 

18 capacity resources necessary for the development of a balanced and cost-effective resource 

19 portfolio. 

20 Santee Cooper is currently engaged in several activities that may provide additional capacity 

21 within the timeline of consideration. These activities include the potential development of fossil22 fired capacity; integration of alternative or renewable based capacity; and upgrading, 

23 relicensing, or developing hydropower-based power plants. The activities are also modeled 

24 annually on a rolling 20-year planning horizon enabling the incorporation of the most recent and 

25 updated information, such as receiving the final ruling on the VCSNS CPCN or a sensitivity 

26 analysis regarding the cost and risk for potential capacity additions. Collectively, all of these 

27 activities are subject to the review and approval by applicable regulatory bodies such as the 

28 Board of Directors of the SCPSA and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

29 8.3.2.2 Purchased Power 

30 Santee Cooper satisfies a portion of the resource portfolio by routinely purchasing intermediate 

31 and peaking power capacity through firm power purchase agreements. This practice has 

32 historically included contracted power purchase agreements from conventional non-utility 

33 (merchant) units, such as natural-gas-fired combustion turbines and combined cycle plants in 

34 addition to the known purchase and distribution of hydropower based power from SEPA and 

35 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In its 2008 IRP, Santee Cooper indicates that it currently has 

36 firm wholesale power purchase commitments for over 570 MW(e) from such facilities. Of this, 

37 approximately 28 percent represents mid-term firm power purchases expiring in 2014 that are 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 intended to provide adequate reserve margin; with the remainder representing long-term power 

2 purchases (Santee Cooper 2008). In deciding to add any new power resource, including 

3 purchased power, Santee Cooper evaluates and screens all viable supply-side options against 

4 the load forecast, assumptions of cost and risk, and the possible generation mix (Santee 

5 Cooper 2008). 

6 8.3.2.3 Renewable Resources 

7 Enabling legislation passed by the South Carolina General Assembly in 1934 chartered Santee 

8 Cooper with the development of renewable resources in the form of hydropower-based power 

9 generation. Hydropower continues to supply customers of Santee Cooper with clean energy. 

10 Although with limited developable resources, what was once the sole source of power 

11 generation, hydropower currently supplies only 2 percent of the summer-time peak generating 

12 capacity at 130 MW(e) (SCE&G 2009d). This still represents the single largest contribution to 

13 Santee Cooper’s renewable energy portfolio. 

14 Although renewable energy resources do not individually provide a significant amount of 

15 increased capacity, Santee Cooper continues to pursue developments in biomass, solar, and 

16 wind generation as the region and resources permit. Further, Santee Cooper indicates in long17 term load forecasts (10 years) as reflected in the IRP, that renewable resources in combination 

18 are expected to supply up to 215 MW(e) during the timeline of consideration (Santee Cooper 

19 2008). One example includes the expansion of landfill-based methane gas collection and 

20 combustion, currently at 13 MW(e), which is expected to double by the end of 2010 (Santee 

21 Cooper 2008). In addition, Santee Cooper has partnered with universities and others to either 

22 expand on existing programs such as solar development, or to continue investigating 

23 alternatives such as coastal wind power (Santee Cooper 2008). 

24 Additional information regarding specific renewable energy alternatives is discussed in 

25 Section 9.2.3. 

26 8.3.2.4 Need for Baseload Capacity 

27 As previously discussed, Santee Cooper operates 70 percent of its existing fleet of generating 

28 resources at baseload. As a percentage of available generating resources, this represents a 

29 significant commitment of resources, and is indicative of the utility’s current need to develop 

30 additional baseload resources. This premise has been corroborated by several entities 

31 including the SERC’s Reliability Review Subcommittee (RRS); the State of South Carolina 

32 through the State Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee, and Board of Directors of the 

33 SCPSA. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-22 April 2010 

The SERC RRS reported in its 2009 Annual Report that while near-term(a) 1 planning horizons 

appear to indicate sufficient capacity resources, adequate long-term(b) 2 planning reserves would 

3 be dependent on future business decisions, including the use of uncommitted generation and 

4 construction of new baseload capacity (SERC 2009). The RRS also recognizes that based on 

5 the percentage of planned net capacity additions, utilities are preparing to meet long-term 

6 demand growth with a significant commitment to base-load generation rather than relying on 

7 natural-gas-fired generation or purchases (SERC 2009). As previously discussed in 

8 Section 8.1.3, there is both a shortage of available uncommitted capacity for Santee Cooper to 

9 pursue for long-term baseload capacity requirements, and the capacity that is available is 

10 largely natural-gas-fired generation. Typically, plants fueled by natural gas are used to supply 

11 intermediate generation (20−60 percent capacity factor), and peaking generation (20 percent 

12 capacity factor) (PURC 2009, Appendix B, Glossary). Accordingly, the staff finds that Santee 

13 Cooper’s commitment to the proposed project aligns its need for baseload capacity with a 

14 SERC RRS recognized baseload generating alternative. The staff considers additional 

15 generating alternatives, including natural gas-fired generation, in Section 9.2. 

16 Additional language supporting the need for baseload capacity in the region is provided in the 

17 South Carolina State Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee’s (PURC) Energy Policy 

18 Report, which is a comprehensive accounting of both the current and future energy 

19 requirements in the State of South Carolina. Although produced largely in the context of 

20 addressing pending Federal energy policies and establishing strategies for a course of action, 

21 the report, which was compiled by the Office of Regulatory Staff including a full public vetting, 

22 nonetheless recognized that South Carolina has a “growing baseload electric need” (PURC 

23 2009). 

24 The SCPSA Board of Directors, representing the State of South Carolina, authorized the 

25 commitment of Santee Cooper to the proposed project via the Resolutions provided in 

26 Section 8.1.4.2. In doing so, the SCPSA Board of Directors sanctioned Santee Cooper’s pursuit 

27 of a generating resource that is used only to supply baseload power. Due to recognized need 

28 for baseload capacity within the region and the supporting documentation provided in the 

29 preceding discussion, the staff finds that it is reasonable to conclude that Santee Cooper’s 

30 pursuit of 45 percent of the capacity from the proposed project means the utility has a need to 

31 meet a significant percentage of its long-term demand for power by developing baseload 

32 generating capacity other than through natural-gas-fired generation or capacity purchases. 

33 8.3.3 Supply Forecast 

34 The following is a summary of the forecasted cumulative supply for the combined SCE&G and 

35 Santee Cooper service territories. The forecasted cumulative supply is evaluated for 2022, 

 

(a) Represented as years 2009 through 2013 (SERC 2009) 

(b) Represented as years 2013 through 2018 (SERC 2009)
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 which would represent 3 years of commercial operation of both proposed units. The analysis 

2 accounts for all known supply-side resources as provided through each respective utility’s IRP, 

3 with the exception of the capacity of the proposed project. By removing the capacity additions 

4 of the proposed project, the staff is able to quantify the cumulative supply that is available to 

5 service the expected demand for that power. The final demand and supply analysis is provided 

6 in Section 8.4. 

7 Table 8-3 provides the cumulative supply forecast for the combined service territories through 

8 the summer of 2022. 

9 Table 8-3. Forecasted Cumulative Supply

Forecasted Cumulative Supply (MW(e)) 

SCE&G Cumulative Supply(a) 5660 

Santee Cooper Cumulative Supply(b) 6398 

Combined Cumulative Supply 12058 

(a) Generation minus the proposed 55 percent of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (equal to 614 MW(e) X 2) 

(b) Generation minus the proposed 45 percent of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (equal to 502 MW(e) X 2) 

10 The staff determined based on the preceding information, that the conclusions are acceptable 

11 as reviewed, verified, and approved by respective State regulatory bodies. Electricity supply for 

12 the combined utilities, minus the cumulative supply of the proposed project, is forecast to be 

13 approximately 12,058 MW(e) in 2022.

14 8.4 Assessment of Need for Power and NRC Findings 

15 In its final order, the PSCSC provided a single determination of all aspects of the public interest 

16 evaluation related to proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 stating that, “in this case, the record 

17 demonstrates that VC Summer Units 2 and 3 represent capacity that is needed to supply 

18 reasonably forecasted customer demands. In addition, the size, type, location, and technology 

19 of the Units are the preferable means of doing so with the greatest economy and reliability and 

20 with the least impact on the environment” (PSCSC 2008b). The PSCSC also commented 

21 directly on the ability of the proposed project to insulate customers from the price volatility and 

22 supply risk that are increasingly associated with fossil-fuel-fired generation. The PSCSC further 

23 noted that alternative energy sources would likely provide useful supplemental energy for 

24 SCE&G systems going forward, but that public convenience and necessity would not be 

25 supported by forcing SCE&G customers to rely on the future availability and competitiveness of 

26 these energy sources as a substitute for SCE&G constructing and operating additional baseload 

27 capacity at this time (PSCSC 2008b). The staff’s understanding of the PSCSC and SCPSA 

28 Need for Power reviews is detailed in Section 8.1.5 above. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-24 April 2010 

1 SCE&G: The staff reviewed the information provided in PSCSC Docket 2008-196-E and 

2 evaluated the assumptions and findings therein. The staff determined that SCE&G submitted a 

3 combined application for a CPCN and for a Base Load Review Order to the PSCSC for the 

4 design, construction, and operation of a two-unit nuclear power plant. The petition proceedings, 

5 public hearings, and independent evaluation by the South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff 

6 confirmed for the record that SCE&G’s determination of the need for power equal to 55 percent 

7 of the power output of the two-unit plant followed conventional and appropriate practices, 

8 including the thorough evaluation of methodologies and assumptions in forecasting, impacts of 

9 energy-efficiency and DSM programs, and generation resource planning. The hearing record 

10 further demonstrated that the need for additional baseload capacity was justified and that 

11 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would serve the interests of system economy and reliability as 

12 the most practicable means for the generation of electric power (PSCSC 2008b). 

13 Santee Cooper: The staff reviewed the information found in the 2008 Santee Cooper IRP, the 

14 2009 updated forecast as provided in RAI response NND-09-0320 (SCE&G 2009d), and 

15 evaluated the assumptions and findings therein. The staff further determined that the State of 

16 South Carolina appropriately accounted for current and future energy needs through the 

17 submittal, independent auditing, and subsequent approval of Generation Resource Plans by the 

18 SCPSA Board of Directors. The Board of Directors further authorized Santee Cooper 

19 management to pursue an ownership share of 45 percent of the nuclear capacity additions 

20 proposed for the VCSNS site, and determined that in consideration of factors set forth in South 

21 Carolina Code 58-31-55(A)(3), adoption of the resolutions was in the best interest of the 

22 SCPSA, and therefore, the State of South Carolina. 

23 Proposed Need for Power: The final analysis of the combined power supply and demand 

24 forecasts for SCE&G and Santee Cooper indicates that both utilities require an expansion of 

25 generating capacity within the proposed timeline to maintain adequate generating capacity in 

26 support of State, regional, and utility-level capacity requirements, including reserves. The 

27 analysis is summarized in Table 8-4. 

28 Table 8-4. Final Analysis of the Combined Power Supply and Demand Forecasts for SCE&G 

29 and Santee Cooper 

Cumulative 

Demand 

including Reserve 

Margin in 2022 

Cumulative 

Supply in 2022 

Without Units 

2 and 3 

Total New 

Capacity 

Required 

SCE&G(a) 6805 5660 1145 

Santee Cooper(b) 7473 6398 1075 

Combined 14,278 12,058 2220 

(a) Analysis done using data supplied via SCE&G 2009b. 

(b) Analysis done using data supplied via SCE&G (SCE&G 2009d). 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 In addition, the outcomes and accuracy of forecasting efforts are subject to confirmation by 

2 parties external to the utilities and State Utility Commissions, including SERC’s RRS. The RRS 

3 conducts seasonal and annual reliability assessments of the SERC region by reviewing the data 

4 and studies submitted by SERC member systems. Load forecasting, as provided by the utilities 

5 within SERC, is a critical element of the process used to establish the reliability and capacity 

6 obligations within SERC; thus, the load forecast receives considerable scrutiny from the SERC 

7 RSS to make sure that it represents a reliable estimate of future peak loads and provides the 

8 basis upon which to evaluate future capacity requirements. The RSS annual report captures 

9 those forecasts and provides a documented assessment assuring that the SERC region is being 

10 planned in accordance with the NERC Reliability Standards and applicable SERC Supplements 

11 (SERC 2009). The historical predictive capability of SCE&G and Santee Cooper load forecasts 

12 compares favorably to the VACAR subregion analysis found in the annual report provided to 

13 SERC’s Engineering Committee by the RRS (SERC 2009). 

14 In aggregate, the rulings and resolutions constitute the State of South Carolina’s application of 

15 statutory regulations to conclude that there is a justified need for power in the relevant service 

16 territory within the proposed timeline. In consideration of the State’s evaluation and 

17 determination of the need for baseload capacity for both SCE&G and Santee Cooper, and in 

18 compliance with NUREG-1555 guidelines, the staff accepts as complete and adequate the 

19 need-for-power evaluation contained in the State’s CPCN ruling as provided by the PSCSC, and 

20 in the resolutions provided by the SCPSA Board of Directors regarding the generation resource 

21 plans for Santee Cooper. Based on this analysis, the NRC staff concludes that there is a 

22 justified Need for Power in the region of interest. 

23 8.5 References 

24 68 FR 55905. September 29, 2003. “Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for 

25 Rulemaking.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

26 North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2008. 2008 Long-Term Reliability 

27 Assessment, 2008-2017. Princeton, New Jersey. 

28 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2008a. South Carolina Electric & Gas 

29 Company Combined Application for Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public 

30 Convenience and Necessity and for a Base Load Review Order. Docket No. 2008-196-E, 

31 Columbia, South Carolina. 

32 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2008b. Order Approving Combined 

33 Application. Docket No. 2008-196-E, Order 2009-104A, Columbia, South Carolina. 
Need For Power 

Draft NUREG-1939 8-26 April 2010 

1 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009. Application of South Carolina 

2 Electric & Gas Company for the Establishment and Approval of DSM Programs and Rate Rider. 

3 Docket No. 2009-261-E, Columbia, South Carolina. 

4 Public Utilities Review Committee (PURC). 2009. State Regulation of Public Utilities Review 

5 Committee, Energy Policy Report. Columbia, South Carolina. 

6 Santee Cooper. 2008. South Carolina Public Service Authority Integrated Resource Plan 2008. 

7 Santee Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina. 

8 SC Code Ann. 58-3-5. 2009. “Definitions.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

9 SC Code Ann. 58-3-140. 2009. “Powers to Regulate Public Utilities.” South Carolina Code 

10 Annotated. 

11 SC Code Ann. 58-31-30. 2009. “Powers of Authority.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

12 SC Code Ann. 58-31-55. 2009. “Standards for Director’s Discharge of Duties; Immunity.” South 

13 Carolina Code Annotated. 

14 SC Code Ann. 58-33-160. 2009. “Decision of Commission.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

15 SC Code Ann. 58-33-220. 2009. “Definitions.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

16 SC Code Ann. 58-37-40. 2009. “Integrated Resource Plans.” South Carolina Code Annotated.

17 SC Code Ann. Regs. Ch. 103, Art. 3, Subarticle 1. 2008. “General Provisions.” South Carolina 

18 Annotated Regulations. 

19 SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2008. SERC Reliability Corporation Information 

20 Summary, July 2008. SERC, Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. ML100481148. 

21 SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2009. Reliability Review Subcommittee’s 2009 Annual 

22 Report to the SERC Engineering Committee. Charlotte, North Carolina. 

23 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

24 3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

25 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

26 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. 2009 Integrated Resource Plan. 

27 Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Available at http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/matters/B9AEAF4D-E782-

28 EB82-E79E7E7580306CF4.pdf. 
Need For Power 

April 2010 8-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 May 5, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

4 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

5 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

6 Information Needs: ALT-1/NP-1, AQ-1, AQ-15, G-5, G-6, G-8, and NRHH-2.” NND-09-0110. 

7 Accession No. ML091890155.

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

9 President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated November 

10 20, 2009 in response to letter from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, "Subject: V.C. 

11 Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028 Combined 

12 Licenses Application – Supplemental Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) Information 

13 Needs NP-1, AQ-11 and AQ-13.”. NND-09-0320. Accession Number ML093310245. 

14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. “Year 2005 eGrid Plant, Boiler, and 

15 Generator Data Files (eGrid2007V1_1_year05_plant).” eGRID2007 Version 1.1, Washington, 

16 D.C. 

17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan 

18 (ESRP) — Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

19 NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

April 2010 9-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

2 This chapter describes alternatives to the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (NRC) action for a 

3 combined construction permit and operating license (COL) and the U.S. Army Corps of 

4 Engineers’ (USACE’s) action for a Department of Army (DA) Individual Permit and discusses 

5 the environmental impacts of those alternatives. Section 9.1 discusses the no-action alternative. 

6 Section 9.2 addresses alternative energy sources. Section 9.3 reviews the region of interest 

7 (ROI) evaluated in the site-selection process, the South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G) 

8 site-selection process, details specific to each one of the respective alternative sites, and 

9 summarizes and compares the cumulative environmental impacts for the proposed and 

10 alternative sites. Section 9.4 examines plant design alternatives. Section 9.5 describes onsite 

11 alternatives to reduce impacts on wetlands on natural and cultural resources. Section 9.6 lists 

12 the references cited in this chapter. 

13 The need to compare the proposed action with alternatives arises from the requirement in 

14 Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) 

15 (42 USC 4321) that environmental impact statements (EISs) include an analysis of alternatives 

16 to the proposed action. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements this 

17 requirement through its regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 

18 and its Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000). The environmental impacts 

19 of the alternatives are evaluated using the NRC’s three-level standard of significance – SMALL, 

20 MODERATE, or LARGE – developed using Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines 

21 (40 CFR 1508.27) and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

22 Appendix B. The issues evaluated in this chapter are the same as those addressed in the 

23 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a) 24 with the additional issue of environmental justice. 

25 Although NUREG-1437 was developed for license renewal, it provides useful information for the 

26 review reported here and is referenced throughout this chapter. 

27 As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 

28 the USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the U.S. Environmental 

29 Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230; hereafter 404 Guidelines). 

30 These guidelines establish criteria that must be met for the proposed activities to be permitted 

31 pursuant to Section 404, which governs disposal sites for dredged or fill material. Specifically, 

32 the 404 Guidelines state, in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted 

33 if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse 

34 impacts on the aquatic ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant 

35 adverse consequences. An area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

 

(a) NUREG-1437 was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to NUREG-1437 was issued in 1999 (NRC 1999a). 

Hereafter, all references to NUREG-1437 include NUREG-1437 and its Addendum 1.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-2 April 2010

1 obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may 

2 be considered if it is otherwise a practicable alternative. 

3 9.1 No-Action Alternative

4 For purposes of an application for COLs, the no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which 

5 the NRC would deny the COLs requested by SCE&G. The USACE could also take no action, or 

6 deny the permit requests. Upon such a denial by NRC, the construction and operation of two 

7 new nuclear units at the VCSNS site in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52 would not occur and 

8 the predicted environmental impacts associated with the project would not occur. 

9 Preconstruction impacts associated with activities not within the definition of construction in 

10 10 CFR 50.10(a) and 51.4 may occur. The no-action alternative would result in the proposed 

11 facility not being built. If no other facility would be built or strategy implemented to take its 

12 place, the benefits of the additional electrical capacity and electricity generation to be provided 

13 by the project would not occur. If no additional conservation measures were enacted to 

14 decrease the amount of electrical capacity that would otherwise be required for power in the 

15 ROI, then the need for baseload power, discussed in Chapter 8, would not be met. Therefore, 

16 the purpose of and need for this project would not be satisfied if the no-action alternative was 

17 chosen and the need for power was not met by other means. 

18 If other generating sources were built, either at another site or using a different energy source, 

19 the environmental impacts associated with these other sources would eventually occur. As 

20 discussed in Chapter 8, there is a demonstrated need for power and SCE&G and Santee 

21 Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility formally called South Carolina Public Service 

22 Authority) have regulatory responsibilities in South Carolina to provide electrical service in their 

23 respective service territories. This needed power may be provided and supported through a 

24 number of alternatives that are discussed in Sections 9.2 and 9.3. Therefore, this section does 

25 not include a discussion of other energy alternatives (discussed in Section 9.2) and alternative 

26 sites (discussed in Section 9.3) that could meet the need for power. 

27 9.2 Energy Alternatives 

28 The purpose and need for the proposed NRC action (i.e., issuance of COLs) identified in 

29 Section 1.3.1 of this EIS is to provide for additional baseload electric generating capacity by 

30 2016 and 2019 within the service territories of SCE&G and Santee Cooper. This section 

31 examines the potential environmental impacts associated with alternatives to the construction 

32 and operation of a new baseload nuclear generating facility. Section 9.2.1 discusses energy 

33 alternatives that do not require new generating capacity, while Section 9.2.2 discusses energy 

34 alternatives that require new generating capacity. Other alternatives are discussed in 

35 Section 9.2.3. A combination of alternatives is discussed in Section 9.2.4. Section 9.2.5 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 compares the environmental impacts from new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas-fired 

2 generating units, and a combination of alternatives at the VCSNS site. 

3 For analysis of energy alternatives, the review team assumed a bounding target value of 

4 2214 MW(e) of electrical output, or the equivalent electrical capacity of the proposed VCSNS 

5 project. The review team also used this level of output in analyzing energy alternatives. 

6 9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 

7 The following are three alternatives to the proposed action that do not require SCE&G to 

8 construct new generating capacity: 

9  Purchase the needed electric power from other suppliers. 

10  Extend the operating life of existing power plants or reactivate retired power plants. 

11  Implement conservation or demand-side management (DSM) programs. 

12 These alternatives are reviewed in the following sections. 

13 9.2.1.1 Purchased Power 

14 Power to replace the capacity of the proposed new nuclear units would have to be purchased 

15 from other generating resources, and likely would be one of those described in the Generic 

16 Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (e.g., coal, natural gas, 

17 or nuclear) (NRC 1996). The environmental impacts of coal-fired and natural-gas-fired plants 

18 are discussed in Section 9.2.2. Under the purchased power alternative, the environmental 

19 impacts of power production would still occur but would likely be located elsewhere within the 

20 Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC) region. However, the entire SERC region has 

21 been identified as a “Conditional Congestion Area” by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 

22 its 2006 (Aug) National Electric Transmission Congestion Study. This status means the 

23 movement of bulk power in the future has already been identified to be compromised unless the 

24 SERC region has a significant build-out of transmission capabilities in concert with the 

25 development of needed generation. 

26 The option to purchase power implies that there is adequate generating capacity available for 

27 firm sales and transmission into or within the service territory. Although additional capacity may 

28 be available to serve native load from merchant power plants or other similar generators, the 

29 capacity from these plants is not considered to be useful in supplying baseload capacity. This 

30 premise was confirmed by Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC) Order 2007-

31 626, which indicated that the risk to low-cost, reliable electricity increased in magnitude as 

32 mandatory Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were applied to peaking, intermediate, and baseload 

33 capacity requirements, and further concluded that testing the market via RFPs would only be 

34 mandatory for new peaking capacity needs (PSCSC 2007). In addition, under the Public Utility 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-4 April 2010

1 Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA 1978), the electric utilities offer the purchase of electrical energy 

2 from qualifying facilities. Due to the limited number of PURPA-qualifying facilities in the area, 

3 and the limited total available capacity from these facilities, they do not represent a long-term 

4 solution for additional baseload capacity in the SCE&G and Santee Cooper service territory. 

5 Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper are actively engaged in evaluating and negotiating firm 

6 power-purchase agreements for the time frame under consideration. Previous contracts have 

7 been established and are expected to fill intermediate and peaking duty cycles, and are not 

8 intended to be competitive with, or replace the need for, the additional baseload capacity. In the 

9 Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and 

10 Base Load Review Act proceedings, the PSCSC found that the capacity needs in the timeline 

11 under consideration would be most reliably and efficiently met through the addition of new 

12 baseload capacity to the system consistent with proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (PSCSC 

13 2009a). 

14 Based on the preceding discussion and information detailed in Section 8.3, the review team 

15 concludes that purchasing power is not a reasonable alternative to providing new additional 

16 baseload capacity commensurate with the proposed project. 

17 9.2.1.2 Extending the Service Life of Existing Plants or Reactivating Retired Plants 

18 Nuclear power facilities are initially licensed by the NRC for a period of 40 years. An operating 

19 license can be renewed for up to 20 years, and NRC regulations permit additional license 

20 renewals. SCE&G and Santee Cooper jointly own and operate the VCSNS Unit 1 plant located 

21 in Jenkinsville, South Carolina. VCSNS Unit 1’s license was renewed in April 2004, extending 

22 the operating license through 2042. The environmental impacts of continued operation of a 

23 nuclear power plant are significantly less than those of construction of a new plant. However, 

24 continued operation of an existing nuclear plant does not in and of itself provide additional 

25 generating capacity. 

26 Currently, SCE&G and Santee Cooper do not indicate in their energy forecasts or Integrated 

27 Resource Plans (IRPs) that they have any retired plants that would be suitable for reactivation, 

28 nor does SCE&G have firm plans for retiring any of its generating units. The review team 

29 concludes that extending the service life of existing plants or reactivating retired plants is 

30 incapable of providing additional baseload capacity commensurate with the proposed project. 

31 Therefore, extending the service life of existing plants or reactivating retired plants is not a 

32 reasonable alternative to the proposed project. 

33 9.2.1.3 Energy Conservation 

34 SCE&G offers conservation and DSM programs to its customers to reduce peak electricity 

35 demands and daily power consumption. As reviewed in Section 8.2.1, the PSCSC, through the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 CPCN and Base Load Review Act process, fully evaluated existing energy-efficiency and DSM 

2 (EE/DSM) programs and their impact on capacity requirements. Collectively, the programs 

3 were found to be effective in reducing peaking and intermediate generation capacity 

4 requirements, but were not found to eliminate the need for baseload generation capacity that 

5 the proposed project would provide. Current energy forecasts and load growth projections 

6 incorporate these programs, and have been reported as part of both the IRP forecasting 

7 process and the CPCN process. SCE&G provided a comprehensive evaluation of potential new 

8 DSM programs to the PSCSC for review and approval, although no ruling has been provided to 

9 date (PSCSC 2009b). The review team based its analysis on the approved EE/DSM programs 

10 currently implemented; while the proposed new EE/DSM programs would reduce demand, they 

11 would not reduce demand to the point where the expected power from the proposed project 

12 would not be needed. Further information regarding SCE&G’s EE/DSM programs can be found 

13 in Section 8.2. 

14 In its 2008 IRP, Santee Cooper provided EE/DSM program-specific information and a planning 

15 forecast reflective of its current offerings (Santee Cooper 2008). Santee Cooper maintains a 

16 working group formed in 2007 (Conservation and Renewable Energy Department) that is tasked 

17 with developing and implementing new EE/DSM programs, in addition to obtaining renewable 

18 resources to serve load. The proposed programs undergo a vetting process similar to the 

19 PSCSC process. Santee Cooper is showing consistent growth in these programs in its out-year 

20 energy forecasts, ranging from 8 to 12 percent annual growth or approximately 300 MW(e) total 

21 over the time period ending in 2017, and a total peak-energy-shaving capacity of approximately 

22 7 to 8 percent (Santee Cooper 2008). 

23 Collectively, the implemented EE/DSM programs have been an effective strategy for 

24 significantly reducing peak capacity requirements. However, as stated in Section 8.2, the 

25 review team concludes that energy conservation is not a viable substitute for the baseload 

26 capacity that SCE&G is seeking through the proposed project within the timeline of 

27 consideration. Therefore, EE/DSM programs are not a reasonable alternative to the proposed 

28 project. 

29 9.2.1.4 Conclusions 

30 Based on the preceding analysis, the review team concludes that the options of purchasing 

31 electric power from other suppliers, reactivating retired power plants, extending the operating 

32 life of existing power plants, and full implementation of EE/DSM programs are not reasonable 

33 alternatives to providing the baseload generation capacity necessary to meet the long-term 

34 requirements in the ROI. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-6 April 2010

1 9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity 

2 This section discusses the environmental impacts of energy alternatives to the proposed action 

3 that would require the applicants to build new generating capacity. In keeping with the NRC 

4 staff’s evaluation of alternatives to renewal of operating licenses, a reasonable set of energy 

5 alternatives to the construction and operation of one or more new nuclear units at the VCSNS 

6 site should be limited to analysis of discrete power-generation sources and those power7 generation technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 1996). 

8 The discussion in Section 9.2.2 is bounded by the individual power-generating alternatives that 

9 are considered reasonable and viable as baseload technologies. As described in Chapter 8.0, 

10 baseload designed power in the State of South Carolina is defined as being capable of 

11 operating at a capacity factor greater than 70 percent, and exceeding 350 MW(e) (SC Code 

12 Ann. 58-33-220). The current mix of power-generation options within the SERC is also an 

13 indicator of the feasible choices for power-generation technology; approximately 76 percent of 

14 the current fleet within the SERC region is fossil-fired generation (SERC 2009). 

15 Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the DOE, issues an 

16 annual energy outlook. In the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (DOE/EIA 2009), the EIA reference 

17 case projects that coal-fired capacity would account for approximately 18 percent of total electric 

18 generating capacity additions between 2006 and 2030. Coal-fired plants generally are used to 

19 meet baseload requirements. The EIA also projects that natural-gas-fired plants would account 

20 for approximately 53 percent of new capacity additions during this period. EIA projects that 

21 renewable energy sources would account for approximately 22 percent of new capacity 

22 additions during the period, and new nuclear plants would account for approximately 5 percent. 

23 The EIA projections include baseload, intermittent, and peaking units, and are based on the 

24 assumption that providers of new generating capacity would seek to minimize cost while 

25 meeting applicable environmental requirements (DOE/EIA 2009). 

26 The discussion in Section 9.2.2 is limited to the individual alternatives that appear to the review 

27 team to be viable baseload generation sources: coal-fired and natural-gas combined-cycle-fired 

28 generation. The impacts discussed in Section 9.2.2 are estimates based on present 

29 technology. Section 9.2.3 addresses alternative generation technologies that have 

30 demonstrated commercial acceptance but may be limited in application, total capacity, or 

31 technical feasibility when based on the need to supply reliable, baseload capacity. 

32 The review team assumed new generation capacity would be located at the VCSNS site for the 

33 coal-fired and natural-gas-fired alternatives. Either natural draft or mechanical draft cooling 

34 towers would be used for the coal-fired and natural-gas-fired alternatives. For the purpose of 

35 analysis, the electric power transmission lines from these alternatives were assumed to follow 

36 the same proposed corridors as the proposed baseload nuclear generating facility at the 

37 VCSNS site. These corridors would be developed consistent with the description provided in 

38 Section 3.3. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.2.2.1 Coal-Fired Power Generation 

2 For the coal-fired generation alternative, SCE&G assumed the operation of three pulverized 

3 coal-fired units, with a total net capacity of 2214 MW(e) at the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 The associated emissions were determined based on factors contained in the EPA 

5 Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (EPA 1998). The emission estimates are 

6 based on “as fired” and controlled conditions using both combustion and post-combustion 

7 technologies to reduce criteria pollutants. The new coal-fired generation is assumed to have an 

8 operating life of 40 years. 

9 The review team also considered integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal-fired 

10 plants as a baseload technology. IGCC is an emerging technology for generating electricity with 

11 coal that combines modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam turbine 

12 power generation. The technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized coal plants because 

13 major pollutants can be removed from the gas stream before combustion. The IGCC alternative 

14 also generates less solid waste than the pulverized coal-fired alternative. The largest solid 

15 waste stream produced by IGCC installations is slag, which is a black, glassy, sand-like material 

16 that is a potentially marketable byproduct. The other large-volume byproduct produced by 

17 IGCC plants is sulfur, which is extracted during the gasification process and can be marketed 

18 rather than placed in a landfill. IGCC units do not produce significant quantities of fly ash, and 

19 process wastes are often minimized through the use of water-reuse technologies, thereby 

20 reducing the total outflow. In spite of the preceding advantages, the review team concludes 

21 that, at present, IGCC is not a reasonable alternative to a 2000-MW(e) nuclear power22 generation facility for the following reasons: (1) IGCC plants are more expensive than 

23 comparable pulverized coal plants (NETL 2007), (2) existing IGCC plants have considerably 

24 smaller capacity than the proposed 2000-MW(e) nuclear plant, (3) the system reliability of 

25 existing IGCC plants has been lower than conventional pulverized coal plants, and (4) a lack of 

26 overall plant performance warranties for IGCC plants has hindered commercial financing 

27 (NPCC 2005, Appendix I). For these reasons, IGCC plants are not considered further in this 

28 EIS. 

29 The review team assumed that coal and limestone would be delivered to the site by train. 

30 SCE&G estimates that approximately 500 unit trains per year (each train consisting of 125 cars 

31 holding a 100 tons per car) would be needed to deliver coal and limestone to the coal-fired plant 

32 (SCE&G 2009a). 

33 Air Quality 

34 The impacts on air quality from coal-fired generation would vary considerably from those of 

35 nuclear generation because of emissions of SO2, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide (CO), 

36 particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants such as 

37 mercury and lead. SCE&G assumed a plant design that would minimize air emissions 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-8 April 2010

1 through a combination of boiler and combustion technology as well as post-combustion 

2 pollutant removal (SCE&G 2009a). 

3 Emissions from the coal-fired alternative such as SO2 (sulfur oxides), nitrogen oxides (including 

4 NO and NO2), CO, and PM would be as follows (SCE&G 2009a): 

5  SO2 = 7044 T/yr 

6  nitrogen oxides = 1495 T/yr 

7  CO = 1495 T/yr 

8  PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less) = 67 T/yr 

9  PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 2.5 microns or less) = 0.17 T/yr. 

10 Additionally, a coal-fired plant would have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions of 

11 approximately 16,500,000 T/yr that could contribute to global warming. 

12 Coal and limestone (calcium carbonate) for the coal-fired plant would be delivered to the site by 

13 train. SCE&G estimated that the coal-fired facility would consume approximately 6.0 million 

14 tons per year of pulverized bituminous coal with an ash content of approximately 10 percent. 

15 Slaked lime or limestone, used in the flue-gas scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide 

16 (SO2) emissions, is made into slurry and injected into the hot effluent combustion gases to 

17 remove SO2. The limestone-based scrubbing solution reacts with SO2 in the flue gas to form 

18 calcium sulfite or calcium sulfate, which precipitates and is removed from the process as sludge. 

19 SCE&G estimated that approximately 231,000 T/yr of limestone would be used for flue-gas 

20 desulfurization, generating approximately 275,000 T/yr of scrubber sludge that may be re-used 

21 in industries such as wall-board manufacturing (SCE&G 2009a). 

22 The acid rain requirements of the Clean Air Act capped the nation’s SO2 emissions from power 

23 plants. SCE&G would need to obtain sufficient pollution credits either from a set-aside pool or 

24 purchases on the open market to cover annual emissions from the plant. 

25 New coal-fired generation plants at the VCSNS site would likely need a Prevention of Significant 

26 Deterioration (PSD) Permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

27 1990. In addition, the plants would need to comply with new source performance standards 

28 (NSPSs) for such plants in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish emission 

29 limits for PM and opacity (40 CFR 60.42Da), SO2 (40 CFR 60.43Da), nitrogen oxides 

30 (40 CFR 60.44Da), and mercury (40 CFR 60.45Da). 

31 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

32 P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an area 

33 designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act 

34 (40 CFR 51.307(a)). Criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are lead, ozone, particulates, 

35 CO, NO2, and SO2. Ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are in 40 CFR Part 50. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The VCSNS site in Fairfield County, South Carolina, is currently in an area designated as in2 attainment for all requirements. 

3 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing 

4 future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when 

5 an impairment occurs because of air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, EPA 

6 regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a State, the 

7 State must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural 

8 visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility 

9 for the days on which visibility is most impaired over the period of the implementation plan and 

10 verify no degradation in visibility for the least visibility-impaired days over the same period 

11 (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). If a new coal-fired power-generation station were located close to a 

12 mandatory Class I area, additional air-pollution control requirements could be imposed. The 

13 Cape Romaine Wilderness is the only mandatory Class I Federal area within South Carolina. 

14 Several Class 1 Federal areas also are in neighboring North Carolina and Georgia. The closest 

15 area to the VCSNS site is the Cape Romaine Wilderness, which is approximately 130 mi to the 

16 southeast; remaining areas are farther than this distance, and no additional requirements would 

17 be expected based on proximity. 

18 The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using best 

19 management practices (BMPs), and such emissions would be temporary. The Generic 

20 Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for license renewal mentions global warming from 

21 unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxide 

22 emissions as a potential impact (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects, such as cancer 

23 and emphysema, have been associated with the byproducts of coal combustion. Overall, the 

24 review team concludes that air quality impacts from coal-fired generation at the VCSNS site 

25 would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air 

26 quality. 

27 Waste Management 

28 As the NRC has described in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and verified during its preparation of 

29 operating license renewal supplemental EIS analyses since the publication of that document, 

30 coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution 

31 generates additional solid wastes such as spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst, 

32 and flue-gas scrubber sludge. SCE&G estimated that the coal-fired plants would generate 

33 582,000 T/yr of ash. Significant quantities of the fly ash may be recycled for use in commodity 

34 products such as concrete, thereby limiting the total landfill volume. The coal plant would also 

35 generate flue-gas scrubber sludge in the form of gypsum, which could also be dewatered and 

36 recycled for use in wall-board manufacturing. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-10 April 2010

1 In May 2000, the EPA issued a Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

2 Combustion of Fossil Fuels. The EPA concluded that national regulation is warranted under 

3 Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) when 

4 coal combustion wastes are disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments, and that 

5 regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA (or modifications to existing regulations under the 

6 authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act) are warranted when the wastes 

7 are used to fill surface impoundments or underground mines (65 FR 32214). As of November 

8 2009, EPA is continuing to study the appropriate form for regulation of coal combustion waste 

9 products. 

10 Waste impacts on groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the 

11 plant if leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could 

12 noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality, but with appropriate management and 

13 monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and 

14 revegetation, the land could be available for other uses. Construction-related debris would be 

15 generated during plant construction activities, and would be disposed of in approved landfills. 

16 For the reasons stated above, the review team concludes that the impacts from waste 

17 generated at a coal-fired plant would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable 

18 but would not destabilize any important resources. 

19 Human Health 

20 Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker and 

21 public risk from coal and limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of coal22 combustion waste, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. In addition, the 

23 discharges of uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological 

24 doses in excess of those arising from nuclear power-plant operations (Gabbard 1993). 

25 The EPA and State agencies (65 FR 32214) base air emission standards and requirements on 

26 human health impacts. These agencies impose site-specific emission limits as needed to 

27 protect human health. Air emissions from a coal-fired power-generation plant located at the 

28 VCSNS site would be regulated by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

29 Control (SCDHEC). Given that the plant would have to comply with health-informed standards 

30 in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and other relevant air emissions regulations, the review team 

31 concludes that the human health impacts from the construction and operation of coal-fired 

32 generation at the VCSNS would be SMALL. 

33 Other Impacts 

34 Approximately 357 ac of land would need to be permanently converted to industrial use for the 

35 powerblock, infrastructure and support facilities, ash and solids disposal, and coal and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 limestone storage and handling (SCE&G 2009a). This is very close to the estimated 320 ac of 

2 permanent land dedication (approximately 500 ac when also accounting for temporary laydown 

3 areas) needed for a nuclear facility (see Section 4.1). The land required for new transmission4 line corridors would be similar to that reported in Section 4.1 for the transmission lines for the 

5 proposed nuclear facility. The land required for new transmission-line corridors would be similar 

6 to the proposed action. Land-use changes would affect the offsite coal-mining area that was 

7 supplying coal for the plant. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff estimated that approximately 

8 22,000 ac would be needed for coal mining and waste disposal to supply a 1000-MW(e) coal9 fire power plant over its operating life (NRC 1996), which would scale up to almost 49,000 ac for 

10 a 2214-MW(e) facility. This is almost five times the estimated 10,000 ac needed to supply fuel 

11 to the proposed nuclear plant. The nuclear estimate is based on an estimated need of 113 ac 

12 per year for a 1000-MW(e) nuclear plant, scaled to approximately 250 ac per year for a 

13 2214-MW(e) nuclear plant, multiplied by 40 years of operation. Commitment of 49,000 ac of 

14 land for coal mining would have a noticeable effect on the availability of land in most regions of 

15 the United States, but would not be expected to destabilize the availability of land in the typically 

16 rural locations used for mining. Based upon the amount of land affected, the review team 

17 concludes that land-use impacts would be MODERATE. 

18 The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a coal-fired plant at the 

19 VCSNS site would be comparable to the impacts associated with a new nuclear plant because 

20 both types of power plants rely on steam turbines to generate 100 percent of the power. 

21 Therefore, the review team assumes that the operation of coal-fired power plants located at the 

22 VCSNS site would be consistent with the proposed two-unit nuclear power plant. Plant 

23 discharges would consist mostly of cooling-tower blowdown, characterized primarily by an 

24 increased temperature and concentration of dissolved solids relative to the receiving waterbody 

25 and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g., chlorine). Treated process waste streams 

26 and sanitary wastewater may also be discharged. All discharges would be regulated by the 

27 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) through a National Pollution 

28 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Indirectly, water quality could be affected by 

29 acids and mercury from air emissions. The water would be consumed because of evaporation 

30 from the cooling towers. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that some erosion and 

31 sedimentation would likely occur during construction of new facilities (NRC 1996). Overall, the 

32 review team concludes that the water-use and water-quality impacts would be SMALL. 

33 The coal-fired generation alternative would introduce ecological impacts from building and new 

34 incremental impacts from operations. The impacts could include wildlife habitat loss and 

35 fragmentation, reduced species productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity. The 

36 impacts could occur at the proposed site and at the sites used for coal and limestone mining. 

37 Extraction of makeup water for cooling could have adverse impacts on aquatic resources. 

38 Cooling-tower drift would have minimal impacts on terrestrial ecology. Storage and disposal of 

39 fly ash could affect the aquatic environment. The impacts on threatened and endangered 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-12 April 2010

1 species at the VCSNS site would be similar to the impacts from a new nuclear facility. Overall, 

2 the review team concludes that impacts on terrestrial ecology would likely be MODERATE 

3 primarily because of the potential impacts associated with the disposal of ash and the large land 

4 area affected by mining. The review team further concludes that the impacts on aquatic ecology 

5 would likely be SMALL and similar to the proposed action. 

6 Adverse socioeconomic impacts would result from the average number of construction workers 

7 and the peak workforce of approximately 2000. However, socioeconomic impacts would be 

8 SMALL and consistent with the proposed project with the exception of the likely MODERATE 

9 impacts localized to the vicinity of the VCSNS due to traffic- and transportation-related issues. 

10 The plant would pay significant property taxes to Fairfield County, South Carolina and the 

11 review team concludes that these taxes would have a LARGE and beneficial impact on the 

12 county. Other socioeconomic impacts related to building and operation would be SMALL. 

13 The coal-fired units would have emissions stacks that might be as much as 200 ft tall and would 

14 be visible offsite during daylight hours. The stacks and associated emissions would likely be 

15 visible in daylight hours for distances greater than 40 mi. Cooling towers and associated 

16 plumes also would have aesthetic impacts. Natural draft towers could be up to 600 ft high. The 

17 powerblock units and associated stacks and cooling towers would also be visible at night 

18 because of outside lighting. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally requires that 

19 all structures exceeding an overall height of 200 ft above ground level have markings and/or 

20 lighting so as not to impair aviation safety (FAA 2007). A mitigating factor is that the VCSNS 

21 site is currently a developed site located in a predominantly rural area. However, the site is 

22 near the towns of Jenkinsville and Pomaria, South Carolina, with several towns such as 

23 Newberry, Chapin, and Winnsboro located within 15 mi. The visual impacts of a new coal-fired 

24 plant could be further mitigated by landscaping and selection of building colors that are 

25 consistent with the environment. Visual impacts at night could be mitigated by reduced use of 

26 lighting, provided the lighting meets FAA requirements, and appropriate use of shielding. 

27 Transmission lines would have a larger aesthetic impact, but would be consistent with the 

28 proposed project. Overall, the review team concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated 

29 with new coal-fired power generation at the VCSNS site and around the transmission lines 

30 would be SMALL because of the amount of cover around the VCSNS site and along likely 

31 transmission-line corridors. Coal-fired power generation would introduce mechanical sources of 

32 noise that would be audible offsite. Sources contributing to the noise produced by plant 

33 operation are classified as continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the 

34 mechanical equipment associated with normal plant operations and mechanical draft cooling 

35 towers. Intermittent sources include the equipment related to coal handling, solid-waste 

36 disposal, transportation related to coal and lime/limestone delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, 

37 and the commuting of plant employees. Noise levels from onsite building activities would be 

38 attenuated by distance and obstacles such as buildings, vegetation, and topography. Because 

39 the site is surrounded by forests and moderate topography, the review team concludes that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 noise emanating from the project site would be somewhat muffled to surrounding communities 

2 and the associated impact would not be significant. It is expected that noise levels experienced 

3 by sensitive noise receptors outside of the exclusion area boundary would rapidly attenuate to 

4 below 50 dBA (SCE&G 2009a). Noise impacts associated with railroad delivery of coal and 

5 lime/limestone would be most significant for residents living in close proximity to the facility and 

6 along the railroad route. While there is frequent train transport, and many people are likely to be 

7 within hearing distance of the rail line, the short duration of the noise reduces the impact. 

8 Therefore, the impact of noise on residents in close proximity to the facility and of the rail line 

9 are considered SMALL. 

10 Historic and cultural resources impacts of locating a new coal-fired plant at the VCSNS site 

11 would be similar to the impacts of locating a new nuclear plant at the VCSNS site, as discussed 

12 in Sections 4.6 and 5.6. A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite 

13 property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands that are acquired to support the 

14 plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording 

15 of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect 

16 from ground-disturbing actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential 

17 disturbance at the plant site, any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste-disposal 

18 sites, and along associated corridors where new construction would occur, for example, roads 

19 and new transmission-line corridors. The review team concludes that the historic and cultural 

20 resource impacts at the VCSNS site would be MODERATE and consistent with the proposed 

21 project. 

22 As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5, at the VCSNS site there are no environmental pathways 

23 by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to 

24 suffer disproportionate and adverse environmental impacts, with the exception of traffic-related 

25 adverse and disproportionate impacts on minority populations in the Jenkinsville area. 

26 Mitigation of the traffic-related impacts, such as a traffic-management plan, are discussed in 

27 Section 4.5. However, the review team finds that because the traffic-related impacts would be 

28 temporary and of short duration in nature, they would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the 

29 Jenkinsville community. Therefore, the review team concludes that the environmental justice 

30 impacts from building activities related to traffic would be MODERATE. Similar traffic-related 

31 impacts would occur during the building of a coal plant at the VCSNS site. Therefore, the 

32 review team concludes that the adverse impacts of building a coal-fired plant at the VCSNS site 

33 would be SMALL with the exception of the impact due to traffic which would be MODERATE. 

34 Other building and operation impacts would be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would not 

35 be detectable or they would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter 

36 any known attribute of the resource. Due to the minor nature of these impacts, mitigation 

37 beyond that discussed would not be warranted. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-14 April 2010

1 The building and operation impacts of coal-fired power generation at the VCSNS site are 

2 summarized in Table 9-1. 

3 Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation – 2214 MW(e) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE Uses approximately 357 ac for powerblock; coal handling, storage, 

and transportation facilities; infrastructure facilities; waste disposal; 

and cooling-water facilities. An additional 49,000 ac of land would 

be used for mining activities over 40 years. Impacts would also be 

associated with transmission-line corridors. 

Air Quality MODERATE SO2 – 7044 T/yr 

Nitrogen oxides – 1495 T/yr 

CO – 1495 T/yr 

PM10 – 67 T/yr 

PM2.5 – 0.17 T/yr 

Small amounts of hazardous air pollutants 

Water Use and 

Quality 

SMALL Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear 

power units located at the VCSNS site. 

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Uses the undeveloped area of the existing VCSNS site. Potential 

habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced productivity and biological 

diversity, and impacts on terrestrial ecology from cooling-tower 

drift. Additional impacts are associated with the building and 

expansion of transmission-line corridors and mining 

Waste 

Management 

MODERATE Total waste volume of combustion wastes including fly ash and 

flue gas scrubber sludge would exceed 1 million tons per year. 

Historic and 

Cultural Resources 

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site. 

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight are assumed to be protective of 

human health. 

Socioeconomic LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site. Large beneficial impacts derived from 

tax revenues. Moderate adverse due to localized traffic impacts. 

Environmental 

Justice 

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site. There are no environmental pathways 

by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 

50-mi region would be likely to suffer disproportionate and adverse 

environmental or health impacts with the exception of traffic-related 

impacts within the vicinity of the VCSNS. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.2.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation 

2 For the natural gas alternative, SCE&G assumed operation of three natural-gas-fired plants with 

3 a closed-cycle cooling system and cooling towers located at the VCSNS site with a capacity of 

4 2214 MW(e) (SCE&G 2009a). The associated emissions were determined based on factors 

5 contained in the EPA Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (EPA 2000). The 

6 review team also assumed the construction and operation of transmission lines, as discussed in 

7 Section 3.3 of this EIS. 

8 Air Quality 

9 Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. When compared with a coal-fired plant, natural10 gas-fired plants release similar types of emissions such as nitrogen oxides, but in significantly 

11 lower quantities. Emission estimates are based on “as fired” and controlled conditions. A new 

12 natural-gas-fired power-generation plant would require a PSD Permit and a state-specific 

13 operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle plant would 

14 also be subject to the NSPSs specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Da and GG. These 

15 regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and nitrogen oxides. 

16 The EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, 

17 Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in 

18 areas designated as in attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. As previously 

19 discussed, the VCSNS site is in an area designated as in attainment or unclassified for criteria 

20 pollutants (40 CFR 81.311). 

21 Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7491) establishes a national goal of preventing 

22 future impairment of visibility and remedying existing impairment in mandatory Class I Federal 

23 areas when impairment is from air pollution caused by human activities. In addition, EPA 

24 regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, State 

25 regulatory agencies must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving 

26 natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in 

27 visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no 

28 degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)). 

29 If a new natural-gas-fired power plant were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional 

30 air-pollution control requirements could be imposed. As discussed previously, there are no 

31 mandatory Class I Federal areas within 130 mi of the VCSNS site. 

32 Emissions from a natural-gas-fired plant equipped with appropriate combustion and post33 combustion pollution-control technology would have approximately the following emissions 

34 (SCE&G 2009a): 

35  SO2 – 34 T/yr 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-16 April 2010

1  nitrogen oxides – 558 T/yr 

2  CO – 116 T/yr 

3  PM10 – 97 T/yr 

4  PM2.5 – 97 T/yr. 

5 A natural-gas-fired power plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions of 

6 approximately 5,630,000 T/yr. 

7 The fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be mitigated using BMPs, and 

8 such emissions would be temporary. Other construction and operation impacts, such as the 

9 development and use of material laydown areas and parking, would be minor. 

10 The impacts of emissions from a natural-gas-fired power-generation plant would be clearly 

11 noticeable, but would not be sufficient to destabilize air resources. Overall, the review team 

12 concludes that air quality impacts resulting from construction and operation of new natural-gas13 fired power generation at the VCSNS site would be SMALL to MODERATE. 

14 Waste Management 

15 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff concluded that waste generation from natural-gas-fired 

16 technology would be minimal (NRC 1996). The only significant waste generated at a natural17 gas-fired power plant would be spent SCR catalyst, which is used to control nitrogen oxide 

18 emissions. The spent catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. Other than spent 

19 SCR catalyst, waste generation at an operating natural-gas-fired plant would be largely limited 

20 to typical operations and maintenance waste. Minor construction-related debris would be 

21 generated during construction activities. Overall, the review team concludes that the waste 

22 impacts from natural-gas-fired power generation would be SMALL. 

23 Human Health 

24 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks from 

25 natural-gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risks may be attributable to nitrogen oxide emissions 

26 that contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contributes to health risk. Air emissions from a 

27 natural-gas-fired power-generation plant located at the VCSNS site would be regulated by the 

28 SCDHEC. The human health effects are expected to be either undetectable or minor. Overall, 

29 the review team concludes that the impacts on human health from natural-gas-fired power 

30 generation would be SMALL. 

31 Other Impacts 

32 The natural-gas-fired generating plant would require approximately 87 ac for the powerblock 

33 and support facilities (for 2214 MW(e)). Construction of a natural-gas pipeline from the VCSNS 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 site to the closest natural-gas distribution line would require approximately 318 ac. Thus, the 

2 total land-use commitment would be approximately 405 ac (SCE&G 2009a). This is very close 

3 to the estimated 320 ac of permanent land dedication (approximately 500 ac when also 

4 accounting for temporary laydown areas) needed for a nuclear facility (see Section 4.1). 

5 For a new natural-gas-fired power plant, additional land may be required for natural-gas wells 

6 and collection stations. The additional land required is expected to be less than the 10,000 ac 

7 needed to support fuel cycle activities over a 40-year operational life of a nuclear plant. Due to 

8 the proximity of the VCSNS site to existing natural-gas infrastructure, minimal pipeline(s) would 

9 have to be constructed, and pipeline distances would be minimized. The land required for new 

10 transmission-line corridors would be similar to that reported in Section 4.1 for the transmission 

11 lines for the proposed nuclear facility. The impacts of new transmission-line corridors would 

12 have a noticeable but not destabilizing impact along the corridors, consistent with the impacts 

13 for building and operating two new nuclear units at the VCSNS site. Therefore, the review team 

14 concludes that the land-use impacts from new natural-gas-fired power generation at the VCSNS 

15 would be MODERATE. The impacts on water use and quality from constructing and operating a 

16 natural-gas-fired combined-cycle power plant at the VCSNS site would be similar to or less than 

17 the impacts associated with constructing and operating a new nuclear facility. Closed-cycle 

18 cooling with cooling towers is assumed. The impacts on water quality from sedimentation 

19 during construction of a natural-gas-fired plant were characterized in NUREG-1437 as SMALL 

20 (NRC 1996). NRC staff also noted in NUREG-1437 that the impacts on water quality from 

21 operations would be similar to, or less than, the impacts from other generating technologies. 

22 Overall, the review team concludes that impacts on water use and quality would be SMALL. 

23 Siting of the natural-gas-fired plant would have ecological impacts. Some of the impact would 

24 occur in areas that were previously disturbed during construction of VCSNS Unit 1. 

25 Constructing a new underground gas pipeline to the site would cause temporary ecological 

26 impacts. Ecological impacts on the plant site and utility easements would not affect threatened 

27 and endangered species, although some wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced 

28 productivity, and a local reduction in biological diversity related to the expansion of 

29 transmission-line corridors would be likely. Withdrawal and discharge of makeup water for the 

30 cooling system could affect aquatic resources, and elevated total dissolved solids in cooling31 tower drift could affect the terrestrial ecology. The review team concludes that impacts on 

32 terrestrial ecology would likely be MODERATE due to the impacts of the transmission-line 

33 corridors. The review team concludes that the impacts on aquatic ecology would likely be 

34 SMALL, similar to the proposed project, as described in Chapters 4 and 5. 

35 Adverse socioeconomic impacts would result from the demands on housing and public services 

36 during construction, and the approximately 50 workers needed to operate the natural-gas-fired 

37 facility. Overall, the staff concludes that these impacts would be SMALL because of the 

38 proximity of the site to the surrounding population area and the relatively small number of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-18 April 2010

1 workers needed to construct and operate the plant in comparison to nuclear and coal-fired 

2 generation alternatives would cause the impacts to be minor. A review of workforce 

3 requirements for combined-cycle power plant construction suggests an average workforce of 

4 approximately 240 workers for a 550-MW(e) plant, with a peak of 350 workers (Palomar Energy 

5 2003). For the proposed project this would suggest an average peak workforce of 

6 approximately 1000 workers, or half of the suggested peak workforce for coal and nuclear plant 

7 construction. The plant would pay property taxes to Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

8 review team concludes that the taxes would have a MODERATE and beneficial impact on the 

9 county, based on the smaller number of total workers required during construction and 

10 operation. 

11 The heat-recovery steam generators, exhaust stacks (approximately 200 ft tall) and associated 

12 emissions, cooling towers and associated plumes from the cooling towers, and the gas pipeline 

13 compressors would be visible offsite during daylight hours. Noise and light from the plant would 

14 be detectable offsite. A mitigating factor is that the VCSNS site is currently a developed site 

15 located in a predominantly rural area. Transmission lines would have a larger aesthetic impact, 

16 but would be consistent with the proposed project. Overall, the review team concludes that the 

17 aesthetic impacts associated with new natural-gas-fired power generation at the VCSNS site 

18 and around the transmission lines would be SMALL, similar to the proposed project. Other 

19 construction and operation impacts would also be SMALL. In most cases, the impacts would 

20 not be detectable or they would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably 

21 alter any known attribute of the resource. 

22 As discussed in Sections 4.5 and 5.5, at the VCSNS site there are no environmental pathways 

23 by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region would be likely to 

24 suffer disproportionate and adverse environmental with the exception of traffic-related adverse 

25 and disproportionate impacts on minority populations in the Jenkinsville area. However, the 

26 review team believes that because the traffic-related impacts are temporary and of short 

27 duration in nature, they would be noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. 

28 Therefore, the review team concludes that the environmental justice impacts from building 

29 activities related to traffic would be MODERATE. Similar traffic-related impacts would occur 

30 during the construction of a nuclear plant at the VCSNS site. Therefore, the review team 

31 concludes that the adverse impacts of building a gas-fired plant at the VCSNS site would be 

32 minor with the exception of the impact due to traffic, which would be MODERATE. 

33 Historic and cultural resources impacts for a new natural-gas fired plant located at the VCSNS 

34 site would be similar to the impacts for a new nuclear plant as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 

35 5.6. A cultural resources inventory would likely be needed for any onsite property that has not 

36 been previously surveyed. Other lands that are acquired to support the plant would also likely 

37 need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification and recording of existing historic and 

38 archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of the adverse effect from ground-disturbing 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 actions. The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the plant 

2 site, any offsite affected areas, such as mining and waste-disposal sites, and along associated 

3 corridors where new construction would occur; for example, roads and new transmission-line 

4 corridors. The review team concludes that the historic and cultural resource impacts at the 

5 VCSNS would be MODERATE and consistent with the proposed project. 

6 The impacts of natural-gas-fired power generation at the VCSNS site are summarized in 

7 Table 9-2. 

8 9.2.3 Other Alternatives 

9 This section discusses other energy alternatives, the review team’s conclusions about the 

10 feasibility of each alternative, and the review team’s basis for its conclusions. New nuclear units 

11 at the proposed site would provide baseload generation. Any feasible alternative to the new 

12 units would need to be capable of generating baseload power with high availability and capacity 

13 factors. In performing its initial evaluation in its Environmental Report (ER), SCE&G relied 

14 heavily on NUREG-1437, the NRC’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

15 Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC 1996). The review team reviewed the information submitted 

16 by SCE&G, conducted an independent review, and finds that SCE&G’s conclusion that these 

17 generation options are not reasonable alternatives to one or more new nuclear units is 

18 acceptable. 

19 The review team has not assigned significance levels to the environmental impacts associated 

20 with the alternatives discussed in this section because, in general, the generation alternatives 

21 would have to be installed at a location other than the proposed site. Any attempt to assign 

22 significance levels would require the review team’s speculation about the unknown site. 

23 9.2.3.1 Oil-Fired Power Generation 

24 The EIA’s reference case projects that oil-fired power plants would not account for any new 

25 electric power-generation capacity in the United States through the year 2030 (DOE/EIA 2009), 

26 although oil-firing in combustion turbines is often used to supplement natural-gas feed stock. 

27 Oil-fired generation is more expensive than nuclear, natural-gas-fired, or coal-fired generation 

28 options, and currently makes up only 1 percent of the existing capacity within the SERC region 

29 (SERC 2009). In addition, fluctuations in future oil prices are expected to make oil-fired 

30 generation increasingly more expensive. The high cost of oil has resulted in a decline in its use 

31 for electricity generation. In Section 8.3.11 of NUREG-1437, the staff estimated that 

32 construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 120 ac of land (NRC 1996). 

33 Operation of an oil-fired power plant would have environmental impacts that would be similar to 

34 those of a comparably sized coal-fired plant (NRC 1996). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-20 April 2010

1 Table 9-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE Approximately 230 ac would be needed for powerblock, 

cooling towers and support systems, and connection to a 

natural-gas pipeline. Additional land needed for gas 

pipelines, transmission-line corridors, and infrastructure 

would be required. 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SO2 – 34 T/yr 

Nitrogen oxides – 558 T/yr 

CO – 116 T/yr 

PM10 – 97 T/yr 

PM2.5 – 97 T/yr 

Water Use and 

Quality 

SMALL Impacts would be similar to or less than the impacts for a 

new nuclear power plant located at the site. 

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Uses the undeveloped area of the existing VCSNS site. 

Potential habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced 

productivity and biological diversity, and impacts on 

terrestrial ecology from cooling-tower drift. Additional 

impacts are associated with the construction and expansion 

of transmission-line corridors. 

Waste Management SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst 

used for control of nitrogen oxide emissions. 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

SMALL 

Adverse 

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively 

small compared to nuclear and coal plants. Addition to the 

property tax base, while smaller than for a nuclear or coalfired plant, would still be noticeable. Construction-related 

impacts would be noticeable but minimized due to the 

smaller peak workforce. Operations-related impacts would 

be minor because of the small workforce involved. The 

plant and new transmission line would have aesthetic 

impacts. 

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of 

human health. 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new 

nuclear units located at the VCSNS site. 

Environmental Justice MODERATE There are no environmental pathways that would lead to 

disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and lowincome populations with the exception of traffic-related 

impacts within the vicinity of the VCSNS. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 For the preceding economic and environmental reasons, the review team concludes that an oil2 fired power plant at or in the vicinity of the proposed VCSNS site would not be a reasonable 

3 alternative to construction of a 2214-MW(e) nuclear power-generation facility . 

4 9.2.3.2 Wind Power 

5 The VCSNS site is in a wind power Class 1 region with average wind speed lower than 5.6 m/s 

6 (DOE 2009c). Class 1 regions have the lowest potential for generation of wind energy and are 

7 considered unsuitable for the development of wind energy (DOE 2008a); however, the eastern 

8 coastal region of South Carolina is recognized as being capable of supporting intermittent utility9 scale wind generation (DOE 2009c). 

10 Newer wind turbines typically operate at approximately a 36-percent capacity factor 

11 (DOE 2009c), compared with 90 percent for a baseload plant such as a nuclear power station 

12 (NEI 2007). The largest operating wind farm has a more than 700-MW generating capacity 

13 (AWEA 2008a); however, the capacities of most installations or wind farms are under 200 MW. 

14 A utility-scale wind-generation plant would generally require about 60 ac/MW(e) of installed 

15 capacity, although much of this land could be used for other purposes (AWEA 2008b). Modern 

16 wind turbine designs are approaching 5 MW(e); however, it is likely that well over 800 

17 commonly deployed wind turbines would be required to produce the 2214 MW(e) of the 

18 proposed nuclear units. Because of the inherent variability of wind as a resource, the capacity 

19 from wind turbines may supply baseload power when or if coupled with energy-storage 

20 mechanisms or additional resources such as hydropower (NPCC 2005). This requires both the 

21 wind resource and the storage mechanism to be within reasonable proximity of each other, and 

22 of commensurate power output when used singly or in combination. 

23 The coastal geographies containing adequate wind resources might support on-shore and off24 shore-based wind turbines, both of which have considerable environmental and aesthetic 

25 challenges (SCE&G 2009a). Santee Cooper is actively pursuing the development of wind26 generation resources as part of its renewable energy resource portfolio, including partnerships 

27 with the DOE, South Carolina Energy Office, and several universities. Although the utility has 

28 made no purchased-power commitments, Santee Cooper continues to investigate wind 

29 resources on coastal South Carolina, and remains engaged with the development of this 

30 potential resource (Santee Cooper 2008). 

31 However, wind power is not capable of supplying baseload capacity of 2214 MW(e) due to the 

32 inherent variability of wind as a resource. Therefore, the review team concludes that a wind33 energy facility would not be a reasonable alternative to the proposed project. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-22 April 2010

1 9.2.3.3 Solar Power 

2 Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light, hot 

3 water, and electricity for consumers. Solar-power technologies (both photovoltaic [PV] and 

4 solar-thermal) cannot currently compete with conventional nuclear and fossil-fueled 

5 technologies in grid-connected, utility-scale applications because of solar power’s lower 

6 capacity factors and higher capital cost per kilowatt of capacity. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff 

7 determined that the average capacity factor of PV cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity 

8 factor for solar thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996). As reviewed in 

9 Section 8.3.2, Santee Cooper is actively pursuing opportunities in solar power development as 

10 part of its committed expansion in renewable energy resources. 

11 Because solar power cannot supply baseload power, the review team concludes that solar12 power technologies would not be a reasonable alternative to proposed project. 

13 9.2.3.4 Hydropower 

14 South Carolina has an estimated 480 MW(e) of developable hydroelectric resources (Conner 

15 and Francfort 1997). As stated in Section 8.3.4 of NUREG-1437 for license renewal (NRC 

16 1996), the percentage of U.S. generating capacity supplied by hydropower is expected to 

17 decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site as a result of public 

18 concerns about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of natural river courses. 

19 Most recently the EIA, in its Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (DOE/EIA 2008), references expected 

20 stable electricity production only from existing hydropower resources through 2030. In 

21 NUREG-1437, the staff estimated that land requirements for hydroelectric power are 

22 approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MW(e) (NRC 1996). 

23 Because there is an insufficient amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in South Carolina 

24 the review team concludes that hydropower is not a feasible alternative to the proposed project. 

25 9.2.3.5 Geothermal Energy 

26 Geothermal energy has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and can be used for baseload 

27 power where available. However, geothermal technology is not widely used as baseload power 

28 generation because of the limited geographic availability of the resource (NRC 1996). 

29 Geothermal plants are most likely to be sited in the western continental United States, Alaska, 

30 and Hawaii, where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent (DOE 2006). South Carolina does not 

31 have sufficient high-temperature geothermal resources that are suitable for electricity generation 

32 (DOE 2008e). 

33 Therefore, the review team concludes that a geothermal energy facility at or in the vicinity of the 

34 proposed VCSNS site would not be a reasonable alternative to the proposed project. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.2.3.6 Wood Waste 

2 In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff determined that a wood-burning facility can provide baseload 

3 power and operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 

4 20 to 25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). SCE&G currently receives approximately 1 percent of 

5 its total energy from woody-biomass-fired facilities (SCE&G 2009b). 

6 The fuels required are variable and site-specific. Wood-based biomass resources in South 

7 Carolina are significant, with an estimated 22 million tons of the resource available each year 

8 (SCE&G 2009a). However, significant impediments to the use of wood waste for the generation 

9 of electricity are the high cost of fuel delivery in addition to the quantity of acceptable fuel 

10 necessary. The larger wood-waste power plants are 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in 

11 NUREG-1437 suggest that the overall level of construction impacts per megawatt of installed 

12 capacity would be approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using 

13 wood waste for fuel would be built at a significantly smaller scale (NRC 1996). Similar to coal14 fired plants, wood-waste plants require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve 

15 similar types of combustion and combustion control equipment. 

16 Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a 

17 baseload power plant, and the small total generating capacity per unit, the review team 

18 concludes that wood-waste-fired generating capacity would not be a reasonable alternative to 

19 the proposed project. 

20 9.2.3.7 Municipal Solid Waste 

21 Municipal solid-waste facilities incinerate waste and use the resultant heat to produce steam, 

22 hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to 

23 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2009d). Municipal waste 

24 combustion facilities use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse25 derived fuel (DOE/EIA 2001). Mass-burning technologies are most commonly used in the 

26 United States. This group of technologies processes raw municipal solid waste “as is,” with little 

27 or no sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. In NUREG-1437, the NRC staff 

28 determined that the initial capital cost for municipal solid-waste plants is greater than for 

29 comparable steam-turbine technology at wood-waste facilities because of the need for 

30 specialized waste-separation and waste-handling equipment for municipal solid waste 

31 (NRC 1996). There are 89 waste-to-energy plants that are operating in the United States, with 

32 an average of approximately 30 MW(e) per plant (IWSA 2008). 

33 One additional generating resource that uses municipal solid waste as a fuel derivative is the 

34 capture and combustion of landfill-based gas (LFG). Santee Cooper currently produces 

35 13 MW(e) from LFG, with plans to double that capacity by the end of 2010 (Santee Cooper 

36 2008). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-24 April 2010

1 Given the limited capacity of the plants and limited supply of LFG, the review team concludes 

2 that generating electricity from municipal solid waste or LFG is not be a reasonable alternative 

3 to the proposed project. 

4 9.2.3.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels 

5 In addition to wood and municipal solid-waste fuel, several other biomass-derived fuels are 

6 available for fueling electric generators. These include but are not limited to animal-derived 

7 wastes, crop-based biomass, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as ethanol, and gasifying 

8 crops (including wood waste). However, in NUREG-1437, the NRC determined that none of 

9 these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being 

10 reliable enough to replace a large baseload generating plant (NRC 1996). 

11 The EIA estimates that biomass will be the largest source of renewable electricity generation 

12 among the nonhydropower renewable fuels through 2030 and that significant growth in 

13 dedicated biomass power-generation capacity is expected in regions with stringent Renewable 

14 Energy Portfolio Standards requirements and limited supplies of lower-cost resources such as 

15 wind (DOE/EIA 2008). As reviewed in Section 9.2.3.6, biomass resources are available in 

16 South Carolina in the form of woody residues, and they are expected to contribute to the overall 

17 production of energy and fuels in the future (South Carolina Energy Office 2007). Furthermore, 

18 South Carolina has created a biomass council through its South Carolina Energy Office to 

19 capitalize on increasing energy diversity and enhancing environmental quality for South 

20 Carolina (South Carolina Energy Office 2007). 

21 Co-firing biomass with coal is possible when low-cost biomass resources are available. 

22 Co-firing is the most economic option for the near future to introduce new biomass power 

23 generation. These projects require small capital investments per unit of power-generation 

24 capacity. Co-firing systems range in size from 1 to 30 MW(e) of bio-power capacity (DOE 

25 2008d). 

26 Construction of a biomass-fired plant would have an environmental impact that would be similar 

27 to that of a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste and agricultural residues for fuel 

28 would be built on significantly smaller scales. Like coal-fired plants, biomass-fired plants require 

29 areas for fuel storage, processing, and waste (i.e., ash) disposal. In addition, operation of 

30 biomass-fired plants has environmental impacts, including potential impacts on the aquatic 

31 environment and air. 

32 Given the limited capacity of the plants, the review team concludes that biomass-derived, or 

33 biomass co-fired fuels used singly or in combination with other fossil fuels do not offer a 

34 reasonable alternative to the proposed project. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.2.3.9 Fuel Cells 

2 Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is 

3 produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode, 

4 and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts are heat, water, and carbon 

5 dioxide. Hydrogen is typically derived from hydrocarbon-based fuels, such as natural gas, by 

6 subjecting them to steam reforming or partial oxidation, through gasification of coal or biomass, 

7 or through the electrolysis of water. 

8 Phosphoric-acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. During the past 

9 three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical and affordable fuel 

10 cell designs for stationary power applications and the first-generation technologies have given 

11 way to membrane and solid-oxide-based fuel cells operating consistently at above 50-percent 

12 electrical efficiency (DOE 2008b). High-temperature, second-generation fuel cells have 

13 achieved increased fuel-to-electricity and thermal efficiencies, giving second-generation fuel-cell 

14 systems the ability to generate steam for cogeneration such as in distributed generation type 

15 combined heat and power applications. 

16 Research in both stationary and transportation-based fuel cells is intended to provide continuing 

17 improvements of both materials and components as they relate to system cost and durability. 

18 Currently, the cost of fuel-cell power systems must be reduced before they can be competitive 

19 with conventional technologies (DOE 2008c). At the present time, fuel cells are not 

20 economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity 

21 generation (NUREG-1437, Supplement 34). Because fuel cells have not been developed to the 

22 point where they are capable of supplying power consistent with the proposed projects purpose 

23 and need equal to 2214 MW(e), the review team concludes that fuel-cell-based electricity 

24 generation does not offer a reasonable alternative to the proposed project. 

25 9.2.4 Combinations of Alternatives 

26 Individual alternatives to the construction of one or more new nuclear units at the proposed site 

27 might not be sufficient on their own to generate SCE&G’s target value of 2214 MW(e) of 

28 baseload capacity because of the small size of the resource, lack of cost-effective opportunities, 

29 or inability to generate baseload capacity. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that a combination of 

30 alternatives might be capable of meeting both the baseload and capacity targets of proposed 

31 VCSNS Units 2 and 3. There are many possible combinations of alternatives. It would not be 

32 reasonable to examine every possible combination of energy alternatives in an EIS. Doing so 

33 would be counter to CEQ’s direction that an EIS should be analytic rather than encyclopedic, 

34 shall be kept concise, and shall be no longer than absolutely necessary to comply with NEPA 

35 and CEQ’s regulations (40 CFR 1502.2(a), (c)). Given that the stated objective is for a 

36 baseload power generation facility, a fossil energy source, most likely coal or natural gas, would 

37 need to be a significant contributor to any reasonable alternative energy combination. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-26 April 2010

1 When examining the potential alternatives or combinations of alternatives, SCE&G indicated 

2 that the total generating capacity must be commensurate with the proposed 2214-MW(e) 

3 project. The selection of a combination of alternatives follows a reasonable set of capabilities 

4 determined to be within the proposed region, and supported by review and analysis of the 

5 programmatic goals of the applicant, technical maturity, and economics. Section 9.2.2.2 

6 assumes the construction of a 2214-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle generating unit at 

7 the proposed site using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. For a combined-alternatives 

8 option, the review team assessed the environmental impacts of an assumed combination of 

9 three 600-MW(e) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle generating units at the proposed site using 

10 closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers, for a total of 1800 MW(e); 175 MW(e)from renewable 

11 energy resources such as biomass, solar, wind, and LFG; and 240 MW(e) from conservation 

12 and DSM programs for a total of 2215 MW(e). Based on the information presented in the 

13 preceding sections of this chapter, the review team believes that these contributions are 

14 reasonable and representative. 

15 Natural-gas-fired generation was selected based on its lower environmental impact than a 

16 comparatively sized coal-fired unit(s). This type of power generation is capable of the load17 following characteristics necessary when deployed in conjunction with renewable energy 

18 sources; this capability enables power production to continue when the renewable energy 

19 resource is unavailable. To review the potential impacts from a combination of alternatives, a 

20 reduction in environmental impacts can only be considered when the power generation from the 

21 fossil-fired facility is displaced by the renewable resource. The analysis assumes that the 

22 availability of the alternatives in any combination is similar to what would be required of the 

23 proposed project. 

24 A summary of the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of this 

25 combination of alternatives is provided in Table 9-3. The combination of alternatives assumes 

26 siting of natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle units at the proposed site and siting of other 

27 generating units such as those using renewable resources in the general vicinity (within 100 mi) 

28 of the site. Similar to the proposed project, closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling 

29 towers is assumed for all thermal plants. 

30 9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

31 Table 9-4 contains a summary of the review team’s environmental impact characterizations for 

32 constructing and operating new nuclear, coal-fired, and natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle 

33 generating units at the proposed site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE A natural-gas-fired plant would have land-use impacts for the 

powerblock, new transmission-line corridor, cooling towers and 

support systems, and connection to a natural-gas pipeline. Solar 

and biomass facilities and associated transmission lines may also 

have significant land-use impacts as previously discussed. 

Air Quality SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Emissions from the natural-gas-fired plant would be 

approximately (a)

SO2 – 28 T/yr 

Nitrogen oxides – 458 T/yr 

CO – 95 T/yr 

PM10 – 80 T/yr 

PM2.5 – 80 T/yr 

Municipal solid-waste and biomass facilities would also have 

emissions associated with the combustion of gaseous or solid fuels.

Water Use and 

Quality 

SMALL Impacts would not be greater than the impacts associated with a 

new nuclear power plant located at the proposed site. 

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Some of the impacts would occur in areas that were previously 

disturbed during the construction of existing VCSNS Unit 1. 

Potential habitat loss and fragmentation and reduced productivity 

and biological diversity would likely be minimal in that area. 

Impacts on terrestrial ecology from cooling-tower drift could occur. 

Solar facilities take up large dedicated tracts of land that may 

displace existing biological populations and reduce diversity. 

Biomass production and collection may also result in reduced 

productivity and loss of habitat unless they are coordinated with 

existing harvesting practices or needs. 

Waste 

Management 

SMALL The only significant waste would be from spent SCR catalyst used 

for control of nitrogen oxide emissions and ash and slag from 

biomass and municipal solid-waste sources. 

Socioeconomics MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Construction and operations workforces would be relatively small. 

The addition to the property tax base, while smaller than for a 

nuclear or coal-fired plant, might still be quite noticeable. 

Construction-related impacts for some renewable sources would be 

noticeable. Impacts during operation would be minor because of 

the small workforce involved. The plant and new transmission line 

would have aesthetic impacts. 

Human Health SMALL Regulatory controls and oversight would be protective of human 

health. 

Historic and 

Cultural Resources 

MODERATE Impacts would be comparable to the impacts for new nuclear units 

located at the VCSNS site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-28 April 2010

1 Table 9-3. (contd) 

Impact Category Impact Comment

Environmental 

Justice 

MODERATE There are no environmental pathways that would lead to 

disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and low-income 

populations with the exception of traffic-related impacts within the 

vicinity of the VCSNS. 

(a) Represented as a percentage of the natural-gas combined cycle analysis: 1800/2200 = 82 percent of the total 

emissions 

(b) SCR = selective catalytic reduction 

2 Table 9-4. Summary of the Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear, Coal-Fired, Natural-Gas3 Fired, and a Combination of Alternatives 

Impact Category Nuclear(a) Coal Natural Gas

Combination of 

Alternatives

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Air Quality SMALL MODERATE SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Water Use and Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Waste Management SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomics LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

LARGE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

SMALL Adverse 

MODERATE 

Beneficial to 

MODERATE 

Adverse 

Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources 

MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Environmental Justice MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

(a) From Chapters 4 and 5.

4 The distinguishing impacts are primarily related to emissions from the alternative generation 

5 sources (air quality). A nuclear plant has less impact on air quality than, coal, natural gas, or a 

6 combination of alternatives. The land-use impact for the coal-fired alternative is a function of 

7 the irretrievable commitment of land due to coal mining. For the combination of alternatives, in 

8 proposing a combination of renewable resources such as biomass and wind in addition to the 

9 natural-gas-fired capacity, it would be expected that the commitment of land would exceed the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-29 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 natural-gas-fired capacity by itself. This may include further commitment of land for biomass 

2 production and harvesting, and the siting of renewable energy resources which would not be co3 located on the VCSNS site. 

4 For the energy-generation alternatives discussion, emissions are bound by a review of criteria 

5 pollutants and the total tons produced. Accordingly, the coal-fired alternative produces the 

6 highest level of criteria pollutants and total air emissions; in total tons, the highest percentage of 

7 emissions comes from the release of sulfur during the combustion process followed by nitrogen 

8 oxides and carbon monoxide also due to the combustion of coal with air (oxygen). These 

9 pollutants can also lead to the development of PM (particulate matter). The natural gas 

10 alternative produces the next highest level of emissions. With a reasonably clean fuel stream 

11 (methane), the primary pollutants are limited to nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Natural 

12 gas, in combination with renewable resources is considered to be slightly less than the natural13 gas-fired alternative assuming that when/if the alternative generating source was operable, the 

14 natural-gas-fired alternative would not be required to be operating. 

15 Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for the proposed action and energy generation alternatives are 

16 discussed in Sections 5.7.2, 9.2.2.1, and 9.2.2.2. Table 9-5 summarizes the CO2 emission 

17 estimates for a 40-year period for the alternatives considered by the review team to be viable for 

18 baseload power generation. These estimates are limited to the emissions from power 

19 generation and do not include CO2 emissions for workforce transportation, construction, fuel20 cycle, or decommissioning. Among the viable energy-generation alternatives, the CO2

21 emissions for nuclear power are a small fraction of the emissions of the other viable energy22 generation alternatives. Adding the transportation emissions for the nuclear plant workforce and 

23 fuel cycle emissions, would increase the emissions for plant operation over a 40-year period to 

24 about 53,000,000 MT. This number is still significantly lower than the emissions for any of the 

25 other alternatives. 

26 Table 9-5. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives 

Generation Type Years 

CO2 Emission 

(MT) 

Nuclear Power(a) 40 382,000 

Coal-Fired Generation(b) 40 600,000,000 

Natural Gas-Fired Generation(c)

 40 204,000,000 

Combination of Alternatives(d) 40 166,000,000 

(a) From Appendix J, value is for two units 

(b) From Section 9.2.2.1 

(c) From Section 9.2.2.2 

(d) From Section 9.2.4 (assuming only natural gas generation has significant CO2

emissions) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-30 April 2010

1 Carbon dioxide emissions associated with generation alternatives such as wind power, solar 

2 power, and hydropower would be associated with workforce transportation, construction, and 

3 decommissioning of the facilities. Because these generation alternatives do not involve 

4 combustion, the review team considers the emissions to be minor and concludes that the 

5 emissions would have a minimal impact. Other energy-generation alternatives involving 

6 combustion of oil, wood waste, municipal solid waste, or biomass-derived fuels would have CO2

7 emissions from combustion as well as from workforce transportation, plant construction, and 

8 plant decommissioning. It is likely that the CO2 emissions from the combustion process for 

9 these alternatives would dominate the other CO2 emissions associated with the generation 

10 alternative. It is also likely that the CO2 emissions from these alternatives would be the same 

11 order of magnitude as the emissions for the fossil-fuel alternatives considered in Sections 

12 9.2.2.1 and 9.2.2.2. However, because these alternatives were determined by the review team 

13 not to meet the need for baseload power generation, the review team has not evaluated the 

14 CO2 emissions quantitatively. 

15 As discussed in Chapter 8 of this EIS, the review team has concluded that the need for the 

16 additional baseload power generation has been demonstrated. Also, as discussed earlier in this 

17 chapter, the review team concludes that the viable alternatives to the proposed action all would 

18 involve the use of fossil fuels (coal or natural gas) whether singly or in combination with other 

19 alternative energy resources. The review team concludes that the proposed action results in 

20 the lowest level of emissions of greenhouse gases among the viable alternatives. 

21 The review team reviewed the available information on the environmental impacts of power22 generation alternatives compared to the building and operation of new nuclear units at the 

23 VCSNS site. Based on this review, the review team concludes that, from an environmental 

24 perspective, none of the energy alternatives is environmentally preferable to building and 

25 operation of a new baseload nuclear power generation plant at the VCSNS site. 

26 9.3 Alternative Sites 

27 NRC EISs prepared in conjunction with a COL application must analyze alternatives to the 

28 proposed action (10 CFR 51.71(d)). NRC guidance (NRC 2000, the Environmental Standard 

29 Review Plan or ESRP) states that the ER, submitted in conjunction with an application for a 

30 COL, should include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine if any obviously superior 

31 alternative to the proposed site exists. NRC’s site-selection process guidance calls for 

32 identification of an ROI followed by successive screening to candidate areas, potential sites, 

33 candidate sites, and the proposed site (NRC 2000, ESRP 9.3). This section includes a 

34 discussion of SCE&G’s ROI for the proposed siting of a new nuclear power plant, and describes 

35 its alternative site-selection process. Because the project involves a partner, this section also 

36 includes a review of potential sites located within the Santee Cooper ROI that are located 

37 outside of the SCE&G ROI to confirm that in the selection of the VCSNS site, SCE&G did not 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-31 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 preclude any known alternative sites that may rank equal to or better than the VCSNS site. This 

2 is followed by the review team’s description of the alternative sites selected, and discussion of 

3 the environmental impacts of locating a unit at each alternative site. 

4 This section describes the SCE&G site-selection process, the review team’s evaluation process, 

5 the alternative sites selected by SCE&G, and the review team’s evaluation of the environmental 

6 impacts of locating two new nuclear generating units at each alternative site. The specific 

7 resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the proposed 

8 action and other actions in the same geographic area were assessed. For the purposes of this 

9 alternative sites evaluation, impacts evaluated include NRC-authorized construction, operation, 

10 and other cumulative impacts including preconstruction activities. Sections 9.3.3 through 9.3.6 

11 provide a site-specific description of the environmental impacts at each alternative site based on 

12 issues such as land use, air quality, water resources, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, 

13 socioeconomics and environmental justice, and historic and cultural resources. Section 9.3.7 

14 contains tables of the staff’s characterization of the impacts at the alternative sites and 

15 comparison with the proposed site to determine if there are any alternative sites that are 

16 environmentally preferable to the proposed site. 

17 The review of alternative sites consists of a two-part sequential test (NRC 2000). The first part 

18 of the test determines whether any environmentally preferable sites are among the candidate 

19 sites. To determine if a site is environmentally preferable, the review team considers whether 

20 the applicant has (1) reasonably identified candidate sites, (2) evaluated the likely 

21 environmental impacts of construction and operation at these sites, and (3) used a logical 

22 means of comparing sites that led to the applicant’s selection of the proposed site. Based on its 

23 own independent review, the review team then determines whether any of the alternative sites 

24 are environmentally preferable to the applicant’s proposed site. If the review team determines 

25 that one or more alternative sites are environmentally preferable, then it would proceed with the 

26 second part of the test. 

27 The second part of the test determines if an environmentally preferable alternative site is 

28 obviously superior to the proposed site. The review team must determine that (1) one or more 

29 important aspects, either singly or in combination, of an acceptable and available alternative site 

30 are obviously superior to the corresponding aspects of the applicant’s proposed site, and (2) the 

31 alternative site does not have offsetting deficiencies in other important areas. Included in this 

32 part of the test is the consideration of estimated costs (i.e., environmental, economic, and time 

33 of building the proposed plant) at the proposed site and at the environmentally preferable site or 

34 sites (NRC 2000). 

35 9.3.1 SCE&G Alternative Site-Selection Process 

36 This section includes a discussion of the alternative site-selection processes used to evaluate 

37 the siting of the proposed two-unit nuclear power plant project. The site-selection and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-32 April 2010

1 comparison process focuses on strategically identifying and evaluating sites that represent an 

2 acceptable range of alternatives for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 within the stated ROI. This 

3 section details the process deployed to strategically identify and screen the ROI in successive 

4 steps until four alternative sites were determined and the final VCSNS site was selected. 

5 Due to the joint ownership aspect of the proposed project, the following review includes 

6 considerations from both the SCE&G and Santee Cooper siting evaluations. Section 9.3.1.1 

7 outlines SCE&G’s siting analysis while Section 9.3.1.2 outlines Santee Cooper’s siting analysis. 

8 It is noted that at the time the alternative siting analysis took place originally, Santee Cooper 

9 was not yet a partner in the project, and therefore the alternative sites developed under the 

10 Combined License Application (COLA) were generally limited to the SCE&G service territory, or 

11 located within 15 mi of the franchised service territory to take advantage of land availability, 

12 proximity to transmission lines and transportation facilities, and environmental factors (SCE&G 

13 2009f). However, once joint ownership was established, SCE&G undertook an evaluation of the 

14 Santee Cooper service territory to confirm that in the selection of the VCSNS site, SCE&G did 

15 not overlook or preclude site(s) located within the Santee Cooper service territory that would 

16 serve the power needs of both SCE&G and Santee Cooper. 

17 One final consideration that is discussed in more detail in Section 8.2.2 is the following: while 

18 there are no legal impediments to SCE&G siting a plant outside of its service territory, enabling 

19 legislation provided by the South Carolina General Assembly limits Santee Cooper’s 

20 participation to existing or future nuclear generation units at or near Parr Shoals in Fairfield 

21 County (SC Code Ann. § 58-33-200). Authorization for Santee Cooper to partner at another site 

22 would require a change in statutory language. Therefore, the siting analysis performed by 

23 Santee Cooper was done to confirm the findings of the SCE&G siting analysis, which proposed 

24 the VCSNS as the preferred site, rather than to individually determine a proposed site for 

25 Santee Cooper. 

26 In successive steps, the process of site selection involves the screening of a group of sites 

27 against applied criteria beginning with the ROI. The screening process proceeds through the 

28 following steps successfully reducing the ROI to the candidate sites, and final proposed site: 

29  Region of Interest: Largest geographic area of consideration; for regulated utilities this is 

30 considered to be the franchised service territory. Typically, the ROI is screened using 

31 exclusionary type criteria to provide a targeted list of acceptable potential sites for further 

32 analysis. 

33  Potential Sites: Discrete parcels of land found within the geographic area of consideration 

34 that would support the facility as proposed. Potential sites are screened using suitability 

35 criteria to provide an acceptable list of candidate sites. The screening data set is typically of 

36 reconnaissance-level detail. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-33 Draft NUREG-1939 

1  Candidate Sites: Sites that are considered to be among the best sites in the given ROI that 

2 can reasonably be found for the siting and operation of a power plant. Candidate sites are 

3 typically evaluated through the application of a more refined set of suitability criteria where 

4 the quantifiable weighting and ranking process provides the mechanism through which the 

5 proposed site is chosen and evaluated against the other candidate sites. 

6 The identification and validation of the final proposed site from the list of candidate sites is done 

7 on an issue-by-issue basis, which allows the applicant to identify the cost and environmental 

8 trade-offs associated with developing each one of the candidate sites. Review team visits to 

9 each of the candidate sites provides verification of the critical site-suitability criteria and provides 

10 a mechanism for deriving reasonable assurance that the proposed site has no unforeseen or 

11 fatal flaw that might result in licensing delays, increased costs, or environmental impacts outside 

12 of the identified scope. 

13 NUREG-1555, Section 9.3 (III)(12) (NRC 2000) recognizes the potential value of including 

14 existing nuclear power plant sites that were “previously found acceptable on the basis of a 

15 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, or have [been] demonstrated to be 

16 environmentally acceptable on the basis of operating experience, or allocated to an applicant by 

17 a state government from a list of state approved power plant sites.” 

18 Of the four candidate sites, VCSNS and the Savannah River Site met the preceding criteria of 

19 having been previously characterized and found acceptable after a NEPA review. 

20 The State of South Carolina also lends considerable influence to the siting process, as can be 

21 found in the PSCSC language regarding implementation of the Utility Facility Siting and 

22 Environmental Protection Act (SC Code Ann. 58-33-160(c)). The statute requires that “the 

23 impact of the facility upon the environment must be justified, considering the state of available 

24 technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives and other pertinent 

25 considerations.” Finally, the Base Load Review Act, “requires the [South Carolina Public 

26 Service] Commission to go beyond the public convenience and necessity findings required 

27 under the Siting Act and to conduct a full preconstruction prudency review of the proposed 

28 Units” (PSCSC 2009a). Prior to issuance of the CPCN, the South Carolina Office of Regulatory 

29 Staff independently audited and evaluated the SCE&G site-selection process, criteria used for 

30 evaluation, and the final decision to select the VCSNS site as the final proposed site. The 

31 PSCSC, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, found that the record clearly supported 

32 the prudency and reasonableness of the selection of the Jenkinsville site (VCSNS) for VCSNS 

33 Units 2 and 3 (PSCSC 2009a). 

34 9.3.1.1 SCE&G Alternative Site-Selection Process 

35 SCE&G‘s ROI is its legally obligated service area in addition to areas outside, but in close 

36 proximity to the ROI that were capable of supporting the proposed project (SCE&G 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-34 April 2010

1 This enabled the characterization of areas outside of the franchised service area that 

2 maintained siting advantages such as the availability of land, proximity to transmission and 

3 transportation infrastructure, and environmental factors. 

4 The designated ROI is consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000, ESRP 9.3). 

5 The review team concludes that the ROI used in SCE&G’s application is reasonable for 

6 consideration and analysis of candidate areas and sites. The review team also finds that 

7 SCE&G’s basis for defining its ROI did not arbitrarily exclude desirable locations. Figure 9-1 

8 shows the geographic scope of the ROI analysis and the 20 potential sites that were evaluated 

9 through the site-selection process. 

10 SCE&G considered three distinct evaluations in the final selection of the VCSNS site. The first 

11 siting study was the 1974 Dames and Moore study that screened the ROI and provided 18 

12 potential sites for evaluation (Dames and Moore 1974). Collectively, 18 sites were identified in 

13 the initial siting study for evaluation within the ROI: 15 of the sites were greenfield sites and 3 

14 were existing fossil-fired sites. The second siting study, the South Carolina Electric & Gas 

15 (SCE&G) Nuclear Power Plant Siting Study, 2005, was conducted in 2005 by McCallum-Turner 

16 who deployed the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Siting Guide (EPRI 2002) to re17 evaluate and update the earlier Dames and Moore study using the most current and available 

18 information (McCallum-Turner 2005a). In addition to the previous 18 sites under consideration, 

19 McCallum-Turner identified the Savannah River Site, an existing Federal nuclear site, and the 

20 existing (VCSNS) commercial site for inclusion in the analysis. The site-selection process used 

21 guidance provided in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000) and the EPRI Siting Guide (EPRI 2002). A 

22 shortcoming of the second evaluation was simply that SCE&G brought forth only two sites for 

23 final characterization, which is inconsistent with NUREG-1555 guidelines which recommend 

24 three to five sites in addition to the proposed site (NRC 2000). 

25 The third siting study, the Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 

26 2009), was a compilation of the 1974 and 2005 siting studies. The study was conducted with 

27 the expressed intent of verifying that a reasonable suite of viable candidate sites was 

28 considered using a single methodology and set of criteria, and determining whether there were 

29 any obviously superior sites among the candidate sites for the siting and operation of two 

30 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) 

31 pressurized water reactors (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). In screening the ROI, SCE&G used a 

32 dual process to confirm that potential sites were represented by both developed and 

33 undeveloped sites. The first process simply made sure that existing nuclear power plant 

34 locations, or other NEPA-characterized locations within the ROI, were included on the potential 

35 site list that would be subject to further analysis. In doing so, SCE&G included the VCSNS site 

36 and the Savannah River Site. The second process evaluated the ROI by applying refined 

37 screening criteria to areas that were found to be capable of supporting potential power plants, 

38 and were considered either “greenfield” (no development) or “brownfield” (existing power plant) 

39 sites. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-35 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-1. Potential Site Locations (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-36 April 2010

1 SCE&G provided key criteria for use as “bounding conditions” to aid in the identification and 

2 evaluation of sites for the 2005 McCallum-Turner siting study and the 2009 Tetra Tech NUS, 

3 Inc. evaluation. These factors included the following considerations (McCallum-Turner 2005b ): 

4  The sites and evaluations must be consistent with the applicant’s business plans and 

5 objectives (Unit 2 commercial by 2016, accurate reflection of need for power, etc). 

6  The site and siting evaluation must be consistent with NRC site suitability requirements 

7 (EPRI Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for an Early Site Permit 

8 Application dated March 2002 would be used). 

9  Compliance with NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

10 SCE&G’s process for screening the 20 potential sites followed a prescriptive methodology by 

11 applying exclusionary criteria appropriate to the geography in consideration and the technology 

12 involved with constructing and operating the proposed AP1000 nuclear power plant. SCE&G 

13 obtained data from publicly available resources such as the Environmental Systems Research 

14 Institute geographic information system database, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Federal 

15 Emergency Management Agency, as well as others, and evaluated and verified potential sites 

16 that could support the proposed nuclear power plant. In the selection and application of 

17 screening criteria, SCE&G aligned its 10 screening criteria with NUREG-1555 by focusing on 

18 the preservation of existing conditions and minimizing impacts at potential sites. Broadly, 

19 screening criteria fell into categories that enabled SCE&G to avoid carrying sites forward that 

20 demonstrated significant issues that precluded their use for a nuclear power plant, could cause 

21 significant impacts or degradation of local natural resources on the site, or posed significant 

22 impacts on surrounding terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (SCE&G 2009a). 

23 The 20 potential sites were quantitatively evaluated using the following exclusionary criteria: 

24 seismic, land use, hydrology, geotechnical, terrestrial ecology, aquatic ecology, and 

25 demographics. This reconnaissance-level approach evaluated potential sites by critical 

26 attributes and enabled the elimination of nine potential sites from more costly and in-depth 

27 analysis (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). Through this process, SCE&G identified 11 candidate 

28 sites from the 20 potential sites that were carried forward for detailed investigation. 

29 The remaining 11 candidate sites were evaluated against EPRI site criteria with both weighting 

30 and ranking factors applied to each of the following 10 criteria: cooling-water supply, flooding, 

31 population, hazardous land use, ecology, wetlands, railroad access, transmission access, 

32 geology/seismic, and land acquisition. Each criterion was then broken down into several 

33 respective sub-criteria to quantify the most meaningful set of measurements. For example, 

34 cooling-water supply was broken down into five categories, including the presence or absence 

35 of a lake or river, minimum flow measurement, average flow measurement, and distance to the 

36 water source. In this manner, each of the 11 candidate sites was subject to the application and 

37 analysis of 27 distinct sub-criteria (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). The resulting weighting and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-37 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 ranking of candidate sites provided SCE&G with clear indications of acceptable alternative sites 

2 to carry forward for further analysis and auditing. Based on its site audit, the review team 

3 elected to carry one additional site forward, Fairfield 1 (FA-1) site, for full analysis because of its 

4 proximity in scoring to the next-highest ranking site. 

5 Based on the guidance provided in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000), the EPRI Siting Guide (EPRI 

6 2002), and in accordance with the site-selection process described by SCE&G, the applicant 

7 selected VCSNS as the proposed site and the three sites that maintained the highest composite 

8 scores were selected as alternative sites. The review team elected to include the FA-1 site as 

9 an alternative site based on its site audit. Of the four alternative sites, one site was a well10 characterized existing nuclear facility; two sites were greenfield sites; and one site was a 

11 brownfield site. The four alternative sites presented for comparative evaluation included the 

12 following: 

13  FA-1, Fairfield County (greenfield), South Carolina 

14  Cope Generating Station site (brownfield), Orangeburg County, South Carolina 

15  Saluda site (greenfield), Saluda County, South Carolina 

16  Savannah River (SR) site (at the existing Federal Savannah River Site), Aiken County, 

17 South Carolina. 

18 In analyzing each of the four alternative sites, SCE&G performed detailed evaluations 

19 considering environmental benefits, strategic business issues such as constructability and cost 

20 benefits, and additional non-tangible benefits. Specifically, SCE&G determined that there were 

21 advantages to co-locating new nuclear generating units with an existing power plant owned by 

22 SCE&G. The following potential advantages of co-location at the VCSNS site were identified in 

23 the application (SCE&G 2009a): 

24  environmental benefits 

25 – Extensive onsite conditions are known as a result of years of data collection. It is 

26 reasonable to assume that the impacts of additional units would be comparable to those 

27 of the operating unit. 

28 – Construction of new transmission-line corridors may be avoided if the existing 

29 transmission system can accommodate the increased power generation. 

30 – The site has already been characterized as mandated by NEPA and was the subject of 

31 extensive environmental screening during the original site-selection process. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-38 April 2010

1  constructability and cost benefits 

2 – Site physical criteria, including geologic and seismic, have been fully characterized. 

3 – No additional land acquisitions would be necessary and the site could accommodate the 

4 land requirements of the new units 

5 – Construction, operation, and maintenance costs would be reduced because of existing 

6 site infrastructure. 

7  other benefits 

8 – The VCSNS site has nearby power markets. The VCSNS site personnel have relevant 

9 nuclear experience. 

10 The review team considered only environmental matters in its determination of whether an 

11 alternative site was environmentally preferable to the proposed site and did not consider non12 environmental issues, such as constructability and cost. The review team recognizes, however, 

13 that in some cases environmental and cost factors are related. So, for example, a site that 

14 requires longer transmission lines will have both higher environmental impacts and higher costs 

15 related to those transmission lines. 

16 9.3.1.2 Santee Cooper Alternative Site-Selection Process 

17 The Santee Cooper ROI coincides with several regulated utilities and many of the electric 

18 cooperatives within South Carolina. As such, SCE&G evaluated Santee Cooper’s ROI by 

19 focusing on the 22 counties that lie in northern and northwestern South Carolina and are outside 

20 of the SCE&G service territory. This region was not evaluated in the SCE&G siting analysis, 

21 which focused only on the SCE&G service territory, and generally aligns with the service 

22 territories of Duke Energy and Progress Energy. Figure 9-2 outlines the additional counties 

23 reviewed by SCE&G (2009f). 

24 Due to the interconnected transmission system that Santee Cooper maintains in supplying 

25 power throughout the ROI, and the fact that the Santee Cooper system coincides with regulated 

26 utilities operating in the same region, SCE&G reviewed and evaluated recent alternative site27 selection studies prepared by Duke Energy for the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (Duke 

28 2009a) and Progress Energy for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (PE 2008) specifically 

29 for the South Carolina sites, as well as the siting analysis performed by MACTEC for Santee 

30 Cooper’s coal-fired Pee Dee Generating Station (MACTEC 2006). Collectively, these site31 selection studies accounted for a reconnaissance-level review of over 20 potential sites, and a 

32 detailed review of 9 sites located within South Carolina. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-39 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-2. Santee Cooper Region of Interest (SCE&G 2009f) 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-40 April 2010

1 Because all nine sites were found to be viable sites based on previous siting studies, SCE&G’s 

2 evaluation focused primarily on the application of reconnaissance-level criteria to determine if 

3 any one of the sites could rank equal to or better than the four alternative sites already identified 

4 in the VCSNS siting study. Of primary consideration, and with what might be expected when 

5 proposing to site a power plant outside of the franchised service territory or declared ROI, this 

6 included criteria such as the ability to own or control the property, distance to and impact on 

7 transmission corridor access, proximity to load centers, and critical site-development 

8 requirements such as improving water supply and availability. The criteria were consistent with 

9 those used in the SCE&G Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). In 

10 accordance with NUREG-1555 guidelines, which support the use of reconnaissance-level 

11 criteria to screen out potential sites from further evaluation, consideration of the Santee Cooper 

12 ROI did not “substantially improve” the environmental diversity of SCE&G’s siting options 

13 (NUREG-1555 [NRC 2000]). Therefore, in the application of criteria, SCE&G did not carry 

14 forward any of the nine additional sites for in-depth comparative analysis, because they did not 

15 rank equal to or better than the proposed four alternative sites, nor did they improve the 

16 environmental diversity of SCE&G siting options. 

17 Three sites evaluated in the Duke Energy service territory were Lee, Keowee, and Middleton 

18 Shoals. Each of the sites is currently owned by Duke Energy, and control of the property would 

19 be difficult to obtain. Furthermore, the distances to SCE&G high-voltage transmission lines runs 

20 from 45 to 85 mi requiring the development of transmission-line corridors, while distances to the 

21 major load centers is even farther, requiring extensive transmission system upgrades. 

22 Consistent with the siting analysis performed by Duke Energy, each of the sites would likely 

23 require site modifications such as the construction of a supplemental water reservoir (SCE&G 

24 2009f). As part of the alternative siting analysis and audit performed for the Lee site COLA, the 

25 NRC staff participated in onsite audits of each of the three Duke Energy sites under 

26 consideration (Lee, Keowee, and Middleton Shoals). Due to the preceding considerations, the 

27 review team found that the reconnaissance-level information evaluated for the alternative sites 

28 in the Lee COLA, in combination with the utility requirements for SCE&G and Santee Cooper, 

29 did not indicate that there was a site located within the Duke Energy service territory that would 

30 rank higher than the candidate sites in the SCE&G study. 

31 Two sites evaluated in the Progress Energy Carolinas service territory included the existing H.B. 

32 Robinson Nuclear Plant site and a greenfield site located in Marion County. The Robinson site, 

33 as a Progress Energy-owned site, would require SCE&G and Santee Cooper to acquire rights to 

34 construct and operate on it; they would also have to acquire the Marion County site property as 

35 well. Similar to the issues discussed previously for candidate sites outside of the SCE&G service 

36 territory, the construction and operation of a power plant at either of these sites would require 

37 extensive development of transmission-line corridors and transmission system upgrades due to 

38 the distances to existing transmission infrastructure and load centersAt the Robinson site, water 

39 supply limits due to thermal restrictions on the lake may preclude the successful construction and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-41 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 operation of a two-unit nuclear power plant. Finally, the Marion site may require the construction 

2 of a cooling-water reservoir and has considerable wetland acreage onsite (SCE&G 2009f). As 

3 part of the alternative siting analysis and audit performed for the Harris site COLA, the NRC staff 

4 participated in onsite audits of each of the two Progress Energy Carolina sites under 

5 consideration (Robinson and Marion County). Due to the preceding considerations, the review 

6 team found that the ground-level information evaluated for the alternative sites in the Harris 

7 COLA, in combination with the utility requirements for SCE&G and Santee Cooper, did not 

8 indicate that there was a site located within the Progress Energy Carolinas service territory that 

9 would rank higher than the candidate sites in the SCE&G study. 

10 Of the six sites evaluated in Santee Cooper’s Pee Dee coal-fired power plant siting analysis, 

11 two of the sites were in close proximity to the Al-1 and Wateree sites identified by SCE&G in its 

12 site-selection process used for the VCSNS siting analysis. Because the two sites evaluated by 

13 Santee Cooper shared similar environmental characteristics with the sites identified in the 

14 SCE&G site-selection analysis and because there were no significant differences between the 

15 two comparable locations, the sites were not carried forward. SCE&G then reviewed the 

16 remaining four candidate sites, which included three sites located on the Great Pee Dee River 

17 (sites 7, 9, and 10), and one site located on Bull Creek (site 6). Site 7 was the preferred site for 

18 the Pee Dee coal-fired project and is the only site owned by either utility. Further, sites 7, 9, and 

19 10 would require the construction of a cooling-water reservoir to ensure adequate water supply 

20 in low flow periods. All four sites would require the development of approximately 65 mi of new 

21 transmission-line corridors to connect to the existing SCE&G transmission infrastructure, as well 

22 as significant transmission system upgrades to provide power to the major load centers located 

23 from 75 to 85 mi away (SCE&G 2009f). 

24 Due to the preceding considerations, the review team found that the reconnaissance-level 

25 information evaluated by SCE&G for the alternative sites in the Pee Dee coal-fired project, in 

26 combination with the utility requirements for SCE&G and Santee Cooper, did not indicate that 

27 there was a site located within the Santee Cooper service territory that would rank higher than 

28 the candidate sites in the SCE&G study. 

29 9.3.1.3 Conclusions About the Alternative Site-Selection Process 

30 The review team evaluated the methodology used by SCE&G and concluded that the process 

31 for selecting and evaluating alternative sites, including the final proposed VCSNS site, was 

32 reasonable and consistent with the guidelines presented in NUREG-1555 and the EPRI Siting 

33 Guide. 

34 The review team also evaluated the SCE&G analysis of the Santee Cooper service territory, 

35 including site-selection studies performed by Duke Energy, Progress Energy, and MACTEC for 

36 Santee Cooper’s siting of the Pee Dee coal-fired project. Each of the site-selection studies 

37 individually followed a prescriptive process for the comparative evaluation of alternative sites, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-42 April 2010

1 and included the detailed analysis of nine sites located within the Santee Cooper service 

2 territory. The review team concluded that none of the sites identified in the Santee Cooper 

3 siting analysis would rank higher than the candidate sites identified in the SCE&G study based 

4 on critical siting criteria, such as the proximity to transmission access and load centers, the 

5 need for cooling-water reservoirs to ensure adequate water availability, and land availability. 

6 Finally, the review team recognizes the siting precedence established by the State of South 

7 Carolina through the PSCSC process as part of the CPCN evaluation and findings (PSCSC 

8 2009a) and the through the South Carolina General Assembly (SC Code Ann. § 58-33-200) as 

9 part of the legislative language permitting Santee Cooper to participate with SCE&G in the 

10 construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the Fairfield County site. This 

11 precedence is afforded “substantial weight” under NUREG-1555 guidelines, having undergone 

12 rigorous evaluation and extensive review (NRC 2000). 

13 The review team found that the systematic alternative siting analysis demonstrated a logical 

14 selection process and application of screening and exclusionary siting criteria. The analysis 

15 enabled the evaluation of the likely environmental impacts associated with the respective sites, 

16 including the evaluation of suitability criteria; identified acceptable alternative sites; and clearly 

17 provided the mechanism for selection of the final proposed site. The review team evaluated the 

18 siting methodology used by SCE&G to select its ROI, potential sites, candidate sites, and 

19 alternative sites. Based on SCE&G’s description of its process and the review team's 

20 evaluation of the criteria used, and as addressed in the analysis in the previous section, the 

21 review team determined that the process used to identify alternative sites was a logical 

22 approach and was therefore acceptable. 

23 9.3.2 NRC/USACE Alternative Site Evaluation 

24 The four alternative sites (FA-1, CGS, Saluda, and SR) are examined in detail in Sections 9.3.3 

25 through 9.3.6. The review team visited each of the four alternative sites as well as the proposed 

26 site in March 2009. Section 9.3.7 contains tables of the review team’s characterization of the 

27 cumulative impacts of the proposed action at the proposed and alternative sites. 

28 Following the guidance promulgated in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 2000), the review team visited the four 

29 alternative sites and collected and analyzed reconnaissance-level information for each of the 

30 sites. The review team then used the information provided in the ER, RAI responses, and 

31 information from other Federal and State agencies, and information gathered during the visits to 

32 each alternative site to evaluate the cumulative impacts of building and operating two new 

33 nuclear power plants at those sites. The analysis therefore includes the impacts of NRC34 authorized construction and operation as well as potential impacts associated with other actions 

35 affecting the same resources. Cumulative impacts occur when the effects of an action are 

36 added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time; as a 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-43 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 result, the cumulative impact assessment entails a more extensive and broader review of 

2 possible effects of the action beyond the site boundary. 

3 The cumulative analysis for the impacts at the alternative sites was performed in the same 

4 manner as discussed in Chapter 7 for the proposed site except, as specified in ESRP 9.3 (NRC 

5 2000), the analysis was conducted at the reconnaissance level for the alternative sites. To 

6 inform the cumulative impacts analysis, the review team researched EPA databases for recent 

7 EISs within the state; used an EPA database for permits for water discharges in the geographic 

8 area to identify water-use projects; and used www.recovery.gov to identify projects in the 

9 geographic area funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

10 111-5). The review team developed tables of the major projects near each alternative site that 

11 were considered relevant in the cumulative analysis. The review team used the information to 

12 perform an independent evaluation of the direct and cumulative impacts of the proposed action 

13 at the alternative sites to determine if one or more of the alternative sites were environmentally 

14 preferable to the proposed site. 

15 Included are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private 

16 actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts with the proposed action. For the 

17 purposes of this analysis, the past is defined as the time period prior to receipt of the COL 

18 application. The present is defined as the time period from the receipt of the COL application 

19 until the beginning of activities associated with building proposed Units 2 and 3. The future is 

20 defined as the beginning of building activities (construction and preconstruction activities) 

21 associated with Units 2 and 3, through operation and eventual decommissioning. 

22 The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the 

23 proposed action and other actions in the same geographic area were identified. The affected 

24 environment that serves as the baseline for the cumulative impacts analysis is described for 

25 each alternative site, and a qualitative discussion of the general effects of past actions is 

26 included. The geographic area over which past, present, and future actions could reasonably 

27 contribute to cumulative impacts is defined and is described in later sections for each resource 

28 area. The analysis for each resource area at each alternative site concludes with a cumulative 

29 impact finding (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE). For those cases in which the impact level to 

30 a resource was greater than SMALL, the review team also discussed whether building and 

31 operating the nuclear units would be a significant contributor to the cumulative impact. In the 

32 context of this evaluation, “significant” is defined as a contribution that is important in reaching 

33 that impact-level determination. 

34 The cumulative impacts are summarized for each resource area in the sections that follow. The 

35 level of detail is commensurate with the significance of the impact for each resource area. The 

36 findings for each resource area at the VCSNS site and each alternative site are then compared 

37 in Table 9-31. The results of this comparison are used to determine if any of the alternative 

38 sites are environmentally preferable to the proposed site. If any alternative site is determined to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-44 April 2010

1 be environmentally preferable, the review team would evaluate whether that alternative site was 

2 obviously superior. 

3 The impacts described in Chapter 6 of this EIS (e.g., nuclear fuel cycle; decommissioning) 

4 would not vary significantly from one site to another. This is true because all of the alternative 

5 sites and the proposed site are in low-population areas and because the review team assumes 

6 the same reactor design (therefore, the same fuel cycle technology, transportation methods, 

7 and decommissioning methods) for all of the sites. As such, these impacts would not 

8 differentiate between the sites and would not be useful in the determination of whether an 

9 alternative site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. For this reason, these 

10 impacts are not discussed in the evaluation of the alternative sites. 

11 9.3.3 The FA-1 Site 

12 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

13 a two-unit nuclear power plant at the FA-1 site located in Fairfield County, South Carolina. The 

14 following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major resource 

15 area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects 

16 of the proposed action if it were implemented at the FA-1 site and other actions in the same 

17 geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRC-authorized 

18 construction, operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the assessment are 

19 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that 

20 could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with the proposed action if 

21 implemented at the FA-1 site. Other actions and projects considered in this cumulative analysis 

22 are described in Table 9-6. 

23 The FA-1 site is a privately owned, 6000-ac, undeveloped greenfield site located on the eastern 

24 bank of the Broad River approximately 2 mi north of the Parr Reservoir, and 1 mi to the west of 

25 Monticello Reservoir. Figure 9-3 shows the FA-1 alternative site region. 

26 As an undeveloped greenfield site, FA-1 is primarily forested land composed of rolling hills and 

27 steep stream valleys, interspersed with limited amounts of open water and forested wetlands. 

28 The site also contains a limited number of residences primarily on the eastern boundary of the 

29 site. The site is bounded on the east by County Road 3, on the west by the Broad River, and on 

30 the north by State Highway 301 (SC-301). The Sumter National Forest lies to the immediate 

31 north of the site. 

32 Locally, the area supports several small, rural, unincorporated communities located within 5 mi 

33 of the site. The site is located about 31 mi northwest of Columbia, South Carolina, and 

34 approximately 45 mi southwest of Rock Hill, South Carolina. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-45 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-6. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the FA-1 Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects 

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of one 

996-MW(e) nuclear power 

generating plant. 

5.5 mi south-southwest of 

FA-1 

VCSNS Unit 1 is currently 

operational and is 

licensed to continue 

operations through 

August 6, 2042(a)

Carolinas-Virginia Tube 

Reactor (CVTR) 

Experimental pressurized 

tube heavy water nuclear 

power reactor 

About 7.5 mi south of FA-1 Undergoing 

Decommissioning(b)

Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation 

Dry spent-fuel storage About 8 mi south of FA-1 Proposed(c)

Old Steam Generator 

Recycle Facility 

Decommissioned steam 

generator storage 

About 8 mi south of FA-1 Operational(c)

Lee Nuclear Station Two Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

About 47 mi upstream 

(north) on Broad River 

Proposed new nuclear 

plant. Operation would 

begin in 2018-2021(d)

Catawba Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2 

Two 1129-MW(e) 

Westinghouse reactors 

About 50 mi northnortheast of FA-1 Operational(e)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2 

Nuclear power generating 

plant with one 710-MW(e) unit 

About 70 mi east of FA-1 Operational(f)

McGuire Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2 

Two 1100-MW(e) 

Westinghouse reactors 

About 78 mi northnortheast of FA-1 Operational(g)

Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant 

(VEGP) 

Nuclear power generating 

plant with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 2 

(1127 MW(e)) 

Approx 80 mi southsouthwest of 

FA-1 

Operational(h)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating 

plant with two Westinghouse 

AP 1000 pressurized water 

reactors 

Approx 80 mi southsouthwest of FA-1 Proposed(i)

Oconee Nuclear Station, 

Units 1, 2, and 3 

Three 846-MW(e) Babcock 

and Wilcox reactors 

About 92 mi westnorthwest of FA-1 Operational(j)

SCE&G Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant 

A 14-MW(e) hydroelectric 

plant 

About 6.9 mi downstream 

on Broad River 

Parr Hydro Plant is 

currently operational(k)

SCE&G Fairfield 

Pumped Storage Plant 

A 511.2-MW(e) hydroelectric 

plant. VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

would use water supply from 

this facility. 

About 4.1 mi downstream 

on Parr Reservoir (Broad 

River) 

The Fairfield Pumped 

Storage Plant is currently 

operational(c)

Buzzard Roost 

Combustion Turbine 

Station 

A 196-MW oil/gas-fired 

peaking facility 

Approx 35 mi westsouthwest of FA-1 Operational(l)

Buzzard Roost Dam A 15-MW hydroelectric facility Approx 35 mi westsouthwest of FA-1 Operational(m)

3 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-46 April 2010

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia, South 

Carolina 

Design and fabricate 

completed nuclear fuel 

assemblies and fuel-related 

products, such as top and 

bottom nozzles, control rods, 

and zirconium diboride and 

erbia integral fuel burnable 

absorbers for pressurized 

water reactors and VodoVodyanoi Energetichesky 

Reactors. 

About 35 mi southwest of 

FA-1 

Operational(n)

Six Broad River 

Hydroelectric Projects 

Hydroelectric facilities 5 upstream of FA-1 on the 

Broad River and 1 

downstream on the Broad 

River 

Operational(c)

Transmission Lines Various transmission lines 

currently exist throughout 

region and installation of 

additional lines would occur if 

new nuclear plants or other 

large energy projects are built. 

New transmission lines could 

require the following: widening 

of existing corridors, building 

new corridors, moving 

facilities within corridors, 

building new facilities within 

corridors. 

Throughout region Currently existing as well 

as the potential for 

additional transmission 

lines to be built. 

Mining Projects 

Vulcan Materials 

Company/Blair Quarry 

Products include asphalt 

aggregate, base material, 

concrete, aggregate, and 

manufactured sand. 

About 5 mi north of FA-1 Operational(o)

Transportation Projects 

South Carolina Strategic 

Corridor System Plan 

Strategic system of corridors 

forming the backbone of the 

State’s transportation system. 

State-wide Planning document with 

no explicit schedules for 

projects, however, many 

strategic corridors 

coincide with routes 

which would/could be 

used for development at 

the FA-1 site(p)

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities 

Sumter National Forest 371,000-ac national forest. About 3.5 mi northwest of 

FA-1 boundary 

Currently managed by 

U.S. Forest Service(q)

Parr Hydro Wildlife 4400-ac wildlife management About 5.4 mi south- Currently managed by SC 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-47 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Management Area area southwest of FA-1 DNR(c)

Other parks, forests, 

and reserves 

Several parks, recreation, and 

conservation areas are 

located within the 50-mi 

region. Examples of such 

areas include Lake Wateree, 

the Catawba River, Monticello 

and Parr reservoirs, Broad 

River, Lake Murray, Dreher 

Island State Park, Lake 

Greenwood, Riverbanks Zoo 

and Garden, Congaree 

National Park, Harbison State 

Forest, and Sesquicentennial 

State Park. 

Throughout region Currently managed by 

various local, State, and 

Federal agencies and 

organizations. 

Other Actions/Projects 

City of Columbia Municipal water withdrawals 

from the Broad River 

About 30 mi southeast of 

FA-1 

Ongoing(c)

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi of FA-1 Operational in Columbia, 

Lexington, Newberry, 

Rock Hill, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Greenwood, and 

Camden 

Cone Mills Carlisle 

Finishing Co. 

Fabric finisher About 16.5 mi north of 

FA-1 on Broad River 

Currently operational(r)

Chemtrade 

Performance 

Chemicals, LLC 

Industrial inorganic chemicals About 17.5 mi north of 

FA-1 on Broad River 

Currently operational(s)

Newberry County Water 

& Sewer Authority 

(NCW&SA)/Cannons 

Creek Waste Water 

Treatment Plant 

(WWTP) 

Wastewater treatment About 8.3 mi southwest of 

FA-1 

Currently operational(t)

NCW&SA Broad River 

Wastewater Treatment 

Facility (WWTF) Phase 

1 

WWTF currently maintains a 

non-major NPDES permit. 

About 12 mi west of FA-1 Currently operational(u)

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, bridges, and 

railroad; construction of waterand/or wastewater-treatment 

and distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use 

Throughout region Construction would occur 

in the future, as described 

in State and local landuse planning documents 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-48 April 2010

Table 9-6. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

planning documents. There is 

a low-to-moderate potential 

for increase urbanization 

within the Broad River 

watershed in Newberry and 

Fairfield Counties, South 

Carolina. The highest 

potential for development 

would be associated with 

residential development 

around the reservoirs, the 

Towns of Prosperity and 

Pomaria, and the City of 

Newberry Sumter National 

Forest would limit 

urbanization north of FA-1. 

(a) Source: NRC 2004 

(b) Source: NRC 1996 

(c) Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(d) Source: NRC 2007 

(e) Source: NRC 2009a 

(f) Source: NRC 2009b 

(g) Source: NRC 2009c 

(h) Source: NRC 2009e 

(i) Source: NRC 2009f 

(j) Source: NRC 2009d 

(k) Source: EPA 2009g 

(l) Source: Duke 2009b 

(m) Source: Greenwood County 2008 

(n) Source: Westinghouse 2009 

(o) Source: SCDHEC 2009c 

(p) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(q) Source: USFS 2004 

(r) Source: EPA 2009c 

(s) Source: EPA 2009a 

(t) Source: EPA 2009h, k 

(u) Source: EPA 2009b 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-49 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-3. FA-1 Alternative Site Region
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-50 April 2010

1 9.3.3.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors 

2 In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations at the FA-1 site, the cumulative 

3 analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

4 contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal projects 

5 and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of land-use impacts at the FA-1 site, the 

6 geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site plus 

7 any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all of the 

8 transmission-line corridors’ length does fall within a 50-mi radius of the site. Land-use planning 

9 for transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties 

10 and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering one county in isolation. 

11 Furthermore, in predominantly rural settings such as that surrounding the FA-1 site, land-use 

12 changes occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially influence 

13 land-use planning decisions close to the site. Roads and other public facilities and services in 

14 rural areas tend to serve people who are spread thinly but broadly over large portions of the 

15 landscape. Therefore, land-use changes can affect roads and other facilities at greater 

16 distances than similar changes in more densely populated areas. The FA-1 site presently is 

17 undeveloped and predominantly forested. It is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural 

18 area, with forests and small farms composing the dominant land use. Historically, most upland 

19 areas have been used for crop production, but presently are used for silviculture. Several 

20 electric transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. 

21 The current comprehensive land-use plan for Fairfield County (V&A 1997) indicates that the FA22 1 site is currently zoned as “Residential Conservation and Development” and links the area with 

23 the shoreline of both Monticello Reservoir and the Parr Reservoir, which also have this zoning. 

24 A change in zoning would be required to develop the FA-1 site because current zoning 

25 discourages nonresidential development from this area (V&A 1997) 

26 Development of the proposed new units on the FA-1 site would convert existing land uses on 

27 about 400 ac of currently forested land to utility uses for the nuclear facility and associated 

28 structures and infrastructure. Similar to the VCSNS site, each AP1000 unit would require the 

29 addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, each of which would occupy a 100-ft-wide 

30 transmission-line corridor. Based on information provided by SCE&G, (SCE&G 2009d) 

31 describing dimensions of conceptual transmission-line corridors for the FA-1 site, approximately 

32 443 mi covering 5800 ac of land would be needed. The proposed routing would use existing 

33 corridors to the extent practicable, so that although the linear runs extend over 440 mi, relatively 

34 little of that distance would require entirely new corridor. The actual area of land disturbance, 

35 used for assessing impacts on terrestrial ecology and cultural resources, is therefore 

36 substantially lower than suggested by the overall land-use requirements. The review team 

37 concludes that the land-use impact of the transmission-line installation activities would be 

38 generally similar to those described for the VCSNS site in Section 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all 

39 land clearing associated with nuclear facility and transmission-line development would be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-51 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 conducted according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing 

2 SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs 

3 (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 Because the other projects described in Table 9-6 do not include any significant reasonably 

5 foreseeable changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the FA-1 site, there would not be any 

6 significant additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities. 

7 As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the new units 

8 could need as much as 5800 ac over 443 mi of length. If additional transmission lines are built 

9 from other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use impact from the additional 

10 amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. Because transmission 

11 lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team expects that the cumulative 

12 impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning regulations of the affected 

13 counties. Nonetheless, consistent with the review team’s analysis in Sections 4.1 and 7.1, 

14 multiple new transmission-line corridors could noticeably alter the land-use classification 

15 acreage proportions, both within the vicinity of the FA-1 site and within the 50-mi region. 

16 Cumulative land-use impacts within the region are expected to be manageable because the 

17 activities would be consistent with existing land-use plans, and the necessary zoning change is 

18 not expected to be difficult to obtain. However, due to potential impacts of transmission-line 

19 development crossing numerous individual properties, especially where the corridor will not fall 

20 within or parallel existing transmission-line corridors and reclassification of acreage within the 

21 region caused by transmission-line development, the review team concludes that the cumulative 

22 land-use impacts associated with the proposed project at the FA-1 site, related transmission-line 

23 corridor development, and other projects in the geographic area of interest would be 

24 MODERATE. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be a 

25 significant contributor to these impacts. 

26 9.3.3.2 Water Use and Quality 

27 The FA-1 site is a greenfield site located approximately 5 mi from the existing VCSNS site near 

28 the eastern bank of the Broad River (see Figure 9-3). The site hydrology, water use, and water 

29 quality are discussed in SCE&G (2009e) and this section of the draft EIS draws its information 

30 from that source. Given the FA-1 site’s close proximity to the VCSNS site, SCE&G takes the 

31 same water-use approach and considers surface water to be the primary source of water for 

32 building and operations. In particular, SCE&G proposes using the same waterbodies for both 

33 withdrawal (Monticello Reservoir) and discharge (Parr Reservoir) as proposed for the VCSNS 

34 site. This approach results in impacts on water use, supply, and quality that are essentially 

35 identical to the impacts discussed in Sections 4.2, 5.2, and 7.2 for the VCSNS site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-52 April 2010

1 The differences between the proposed action and the FA-1 alternative with respect to water use 

2 and quality are (1) the alternative intake structure from Monticello Reservoir would be from the 

3 northern shore rather than the proposed southern shore, (2) the alternative discharge structure 

4 would be approximately 5 mi further upstream than the proposed discharge structure, and (3) 

5 the alterations to the topography would differ between the alternative and proposed sites. 

6 Although detailed analysis would be required to quantify the localized impact differences 

7 between the sites for water use and quality in the Broad River or Monticello Reservoir, the 

8 impacts that would be different are minor local impacts. There are no notable tributary flows to 

9 the Broad River between the alternative and proposed discharge locations aside from the 

10 SCE&G Fairfield Pumped Storage Facility (FPSF). 

11 Similar to the discussion in Section 5.2.2.1, surface water at the site is available from the 

12 Monticello Reservoir as supplied by the Broad River through the FPSF. Representative 

13 historical flow data for water is available for Broad River near Alston, South Carolina (USGS 

14 2008a) (see Table 2-5). Table 9-7 lists the reduction in flow for the Broad River that would 

15 occur as a result of being the sole water source for the operation of two units at this site. This 

16 table also includes the assessed impact levels. Because withdrawal of surface water to meet 

17 the needs of the proposed units would create a reduction of less than 5 percent of the mean 

18 annual flow, the associated water-use impact is assessed to be minimal. 

19 Table 9-7. Broad River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels 

Broad River Flow 

Condition 

River Flow 

Rate (cfs) 

Normal Consumptive 

Use (cfs) 

Percent Flow 

Reduction Impact Level 

Annual Mean Flow 6300 62 1.0 Minimal 

Lowest Annual Flow 2150 62 2.9 Minimal 

20 Because all the water needed to support the building and operation of two new units at FA-1 

21 would come from Monticello Reservoir, groundwater-use impacts would be restricted to aquifer 

22 dewatering during the building phase. Because this assessment is similar to the one found in 

23 Section 4.2.2.2, in that (1) the underlying aquifers demonstrate generally low permeability and 

24 (2) excavation dewatering is likely to be temporary and of limited volume, the impact is 

25 considered minimal. 

26 Building and operational activities that could affect surface-water quality include hydrologic 

27 alterations (e.g., creek or stream drainages or realignment), and water-treatment plant and 

28 cooling-tower blowdown discharges. As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1, the development of a 

29 stormwater pollution prevention plan with its call for implementation of BMPs would minimize 

30 water-quality impacts. As discussed in Section 5.2.3.1, the requirements of a NPDES-permitted 

31 outfall would ensure the protection of water quality through compliance with the Clean Water 

32 Act. Given the implementation of BMPs and the need for a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit, the 

33 impact on surface-water quality is assessed to be minimal. The impacts of the building and 

34 operation of two new units at FA-1 on groundwater quality may occur due to leaching of spilled 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-53 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 pollutants and effluents into the subsurface. However, based on experience with other similar 

2 facilities, the staff concludes that, with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater 

3 quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would likely be 

4 minimal. 

5 Cumulative Impacts 

6 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

7 cumulative impacts analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

8 actions that affect the same environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of impacts 

9 on surface water, the geographic area of interest for the FA-1 site is considered to be the 

10 drainage basin of the Broad River upstream and downstream of the site because this is the 

11 resource that would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, 

12 and future potential impacts on surface-water supply and surface-water quality in the Broad 

13 River basin include operation of VCSNS Unit 1, operation of the FPSF that connects Monticello 

14 Reservoir with Parr Reservoir, the Newberry County Water and Sewer Authority (NCW&SA), 

15 Broad River Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP, and 

16 the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (or Plant). These are the same as those 

17 identified as having potential impacts on surface-water supply and surface-water quality in the 

18 Broad River with the proposed action, which are described in Section 7.2. 

19 Increases in consumptive use of water in the Broad River drainage are anticipated in the future 

20 and discussed in Section 7.2.1. This earlier discussion notes that Duke Energy is proposing to 

21 build two nuclear reactors at the William States Lee III Nuclear Station in Cherokee County, 

22 South Carolina (Duke 2009b). Duke has prepared an assessment of water availability and 

23 projected use for Broad River to determine the availability of water to support expansions of 

24 Duke’s generating capability (Duke 2007). Duke considered future agriculture and irrigation 

25 projects, power projections, public water supplies and wastewater projections, and future 

26 industrial use. Duke also considered future trends in water use such as water reuse, water 

27 conservation, and changes in regulations and the regional economy. The Duke study does not 

28 consider the impact of climate change. The study states that consumptive water use would 

29 increase in the Broad River drainage from the 241.5 cfs in 2006 to 412.9 cfs by 2070. Duke 

30 asserts that the study will enable it to plan for water needs and develop water-storage facilities 

31 necessary to support the operation of its proposed facilities. Similarly, SCE&G asserts that the 

32 impact of consumptive use by VCSNS Units 1, 2, and 3 during low flows can be mitigated by 

33 using water from Monticello Reservoir. 

34 As discussed in Section 7.2, the review team is aware of the potential climate changes that 

35 could affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on 

36 water resources for other users. Because the alternative sites are in the same region, the 

37 impact of climate change may be similar for all them. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-54 April 2010

1 The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at FA-1 are 

2 dominated by the increased demands that would occur under normal operation relative to the 

3 no-action option for this site. The projected consumptive water use of proposed units is 

4 expected to be about 62 cfs or about 1 percent of the average river discharge just downstream 

5 of Parr Reservoir. Consequently, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of 

6 surface-water use would be SMALL. 

7 As discussed in Section 7.2.1, groundwater supplies less than 10 percent of the water used for 

8 public supplies in Fairfield County (SCDHEC 2007) and no industrial, agricultural, or power 

9 generation uses are identified for groundwater in Fairfield County. Because groundwater-use 

10 impacts are limited to the temporary aquifer dewatering during the building phase, the review 

11 team concludes that the cumulative impacts of groundwater use would be SMALL. Water12 quality information presented above for the impacts of building and operating two new units at 

13 the FA-1 alternative site would also apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. As mentioned 

14 above, a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the two new nuclear 

15 units at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that the 

16 discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are designed to ensure the 

17 protection of water quality. The staff also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the 

18 impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 

19 site would likely be minimal. Of the projects listed in Table 7-1, only the SCE&G FPSP lies 

20 between the alternative and proposed discharge structures. There are no notable cumulative 

21 impacts anticipated with FPSP and FA-1. Given these factors, the review team concludes the 

22 cumulative impact on surface-water and groundwater quality would be SMALL. 

23 9.3.3.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

24 Site Description 

25 The following analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on terrestrial 

26 ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

27 future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including other Federal and non28 Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of terrestrial ecological 

29 impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be a 6 mi-wide area 

30 centered on the FA-1 site, plus the associated transmission-line corridors. The 6-mi radius is 

31 expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features and species. Because 

32 both sites are located in western Fairfield County and the transmission-line corridors for both 

33 projects traverse the same general landscape, the FA-1 area of interest substantially overlaps 

34 the VCSNS region described in Section 2.2.3. 

35 The FA-1 site is surrounded by a mosaic of forests and farmland, typical of the Piedmont 

36 physiographic province. This province begins in the southernmost portion of New York State and 

37 stretches in a southwestward direction to approximately mid-Alabama (Godfrey 1980). The 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-55 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Piedmont has been heavily farmed and cultivated, which altered the pre-settlement landscape 

2 considerably (Kirkman et al. 2007). The FA-1 site and vicinity is primarily a human-altered 

3 landscape that has changed dramatically since the damming of the Broad River and Frees 

4 Creek, which created Parr and Monticello reservoirs, respectively. The FA-1 site and associated 

5 transmission-line corridors consist of forests, wetlands, open water, and residential areas. The 

6 landscape is predominately rural and habitats are typical of the Southern Outer Piedmont 

7 ecoregion, consisting of planted and naturally vegetated pine, mixed pine-hardwood, and 

8 hardwood forests. Common canopy species include white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak 

9 (Quercus falcata), black oak (Quercus velutina), mockernut (Carya alba), and pignut (Carya 

10 glabra) hickories, intermixed with some loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pine (Pinus 

11 echinata). Beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), tulip poplar 

12 (Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum) are found on more mesic sites (Griffith et 

13 al. 2002). 

14 The associated proposed transmission-line corridors begin in the Southern Outer Piedmont 

15 ecoregion and cross the Sandhills into the Coastal Plain ecoregion (see Section 2.4.1.2). 

16 Vegetation community types in the Sandhills ecoregion include grassland and early successional 

17 habitats, Sandhills pine woodland, seepage slopes, ponds and depressions, blackwater stream 

18 systems, and river bottoms (SCDNR 2005). The sandy soils create a xeric environment that 

19 supports a distinctive type of vegetation dominated by longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) and turkey 

20 oaks (Quercus laevis). The Coastal Plain, the largest ecoregion in South Carolina, includes 

21 bottomland hardwood forest consisting of bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash 

22 (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and cypress-gum swamps 

23 dominated by water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), bald cypress 

24 (Taxodium distichum), and pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) (Griffith et al. 2002). 

25 Common wildlife associated with the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion that may occur on the 

26 FA-1 site and associated transmission-line corridors includes white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

27 virginianus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), 

28 opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Various bird, reptile, and 

29 amphibian species also reside on the FA-1 site and associated proposed transmission-line 

30 corridors (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009; SCDNR 2005). 

31 The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which is delisted from the Endangered Species Act 

32 but still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, occurs in Fairfield and 

33 Newberry Counties. One Federally listed species is known to occur in Newberry County – the 

34 endangered wood stork (Mycteria americana). The proposed transmission-line corridors would 

35 cross Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, 

36 Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, and Saluda Counties to connect to the proposed St. George 

37 substation in Colleton County (FP&S 2008). Table 9-8 lists all Federally and State-listed 

38 species that occur on the FA-1 site and in the vicinity, as well as in the counties crossed by the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-56 April 2010

1 proposed transmission-line corridors. SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground field surveys 

2 would be conducted prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the site or 

3 transmission-line corridors (SCE&G 2009a). 

4 Table 9-8. Federally and State-Listed Species That May Occur on the FA-1 Alternative Site, 

5 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status County 

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat SE Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Orangeburg, 

Richland 

Birds 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT/ST Colleton 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s plover ST Colleton 

Elanoides forficatus American swallow-tailed 

kite 

SE Dorchester 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BGEPA/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, 

Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, 

Saluda 

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Lexington, 

Newberry, Richland 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, 

Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland, 

Saluda 

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Colleton 

Reptiles 

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester 

Amphibians 

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg 

Hyla andersonii Pine barrens treefrog ST Richland 

Plethodon websteri Webster’s salamander SE Saluda 

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Orangeburg 

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Aiken, Dorchester 

Vascular Plants 

Amphianthus pusillus Pool sprite FT/ST Lancaster, Saluda 

 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-57 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-8. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status County 

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Richland 

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower FE/SE Lancaster, Lexington 

Isoetes melanospora Black-spored quillwort FE/SE Lancaster 

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry FE/SE Dorchester 

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE/SE Richland 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby’s dropwort FE/SE Bamberg, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Orangeburg, Richland 

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken, Saluda 

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken 

Sources: SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008 Southeast Region County Lists 

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened 

2 Building Impacts 

3 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the FA-1 site, SCE&G would need to clear 

4 approximately 400 ac of natural habitat for the nuclear facility and associated structures and 

5 infrastructure. Based on a preliminary site layout of the tabletop footprint provided by SCE&G, 

6 approximately 3.1 ac of the 50.3 ac of wetlands present on the 1141.1-ac site would be affected 

7 during building activities for the two proposed units (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G states that the 

8 nuclear facility would be sited to avoid wetlands whenever possible and potential impacts on 

9 wetlands near building zones would be minimized through the use of established BMPs 

10 (SCE&G 2009a). 

11 Each AP1000 unit would require the addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, which would 

12 each occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. The total length and acreage of new 

13 transmission-line corridor required (collectively) that would affect terrestrial ecological resources 

14 would be approximately 227 mi and 2492 ac, which is a portion of the 443 mi and 5793 ac 

15 required (SCE&G 2009c, d. Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles 

16 and acres of clearing required for right-of-way widening and/or building activities (SCE&G 

17 2009c, d). SCE&G and Santee Cooper would both have a portion of the new transmission lines 

18 and details are provided in Table 9-9 and Table 9-10 (SCE&G 2009c, d). SCE&G stated that all 

19 land clearing associated with nuclear facility and transmission-line creation would be conducted 

20 according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G and 

21 Santee Cooper procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs 

22 (SCE&G 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-58 April 2010

1 Table 9-9. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site 

Transmission-Line 

Segment 

Length of 

Corridor 

(mi) 

Acres of 

Corridor 

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands 

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands 

Acres 

of Open 

Water 

Linear 

Feet of 

Streams 

Fairfield-St. George 137 1535 214 41 19 22,428 

Fairfield-Lake Murray 24 64 1 -- 2 1787 

Fairfield-VCSNS 6 186 2 -- 6 3712 

Fairfield-Killian 39 452 21 -- 1 8148 

Total 206 2237 238 41 28 36,075 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d 

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for rightof-way widening and/or building activities. 

2 Table 9-10. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the FA-1 Alternative Site 

Wetlands Estimate 

New Corridor 

(21 mi, 255 ac) 

Existing Corridor 

(217 mi, 3302 ac) 

Total Corridor 

(3557 ac) 

Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors 

Hydric Soils 20 8 1134 34 1154 32 

National Wetlands 

Inventory Wetlands 

14 5 244 7 258 7 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d 

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for right-ofway widening and/or building activities. 

3 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have influenced terrestrial resources include 

4 the development and operation of VCSNS Unit 1, located approximately 5.5 mi south-southwest 

5 of the FA-1 site. The building of Unit 1 required the creation of Monticello Reservoir by 

6 damming Frees Creek. This reservoir flooded approximately 6800 ac of terrestrial habitat 

7 (SCE&G 2009a). The development of the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Generating Station (or 

8 Plant), located approximately 6.9 mi downstream on the Broad River, dammed the Broad River 

9 and created Parr Reservoir. This reservoir flooded approximately 4400 ac of terrestrial habitat. 

10 The Vulcan Materials Company/Blair Quarry, approximately 5 mi north of the FA-1 site and the 

11 FPSF, approximately 4.1 mi downstream on the Broad River, also contributed to the loss of 

12 terrestrial habitat. There are no major current projects in the geographic area of interest that 

13 would cumulatively affect terrestrial ecological resources in a similar way. 

14 Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

15 at the FA-1 site include the proposed SCE&G Combined Site Emergency Operations Facility, 

16 which is expected to be sited as close as 5 mi from the proposed FA-1 alternative site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-59 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of 

2 interest and future urbanization would also be expected to occur. There are, however, several 

3 areas within the geographic region of interest that would continue to be managed for the benefit 

4 of wildlife, including (but not limited to) Sumter National Forest and Parr Hydro Wildlife 

5 Management Area. 

6 Impacts on wildlife habitat from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities would be 

7 unavoidable. Activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading (temporary 

8 and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy 

9 equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would 

10 likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the development areas. Some wildlife, including 

11 important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above 

12 projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 

13 resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

14 at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

15 would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to the project could 

16 provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

17 resources could affect population levels. 

18 Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, and birds could be injured if 

19 they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary 

20 and minor. The creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some 

21 species, including those that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge environments, such 

22 as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), eastern meadowlark 

23 (Sturnella magna), and the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Birds of prey, such as red24 tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) would likely exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested 

25 wetlands within the corridors would be converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrub26 shrub condition that could provide improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading 

27 birds. However, fragmentation of forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on 

28 large tracts of continuous forested habitat. 

29 The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from building two new 

30 nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be noticeable, but not 

31 destabilizing. 

32 Operational Impacts 

33 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the FA-1 

34 site are primarily attributable to the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines. 

35 Impacts on crops, ornamental vegetation, and native plants from cooling-tower drift cannot be 

36 evaluated in detail in the absence of information about the type (mechanical or natural draft), 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-60 April 2010

1 number, and specific location of cooling towers at each alternative site. Similarly, bird collisions 

2 with cooling towers cannot be evaluated in the absence of information about the type 

3 (mechanical or natural draft for a wet cooling system; dry for a dry system) and number of 

4 cooling towers at the site. The impacts of cooling-tower drift and bird collisions for existing 

5 power plants were evaluated in NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996) and found to be of minor significance 

6 for nuclear power plants in general, including those with various numbers and types of cooling 

7 towers. On this basis, the review team concludes, for the purpose of comparing the alternative 

8 sites, that the impacts of cooling-tower drift and bird collisions with cooling towers resulting from 

9 operation of new nuclear units would be minor. 

10 For mechanical draft cooling towers, the anticipated noise level from cooling-tower operation is 

11 anticipated to be 55 dBA at 1000 ft (SCE&G 2009a). This noise level is well below the 80 to 85 

12 dBA threshold at which birds and small mammals are startled or frightened (Golden et al. 1980). 

13 Thus, noise from operating cooling towers at the FA-1 site would not be likely to disturb wildlife 

14 beyond 1000 ft from the source. Consequently, the review team concludes that the impacts of 

15 cooling-tower noise on wildlife would be minimal. 

16 The impacts associated with transmission-line operation consist of bird collisions with 

17 transmission lines and the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on flora and fauna. The 

18 impacts associated with transmission-line corridor maintenance activities include alteration of 

19 habitat due to cutting and herbicide application, in floodplains and wetlands as well as uplands. 

20 Transmission lines and associated structures pose a potential avian collision hazard. Bird 

21 collisions with transmission lines are recognized as being of minor significance at operating 

22 nuclear power plants, including transmission-line corridors with variable numbers of power lines 

23 (NRC 1996). Although additional transmission lines would be required for new nuclear units at 

24 the alternative sites, increases in bird collisions would be minor and these would not be 

25 expected to cause a measurable reduction in local bird populations. Consequently, the 

26 incremental number of bird collisions posed by the addition of new transmission lines for new 

27 nuclear units would be negligible. 

28 EMFs are unlike other agents (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) that have an adverse 

29 impact in that dramatic acute effects cannot be demonstrated and long-term effects, if they 

30 exist, are subtle (NRC 1996). A careful review of biological and physical studies of EMFs did 

31 not reveal consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures (NRC 1996). The 

32 impacts of EMFs on terrestrial flora and fauna are recognized as being of small significance at 

33 operating nuclear power plants, including transmission systems with variable numbers of power 

34 lines (NRC 1996). Therefore, the incremental EMF impact posed by addition of new 

35 transmission lines for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

36 Existing roads providing access to the existing transmission-line corridors at the alternative sites 

37 would likely be sufficient for use in any expanded corridors; however, new roads would be 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-61 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 required during the building of new transmission-line corridors. Management activities (cutting 

2 and herbicide application) related to transmission-line corridors and related impacts on 

3 floodplains and wetlands in transmission-line corridors are recognized as being of minor 

4 significance at operating nuclear power plants, including those with transmission-line corridors 

5 of variable widths (NRC 1996). The review team assumes that the same methods of building 

6 and vegetation management of corridors currently used by SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 

7 be used in the establishment and maintenance of the new corridors. Consequently, the 

8 incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and associated impacts on 

9 floodplains and wetlands posed by expanding existing corridors or the addition of a new 

10 transmission-line corridor for new nuclear units would be negligible. 

11 No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

12 significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife, including important species in ways similar to 

13 those associated with the operation of two new units at the FA-1 site. 

14 The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from operating two new 

15 nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be minimal. 

16 9.3.3.4 Summary Statement 

17 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

18 SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. There are past, present and future 

19 activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect terrestrial ecology in ways similar to 

20 the building of two nuclear units at the FA-1 site (Table 9-6). The FA-1 site and some of the 

21 associated transmission–line corridors are natural habitats that would be substantially altered by 

22 development and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of 

23 terrestrial wildlife populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated development projects 

24 would further alter wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The 

25 review team therefore concludes that the cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for 

26 terrestrial ecological resources would be MODERATE. The contribution to the impacts from 

27 building and operating the proposed units would not, however, likely result in destabilization of 

28 terrestrial resources or populations. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 

29 site would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

30 9.3.3.5 Aquatic Resources 

31 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

32 aquatic ecology resources. The FA-1 site is a greenfield site located approximately 5 mi from 

33 the existing VCSNS on the eastern bank of the Broad River. As described by SCE&G (2009e), 

34 the Monticello Reservoir would be used to supply makeup water at the FA-1 alternative site, and 

35 the blowdown line would be located near the upper extent of Parr Reservoir in the Broad River. 

36 The geographic area of interest is considered to be same as for VCSNS as described in Section 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-62 April 2010

1 7.3.2 and includes the drainage basin of the Broad River from Neal Shoals Dam downriver 

2 approximately 30 mi to the Parr Shoals Dam, Monticello Reservoir and corresponding 

3 intermittent and seasonal streams on the VCSNS site, and waterbodies crossed by the 

4 transmission-line corridors within the macro-corridor, as described for terrestrial resources in 

5 Section 4.3.1. This geographic region of interest considers primarily the Broad River 

6 impoundment as the region to be the most likely to show impacts on water quality relative to the 

7 water-quality criteria for aquatic biota. 

8 Historically, the Parr Reservoir was created in 1914 by installing a 2000-ft-long dam across the 

9 Broad River at Parr Shoals (Figure 2-3) SCE&G (2009a). Before 1977, the surface area of the 

10 reservoir was 1850 ac. In 1977, the reservoir level was raised 9 ft, which increased the surface 

11 area to approximately 4400 ac. Parr Reservoir is approximately 7 mi long and has an average 

12 water depth of 15 ft (SCE&G 2009a). Because of the operation of the FPSF, hydrologic 

13 patterns in the Parr Reservoir are variable. Generally, water from the Monticello Reservoir is 

14 released through the FPSF into Parr Reservoir throughout the day and early evening to provide 

15 hydroelectric power at the Parr Shoals Dam, resulting in a net southward flow in Parr Reservoir. 

16 During the night, when electrical demand is lower, water from the Parr Reservoir is pumped 

17 upward into the Monticello Reservoir, reversing the flow to the north in Parr Reservoir (SCE&G 

18 2009a). 

19 Flow conditions and the 4-day retention time of water in Parr Reservoir generally promote high 

20 dissolved-oxygen levels and turbid conditions SCE&G (2009a). According to SCDHEC (2007), 

21 water conditions are not optimal for supporting aquatic life at the two SCDHEC water-quality 

22 monitoring stations on Parr Reservoir, located near the FPSF and near Parr Shoals Dam, 

23 respectively. The total phosphorus concentrations upstream of the site above the 

24 intake/discharge canal for the FPSF were found to exceed the standards for supporting aquatic 

25 life uses (SCDHEC 2007). At the downstream station near Parr Shoals Dam, elevated copper 

26 concentrations were deemed to exceed the aquatic life criterion; therefore, conditions are not 

27 optimal for supporting aquatic life at this site. There are no fish-consumption advisories in Parr 

28 Reservoir (SCDHEC 2007). 

29 Monticello Reservoir 

30 The Monticello Reservoir was formed by damming Frees Creek, a small tributary of the Broad 

31 River that flowed into Parr Reservoir approximately 1 mi upstream of Parr Shoals Dam (SCE&G 

32 2009a). The reservoir is hydraulically connected to Parr Reservoir via the FPSF, and it serves 

33 both as an upper pool for the FPSF and as a cooling pond for VCSNS Unit 1 (Figure 2-1). To 

34 the northeast, the reservoir contains a subimpoundment (Figure 2-3), which is a 300-ac area 

35 owned by SCE&G and co-managed by SCE&G and SCDNR (SCE&G 2009a; SCDNR 2002). 

36 The subimpoundment fishery is managed differently from the main reservoir in that SCDNR 

37 regulates lower allowable catch limits, restricts fishing effort to 2 days per week, and limits boat 

38 operations to electric motors (SCDNR 2002). The Monticello Reservoir, excluding the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-63 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 subimpoundment, is approximately 6 mi long with a total surface area of 6500 ac. The average 

2 water depth is 59 ft and the maximum depth is 126 ft (SCE&G 2009a). 

3 Between 2000 and 2004, SCDHEC evaluated the water quality within the Broad River basin to 

4 assess the overall health and conditions of aquatic areas throughout the basin. As part of this 

5 assessment, SCDHEC monitored four stations in Monticello Reservoir (Figure 2-12). The 

6 closest station to the proposed FA-1 site, Station B-328, yielded water-quality parameters (e.g., 

7 dissolved oxygen, pH, toxins, turbidity, nutrients) that met the compliance criteria and standards 

8 for supporting aquatic life. Throughout the 5-year monitoring period, Station B-328 yielded 

9 indications of improving conditions via a reduction in 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, 

10 turbidity, fecal coliform, and total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations (SCDHEC 2007). 

11 Based on analysis of fish tissue, there are no fish consumption advisories on Monticello 

12 Reservoir (SCDNR 2009c). 

13 A comprehensive list of aquatic species present in Parr and Monticello reservoirs for proposed 

14 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 has been established in Section 2.4.2.3 of this EIS. Due to the close 

15 proximity of the FA-1 alternative site to the existing VCSNS site, the community composition of 

16 aquatic biota associated with the FA-1 site is likely similar to the existing VCSNS site. 

17 Recreationally Important Species 

18 The identification of species deemed to be recreationally important was derived from published 

19 creel surveys (Christie and Stroud 1998, 1999) and game fish outlined in the SCDNR freshwater 

20 fishing rules and regulations document (SCDNR 2009e). Section 2.4.2.3 provides a detailed 

21 description of some of these species and their life histories associated with Monticello 

22 Reservoir. 

23 In South Carolina, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) are among the most sought-after 

24 sport fish (Bulak and Crane 2009). While largemouth bass occur within waters near the VCSNS 

25 site and accounted for 15 to 19 percent of the fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir during the 

26 late 1990s, SCDNR creel surveys indicate that fishing effort in Monticello Reservoir was 

27 primarily directed at channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and blue catfish (I. furcatus) (Christie 

28 and Stroud 1998, 1999). Data pertaining to fishing efforts do not exist for Parr Reservoir; 

29 however, efforts purportedly target catfish species in this reservoir as well (Hayes 1999). 

30 Invasive Species

31 Of the list of invasive species considered to be a management concern within South Carolina, 

32 two plant species, two fish species, and one mollusk species are known to occur in the Parr and 

33 Monticello reservoirs and are listed in Table 9-11. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-64 April 2010

1 Table 9-11. Aquatic Invasive Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the FA-1 

2 Alternative Site

Common Name 

Scientific 

Name Type Invasive Attributes 

Occurrence at 

the VCSNS Site 

Alligatorweed Alternanthera 

philoxeroides 

Freshwater 

plant 

Aggressive, rapidly colonizing 

plant, impacts flow and uptake of 

water 

Parr Reservoir 

Water primrose Ludwigia 

uruguayensis 

Freshwater 

plant 

Rhizomatous, chokes shorelines, 

affects water use and access, 

decreases flow, clogs waterintake structures 

Parr Reservoir 

Blue catfish Ictalurus 

furcatus 

Freshwater 

fish 

Can tolerate a range of 

environmental conditions, 

piscivorous, competes for prey 

resources with native catfish 

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir 

White perch Morone 

americana 

Freshwater 

fish 

Competes with recreationally 

important fish such as white bass 

and crappie 

Parr Reservoir, 

Monticello 

Reservoir 

Asian clam Corbicula 

fluminea 

Freshwater 

clam 

Competes with native mollusks 

for food and space, alters 

substrate conditions, high 

densities clog water-intake 

structures 

Parr Reservoir 

Sources: SCDNR 2008; SCE&G 2009a 

Survey efforts included multiple methodologies and spanned multiple spatial and temporal scales. 

3 Critical Habitats 

4 No critical habitat has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the 

5 vicinity of the FA-1 site. However, critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona 

6 decorata) is present in waterbodies proposed for transmission-line crossing in Chester and 

7 Lancaster Counties. 

8 Federally and State-Listed Species 

9 There are no known occurrences of threatened or endangered species at the FA-1 alternative 

10 site. However, activities to create new transmission-line corridors could potentially affect 

11 Federally and State-listed freshwater species and would require appropriate Federally or State12 mandated mitigation. The proposed transmission-line corridors would cross Aiken, Bamberg, 

13 Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, 

14 Richland, and Saluda Counties to connect to the proposed St. George substation in Colleton 

15 Country (FP&S 2008). Table 9-12 lists all Federally and State-listed species that occur on the 

16 FA-1 site and in the vicinity, as well as in the counties crossed by the proposed transmission- 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-65 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-12. Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the FA-1 

2 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line 

3 Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT/ST Colleton

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT Colleton

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE Colleton

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle FE Colleton

Fish 

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Aiken, Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter ST Richland 

Mollusks 

Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter FE/SE Chester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Richland, 

Newberry, Saluda, Lexington 

Sources: FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; FWS 2008; SCDNR 2006a

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, ST = State Threatened 

4 line corridors. Santee Cooper has stated that on-the-ground field surveys would be conducted 

5 prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities on the site or within transmission-line 

6 corridors (MACTEC 2008). 

7 There are four Federally listed species of sea turtles in South Carolina. The loggerhead sea 

8 turtle (Caretta caretta) and the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) are listed as threatened 

9 whereas the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

10 (Lepidochelys kempii) are listed as endangered (FWS 2008). The loggerhead sea turtle is also 

11 listed as a State threatened species for Colleton County (SCDNR 2006a). The siting of the 

12 FA-1-Varnville transmission line is projected to run to the west of Interstate Highway 95 (I-95), 

13 which is well over 50 mi from the coastline, and does not cross any marine habitats (SCE&G 

14 2009d). Therefore, although the four species of sea turtles occur in Colleton County, no 

15 activities associated with transmission lines for the FA-1 site would affect these species. 

16 The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a State and Federal endangered species 

17 (FWS 2008). The shortnose sturgeon has not been reported to occur in the vicinity of the FA-1 

18 site, but the routing of transmission-line corridors for this alternative site is proposed to occur 

19 within eight South Carolina counties that are associated with the occurrence of shortnose 

20 sturgeon: Aiken, Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, Lexington, Orangeburg, and 

21 Richland Counties. The shortnose sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered 

22 species in 1967 and is designated as a species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR 

23 (McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). This amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and 

24 marine habitats to complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). In 

25 South Carolina, populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto 

26 rivers (flowing to St. Helena Sound); the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing to 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-66 April 2010

1 Winyah Bay); and the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a small landlocked 

2 population of shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 2003). 

3 In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

4 water. Spawning occurs in freshwaters characterized by low-to-moderate velocities and over 

5 substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006). 

6 Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having little turbidity (McCord 

7 2006). 

8 The Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), a Federal species of concern, is listed as a State 

9 threatened species for Richland County (SCDNR 2009). While there are reported accounts 

10 pertaining to the distribution of the Carolina darter within the Piedmont ecoregion, the overall 

11 abundance of this species is unknown (Hayes and Bettinger 2006). 

12 The Carolina heelsplitter is a Federally listed aquatic species (FWS 2008). It is unknown 

13 whether the Carolina heelsplitter occurs in the vicinity of the proposed alternative site. 

14 However, there are six known populations of the Carolina heelsplitter within the state defined by 

15 geographic location: (1) Savannah River tributaries in Edgefield and McCormick Counties, 

16 (2) Cuffeytown Creek in Greenwood and McCormick Counties, (3) Lynches River and Flat 

17 Creek in Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties, (4) Gills Creek in Lancaster County, 

18 (5) Fishing Creek in Chester County, and (6) Bull Run Creek in Chester County (SCDNR 2006b; 

19 67 FR 44502). 

20 Designated critical habitat includes 103.2 km of streams and rivers in South Carolina that occur 

21 in conjunction with the known populations. The lateral boundaries of the critical habitats for the 

22 Carolina heelsplitter are denoted by the ordinary high-water mark along channel edges (67 FR 

23 44502). Designated critical habitats for the Carolina heelsplitter do not occur in the vicinity of 

24 the FA-1 site and the species has never been found in the Parr and Monticello reservoirs. 

25 However, the routing of transmission-line corridors for the FA-1 Units is proposed to occur within 

26 Chester and Lancaster Counties; both counties contain critical habitat for the Carolina 

27 heelsplitter. 

28 Building Impacts 

29 Building impacts at the FA-1 alternative site would include a new intake structure located on the 

30 north end of Monticello Reservoir and a new discharge structure in Parr Reservoir on the Broad 

31 River. In addition, activities that include land clearing associated with new infrastructure (roads, 

32 site footprint) and upgrading existing features (rail lines) would affect approximately 5344 linear 

33 feet of a total of approximately 32,463 linear feet of onsite streams by increasing the number of 

34 stream crossings, or by filling streams and removing riparian corridors to accommodate site 

35 infrastructure (SCE&G 2010a). Building activities would also affect 1.4 ac of a total of 133.8 ac 

36 of open water present on the proposed FA-1 site (SCE&G 2010a). Building impacts would likely 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-67 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 include impacts on water quality stemming from direct (e.g., dredging, shoreline excavation) and 

2 indirect sources (e.g., stormwater runoff, sedimentation). Impacts from building activities in and 

3 near water resources would be minimized through the use of established BMPs (SCE&G 

4 2009a). 

5 New transmission lines and corridors are a necessary component of the proposed FA-1 

6 alternative site. According to SCE&G (2009e), a new transmission-line corridor would extend 

7 4.5 mi from the FA-1 site to the existing VCSNS substation and encompass a 100-ft–wide area. 

8 The remaining transmission-line corridors associated with the FA-1 site would follow the routes 

9 discussed for VCSNS in Section 2.2.2 of this EIS, to include corridors maintained by both 

10 SCE&G and Santee Cooper. For SCE&G lines, approximately 36,075 linear feet of streams 

11 and 28 ac of open water are located within the new transmission-line rights-of-way (Table 9-9) 

12 (SCE&G 2009d). The Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors associated with the FA-1 site 

13 would include an estimated seven stream crossings, three of which would be State Navigable 

14 Waters (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with transmission-line 

15 creation would be conducted according to Federal State, and local regulations, permit 

16 requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, good construction practices, 

17 and established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

18 Cumulative impacts that could result from the building of two new units at the FA-1 site would be 

19 similar to those discussed in Section 7.3.2 of this EIS because the affected waterbodies are the 

20 same. Impacts on aquatic biota are expected to be localized and short-term. Past actions in 

21 the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected aquatic resources include the 

22 building of VCSNS Unit 1, construction of the FPSF that connects Monticello Reservoir with Parr 

23 Reservoir, and the creation of Parr Reservoir to provide a pool for the original Parr Hydroelectric 

24 Plant located on the Broad River approximately 7 mi southwest of proposed FA-1 alternative 

25 site. Proposed future actions that would affect aquatic resources in a similar way to 

26 development at the FA-1 alternative site would include transmission-line creation and/or 

27 upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization 

28 would also be expected to occur. 

29 Operational Impacts 

30 Aquatic impacts associated with operation of the FA-1 alternative site would be associated 

31 primarily with intake-related impingement and entrainment losses of aquatic biota within the 

32 Monticello Reservoir, water-quality impacts on Parr Reservoir stemming from the discharge line, 

33 and stormwater drainage impacts. Specifications associated with the intake structure would 

34 include a closed-cycle cooling system designed to meet the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I requirements 

35 for new facilities (66 FR 65256). The maximum through-screen velocity at the cooling-water 

36 intake would be limited to 0.5 fps or less and the intake would not be located near critical habitat. 

37 Thus, if the proposed units were located at the FA-1 site, the anticipated impacts on aquatic 

38 communities from impingement and entrainment within Monticello Reservoir would be minor. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-68 April 2010

1 Operational impacts associated with water quality and discharge cannot be precisely 

2 determined without additional detailed analysis. However, based on the review team’s 

3 experience with other facilities such as the VCSNS Unit 1, the review team concludes that, with 

4 proper design, the impacts on aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the 

5 FA-1 site would be minimal. 

6 The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

7 the transmission-line corridors would also be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs are 

8 used. 

9 Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the FA-1 site would 

10 be similar to those discussed in Section 7.3.2 for VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Past, present, or future 

11 actions in the geographic area of interest that would affect aquatic ecological resources include 

12 aquatic biota impacts from the operation of VCSNS Unit 1, operation of the FPSF that connects 

13 Monticello Reservoir to Parr Reservoir, water quality from the NCW&SA Broad River WWTP 

14 and the NCW&SA Cannons Creek WWTP, and the SCE&G’s Parr Hydroelectric Plant. 

15 Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

16 nuclear facility may also contribute to cumulative impacts. 

17 Summary Statement 

18 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

19 SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, and the review team’s independent review. There are 

20 past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic ecology 

21 resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the FA-1 site. The 

22 existence of Parr and Monticello reservoirs that would be used by the FA-1 site for cooling 

23 eliminates much of the potential impact associated with water development needed for closed24 cycle cooling for a new site. Due to the close proximity of the FA-1 site to VCSNS and the 

25 potential reliance of both sites on Monticello and Parr reservoirs for cooling, many of the 

26 potential impacts on aquatic resources in the two reservoirs would be the same. Proper siting of 

27 associated transmission lines, avoiding habitat for protected species, minimizing interactions 

28 with waterbodies and watercourses along the transmission-line corridors, and using BMPs 

29 during corridor preparation and tower placement would minimize impacts related to the 

30 transmission system. Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the State of South 

31 Carolina, and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the 

32 cumulative impacts of building and operating two new reactors on the FA-1 site combined with 

33 other past, present, and future activities on most aquatic resources in the Broad River drainage 

34 would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-69 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 9.3.3.6 Socioeconomics 

2 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is 

3 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site with special consideration of 

4 Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that is where the review team 

5 expects socioeconomic impacts would be the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic 

6 impacts of site development and operation at the FA-1 site near Dawkins in Fairfield County, the 

7 review team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the region using readily obtainable data 

8 from the ER, the alternative site audit, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. The 

9 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

10 could affect the same environmental resources, including other Federal and non-Federal 

11 projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. Impacts from both building and station operation 

12 are discussed. 

13 Physical Impacts 

14 Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

15 Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

16 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

17 roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport materials and equipment. 

18 Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and disposal 

19 sites) would be expected to already be permitted and operational. 

20 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

21 visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 

22 produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

23 and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

24 assumed that the same standard noise protection and abatement procedures proposed for the 

25 VCSNS site would be used to control noise coming from the FA-1 site. This practice also would 

26 be expected to apply to all alternative sites. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed 

27 limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level 

28 generated by the workforce commuting to the alternative site. 

29 The new units at the FA-1 site would likely have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power 

30 systems. Permits obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with 

31 applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term 

32 basis. During normal plant operation, new units would not use a significant quantity of 

33 chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads 

34 and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

35 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

36 the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating Units 1 and 2 at 

37 the FA-1 site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-70 April 2010

1 Demography 

2 The FA-1 site is located in Fairfield County in South Carolina, approximately 31 air mi northwest 

3 of the closest economic center, Columbia, South Carolina (2007 population 124,818). Due to 

4 the close proximity of FA-1 site to the VCSNS site, the review team assumed the in-migrating 

5 project workforce would be similarly distributed. Because 95 percent of the VCSNS workforce 

6 live in one of four counties – Fairfield (2007 population 23,333), Lexington (2007 population 

7 243,270), Newberry (2007 population 37,633), and Richland (2007 population 357,734) – these 

8 counties compose the economic impact area and are the focus of the following analysis (see 

9 Table 2-23). 

10 Currently, 36.8 percent of the VCSNS workforce is located in Lexington County, 18.9 percent in 

11 Newberry County, 34.7 percent in Richland County, and 9.5 percent in Fairfield County. The in12 migrating population would be expected to reside within this four-county area in the same 

13 pattern as the VCSNS workforce. At peak project employment, SCE&G would expect the onsite 

14 workforce to be 3600. Based on the close proximity of the FA-1 site to the VCSNS site, the 

15 review team used similar labor force assumptions and estimated that 50 percent of the 

16 workforce associated with site development (1800) would migrate to the four-county economic 

17 impact area with their families. Using South Carolina’s average household size of 2.53, this 

18 would bring the total in-migrating population to 4554. Considering that the estimate of the in19 migrating population would be less than 1 percent of the 2007 population estimates for the 

20 economic impact area, the regional and local demographic impacts of building the proposed two 

21 new units at the FA-1 site are expected to be minimal. Once the facility is operational, the 

22 workforce would include 930 operations and support workers. The review team expects that as 

23 much as 50 percent of these workers would migrate to the economic impact area. The review 

24 team expects the demographic impacts would be similar to those estimated for the VCSNS site, 

25 based on the close proximity of the FA-1 site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G 

26 and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the demographic 

27 impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minimal. 

28 Taxes and Economy 

29 If the proposed nuclear facility were located at the FA-1 site, taxes and fee-in-lieu-of-taxes 

30 agreements would be similar to those estimated to occur at the VCSNS site. Corporate and 

31 personal income taxes along with sales and use taxes would be collected during both building 

32 and operations; however property taxes would not be paid until operations begin. Once 

33 operations begin, SCE&G likely would have entered into a fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with 

34 Fairfield County. Based on the agreement SCE&G has with the County in regard to VCSNS, 

35 which has an assessment ratio of 4 percent and a special revenue credit of 20 percent of the 

36 fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments during the first 20 years, SCE&G estimates VCSNS annual 

37 payments to be between $13.7 million and $31.6 million over 40 years of the license period. 

38 The review team does not expect significant growth in the Fairfield County tax base between 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-71 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 now and the start of operations that could otherwise diminish the scale of the tax impact on 

2 county revenue. The contribution to the total property tax revenue for Fairfield County would 

3 increase by 150 percent to an amount that is more in each year than the current overall total 

4 property tax revenue of the county. Therefore, the review team concludes that property tax 

5 revenue impacts would be substantial and beneficial for Fairfield County. 

6 The four-county economic impact area had 324,230 people in the labor force in 2008 with an 

7 unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, just under the State average of 6.9 percent. Fairfield and 

8 Newberry Counties have the smallest economies with a predominantly manufacturing base 

9 while Lexington and Richland Counties have larger service-based economies. The wages and 

10 salaries of the project workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result in increases in 

11 business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. 

12 SCE&G acquired Regional Input-Output Model System (RIMS) II economic multiplier values 

13 specific to this economic impact area from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006). 

14 Using the RIMS multiplier of 2.04 (for utility construction industries), the influx of 1800 

15 construction jobs would create 1872 indirect jobs in the economic impact area. This would have 

16 a positive impact on the business community and could provide (1) opportunities for new 

17 businesses to get started and (2) increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new 

18 units are operational, approximately 930 new operations and support jobs would be added to 

19 the local economy. Using the RIMS multiplier of 3.13 (for utility operations industries), an influx 

20 of 930 operations and support jobs would create 1981 indirect and induced jobs for a total of 

21 2911 jobs supported within the four-county economic impact area (see Section 5.4.3.1). The 

22 new jobs would constitute a minor beneficial impact on the four-county economic impact area. 

23 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

24 the review team concludes that the economic and tax base impacts of building and operating 

25 two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minor in the four-county area, but would be 

26 substantial in Fairfield County. 

27 Transportation and Housing 

28 A new access road would be constructed to access the FA-1 site. The plant entrance road 

29 would be accessed from SR-34 via Pearson Road and Dawkins Road. SC-34 is an east-west 

30 paved two-lane highway with a 2008 annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of 1600 vehicles 

31 between the Fairfield County line and SC-215, the closest segment measured by SCDOT 

32 (SCDOT 2009). SC-34 connects with SC-215 to the east and I-26 and US-176 to the west. A 

33 rail spur from the existing Norfolk Southern railroad would be constructed adjacent to the site. 

34 Based on the analysis in Section 4.5, an additional 1800 cars could be on the road at shift 

35 change. Also, project deliveries of 100 trucks per day are expected (SCE&G 2009a). Because 

36 access to the FA-1 site would be provided using two-lane county roads through the Dawkins 

37 area, the review team estimates traffic volumes during the project would likely represent a 50- to 

38 125-percent increase or more above baseline AADT levels of affected roadways, based on 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-72 April 2010

1 analysis of the VCSNS site (see Section 4.4.4.1). The review team concludes that these 

2 impacts would be significant and would likely be especially acute during periods of shift change. 

3 These impacts would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and site delivery traffic that have no 

4 other route options available. The review team expects these impacts would be of short 

5 duration and temporary, and would be substantially mitigated by traffic management planning by 

6 SCE&G, but they would be noticeable in the local vicinity. Operation impacts would be 

7 significantly lower than the building phase impacts of traffic due to the much smaller workforce 

8 and because roads likely would have been improved during the building phase. 

9 Approximately 1800 construction workers are predicted to migrate into the region during peak 

10 project employment. Approximately 400 operations workers could migrate into the region by the 

11 time the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, 

12 use mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to buy 

13 a house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were 246,119 housing units in the four14 county economic impact area, of which 7738 in Lexington County, 2779 in Newberry County, 

15 9692 in Richland County, and 1416 in Fairfield County were vacant, for a total of 21,625 vacant 

16 units (SCE&G 2009a). The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be 

17 absorbed fairly easily by the region and the impacts would likely be minimal during both building 

18 and operation. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

19 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that transportation and housing impacts of 

20 building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minor across the four21 county area, and would be noticeable in Fairfield County, though not destabilizing. 

22 Public Services and Education 

23 In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely affect local 

24 municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. These 

25 impacts would likely be in proportion with the demographic impacts experienced in the region, 

26 unless these resources have excess capacity or are particularly strained during building, which 

27 would decrease or increase the impact, respectively. The in-migrating workers represent a 

28 small portion of the total population of Fairfield County and likely would not have a noticeable 

29 impact on their public services. During operations the impact on public services would likely be 

30 minimal. 

31 Within the four-county area there are 162 public schools serving almost 111,000 students, with 

32 an average student-to-teacher ratio of 13.3 to 1, as discussed in Section 2.5.2.7. The total 

33 number of students in the public school systems surrounding the FA-1 site has grown over the 

34 past decade as the population of the region as a whole has grown. The largest public school 

35 districts in the area plan to construct new schools prior to the start of major site-development 

36 activities. The number of in-migrating workers and their families is not likely to be significant 

37 and would be dispersed across the four-county area in roughly the proportion of the current 

38 operations workforce for VCSNS Unit 1 (see Table 4-5). Based on review team visits to the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-73 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 region and consultations with local officials, the review team expects that project-related 

2 students that would enter the local school systems would not noticeably alter current growth 

3 projections. During operation, this impact on schools would be significantly less due to the 

4 lower number of in-migrating students. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

5 review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the public services and 

6 education impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be 

7 minor. 

8 Aesthetics and Recreation 

9 The four-county economic impact area is a defined tourism region called Capital City/Lake 

10 Murray Country. The region includes Congaree National Monument, parts of Sumter National 

11 Forest, and several large State Recreation Areas (see Table 2-26). Near the FA-1 site are 

12 several trails and State heritage preserves that offer wildlife viewing, hunting, camping, boating, 

13 fishing, and other recreational activities. The site nearly borders the Sumter National Forest. 

14 No recreation would take place on the FA-1 site during the project or over the life of the plant 

15 (SCE&G 2009a). 

16 Most development would occur near the center of the property and wouldn’t be visible from afar 

17 except from elevated areas. The intake and outfall structures on the Broad River would be 

18 visible. During certain weather conditions, cooling-tower plumes may also be visible. The 

19 review team concludes that the visual impact of a nuclear facility on this site would have a minor 

20 impact on the aesthetics and recreational resources in the area. The impacts would be similar 

21 to those at the VCSNS site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review 

22 team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public aesthetics and recreation 

23 impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site would be minimal. 

24 Summary of Project-Related Socioeconomic Impacts 

25 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

26 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

27 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

28 on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

29 the review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating a new nuclear plant at the 

30 FA-1 site on socioeconomics would be minimal and adverse for most of the region but could be 

31 noticeable but not destabilizing for Fairfield County in terms of transportation impacts during the 

32 building phase. During operation, these impacts are expected to be minimal. Impacts on 

33 aesthetics are expected to be minor. The impacts on the Fairfield County tax base during 

34 operations likely would be substantial and beneficial; however only minor beneficial impacts 

35 would result in the rest of the region. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-74 April 2010

1 Cumulative Impacts 

2 The projects identified in Table 9-6, particularly the future urbanization of the Columbia 

3 metropolitan area, have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, 

4 and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and 

5 industrialization. Because the projects within the review area identified in Table 9-6 would be 

6 consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, the review team considers the 

7 cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be manageable. 

8 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is 

9 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site, with special consideration of 

10 Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that is where the review team 

11 expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. 

12 The FA-1 site is located in a rural area of western Fairfield County. The site itself is near the 

13 Monticello Reservoir, which is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with sparse residential 

14 development. The site is near metropolitan Columbia, the Richland County Seat and capital of 

15 South Carolina. However, Fairfield County is much more rural than Richland County, and is 

16 governed from the County Seat of Winnsboro. As the economic hub of the Central Midlands, 

17 the City of Columbia is the center of government and industry for a wide area in central South 

18 Carolina. Relatively recently, the I-26 corridor has seen significant commercial and residential 

19 development in the areas of West Columbia and Irmo. The University of South Carolina and 

20 several regional medical facilities have attracted a well-educated workforce to this area. Fort 

21 Jackson, a large military installation in Columbia, is supported by nearly 4000 civilian 

22 employees. 

23 The construction of VCSNS Unit 1 provides additional context for what the potential cumulative 

24 impacts of building the new units at the FA-1 site would be. The NRC was completing its Final 

25 Environmental Statement (FES) for the Operating License (OL) for VCSNS Unit 1 just as final 

26 construction of that unit was winding down over the 1979–1981 period. As such, the OL FES 

27 provides a glimpse at the observed socioeconomic impacts from that construction project. At 

28 that time the review team noted that the construction contractor commissioned a workforce 

29 survey to ascertain information such as the residence pattern of the construction workers. Of 

30 the approximately 2400 workers surveyed, 1913, or about 80 percent came from within the 

31 VCSNS region, and 927, or nearly 50 percent came from either Lexington or Richland Counties 

32 (NRC 1981). The review team also observed that more than 70 percent of the workers came 

33 from the Central Midlands area, with the remainder coming from outside the region. 

34 In addition to assessing the marginal socioeconomic impacts from the building and operations of 

35 two additional nuclear units on the FA-1 site, the cumulative impact is also considered. The 

36 cumulative impact analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

37 actions that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-75 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. The 

2 projects identified in Table 9-6 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, 

3 economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

4 urbanization and industrialization. However, many impacts such as those on housing or public 

5 services are able to adjust over time, particularly with increased tax revenues. Furthermore, 

6 State and county plans along with modeled demographic projections include forecasts of future 

7 development and population increases. Because the other projects described in Table 9-6 do 

8 not include any significant reasonably foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 

9 mi of the FA-1 site, the review team determined there would not be any significant additional 

10 cumulative socioeconomic impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts 

11 associated with activities listed in Table 9-6 would have been considered as part of the 

12 socioeconomic baseline. 

13 The review team concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the building and operation of a 

14 new two-unit nuclear plant at the FA-1 site would be SMALL and adverse across most of the 

15 region but could be MODERATE and adverse for Fairfield County in terms of transportation 

16 impacts during the building phase. The cumulative impacts on the Fairfield County tax base 

17 during plant building and operation likely would be beneficial and LARGE. Building and 

18 operating a new plant at the FA-1 site would make a significant incremental contribution to both 

19 adverse and beneficial impact levels. 

20 9.3.3.7 Environmental Justice 

21 In addition to impacts from building and operations, the review team considered other past, 

22 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to disproportionate and 

23 adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations at the FA-1 site, including other 

24 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For this analysis, the 

25 geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the FA-1 site. 

26 Because both sites are located in western Fairfield County, the FA-1 region substantially 

27 overlaps the VCSNS region described in Section 2.2.3. 

28 The FA-1 site is located in a rural area of western Fairfield County. The site itself is near the 

29 Monticello Reservoir, which is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with sparse residential 

30 development. The site is near metropolitan Columbia, the Richland County Seat and capital of 

31 South Carolina. However, Fairfield County is much more rural than Richland County and is 

32 governed from the County Seat of Winnsboro. The immediate vicinity of the FA-1 site was 

33 affected substantially by the VCSNS Unit 1 construction and the creation of Monticello Reservoir 

34 as part of the FPSF project as land was acquired and cleared for development. 

35 From an environmental justice perspective, the review team determined there is a potential for 

36 minority populations to be disproportionately and adversely affected by environmental impacts. 

37 Although Richland County and immediately adjacent counties are urban population centers, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-76 April 2010

1 there are a number of farms within the region. The review team found low-income, African 

2 American, and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria established 

3 in Section 2.6.1 for further consideration in an environmental justice analyses. Several of these 

4 populations are clustered in the vicinity of the FA-1 site (see Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5). 

5 Because the other projects described in Table 9-6 do not include any significant reasonably 

6 foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the FA-1 site, the review team 

7 concluded there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental justice 

8 impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated with activities 

9 listed in Table 9-6 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline 

10 presented in Section 2.5. For example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as 

11 mining, other electrical utilities, etc., are part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II 

12 multipliers. Regional planning efforts and associated demographic projections formed the basis 

13 for the review team’s assessment of reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

14 Because of the proximity of the FA-1 site to the proposed VCSNS site, the review team relied 

15 upon its analysis and conclusions for the proposed site (Sections 4.5 and 5.5 of this EIS) in 

16 determining the hypothetical impacts of construction at the FA-1 site. The review team based 

17 its environmental justice determinations on the methodology discussed in Section 2.6.1, 

18 including a closer look at potential areas of interest using a series of health and physical 

19 considerations. As found for the VCSNS site, the review team determined the only 

20 consideration that required greater scrutiny at the FA-1 site was related to the characteristics of 

21 the natural or physical environment – roads and traffic. Under the limitations of a 

22 reconnaissance-level analysis, the review team found no other health or physical consideration 

23 and no unique characteristics or practices that could lead to a disproportionately high and 

24 adverse impact on any minority or low-income community within the FA-1 region. 

25 Because access to the FA-1 site would be provided using two-lane roads through the Dawkins 

26 community, the review team estimates traffic volumes during building activities are likely to 

27 represent a 50- to 125-percent increase or more above baseline AADT levels of affected 

28 roadways, based on analysis of the VCSNS site (see Section 4.4.4.1). The review team 

29 concludes that these impacts would be significant and would likely be especially acute during 

30 periods of shift change. These impacts would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and site 

31 delivery traffic that have no other route options available. The review team expects these 

32 impacts would be of short duration and temporary. Because the review team concluded 

33 disproportionate impacts from project activities on minority populations would occur in an area 

34 with an environmental justice population of interest, environmental justice impacts also would be 

35 noticeable, but would be of short duration and temporary. 

36 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-77 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-4. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

3 Justice Selection Criteria at the FA-1 Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-78 April 2010

1 

2 Figure 9-5. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

3 Selection Criteria at the FA-1 Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-79 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

2 review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that when viewed in the context 

3 of the wider region, locating the proposed action at the FA-1 site would not contribute additional 

4 cumulative impacts beyond impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. The 

5 review team did not identify any other environmental pathways by which disproportionate and 

6 adverse impacts could affect minority or low-income populations or communities. The review 

7 team concludes that disproportionate and adverse impacts, which may be noticeable locally, do 

8 not create pathways to increase expected cumulative impacts on minority and low-income 

9 populations in the region. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that cumulative 

10 environmental justice impacts associated with building and operating two new nuclear units at 

11 the FA-1 site would be SMALL, with the exception of a limited MODERATE disproportionate and 

12 adverse impact from traffic during peak project employment. Building two new nuclear units at 

13 the FA-1 site would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

14 9.3.3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources 

15 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

16 generating units at the FA-1 site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

17 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect cultural resources, including other 

18 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of 

19 cultural impacts at the FA-1 site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the Area of 

20 Potential Effect (APE) that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the 

21 physical APE, defined as the area directly affected by the site-development and operation 

22 activities at the site and transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as 

23 an additional 1-mi radius around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a 

24 maximum distance from which the structures can be seen. 

25 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

26 these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

27 cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

28 reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissance29 level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

30 can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

31 cultural resources at the FA-1 site the following information was used: 

32  SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2009a) – including the National Park Services National Register 

33 Information 

34  NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009 (NRC 2010). 

35 The FA-1 site is a greenfield site that is forested and primarily undeveloped. Historically, the 

36 site and vicinity were largely undisturbed and likely contained intact archaeological sites 

37 associated with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the FA-1 site has been 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-80 April 2010

1 disturbed by forestry practices (SCE&G 2009e). The physical and visual APEs for a proposed 

2 plant at the FA-1 site do not appear to have any historic properties located within the area likely 

3 to be affected by building or operating new plants. No archaeological and/or architectural 

4 surveys have been conducted at the FA-1 site. 

5 Two significant cultural resources are known to be located within 2 mi of the FA-1 site (SCE&G 

6 2009e). These two sites are the McMeekin Rock Shelter and the Blair Mound, both of which are 

7 listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or the National Register) (SCE&G 

8 2009e). The project has the potential to affect resources through visual impacts from buildings 

9 and transmission lines. Impacts on these resources may occur as a result of significant 

10 alterations to the visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. 

11 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the FA-1 site, SCE&G would need to clear 

12 approximately 400 ac of undeveloped land for the nuclear facility and associated structures and 

13 infrastructure. The proposed facility footprint would lie within a 400-ac parcel within a 6000-ac 

14 facility boundary (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). SCE&G has stated that as part of the site15 selection process known cultural resource locations would be considered as avoidance areas 

16 (SCE&G 2009i, j). SCE&G has also stated that if the proposed project was sited at the FA-1 

17 site, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural resource 

18 surveys. The results would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resource 

19 impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, SCE&G would also 

20 develop protective measures similar to what they have in place for the VCSNS site. In addition, 

21 inadvertent discovery procedures would be developed if cultural resources were discovered 

22 during site-development activities (SCE&G 2009i). 

23 Each AP1000 unit would require the addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, which would 

24 each occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. The total length and acreage of new 

25 transmission-line corridor required (collectively) would be approximately 227 mi and 2492 ac. 

26 SCE&G and Santee Cooper would both have a portion of the new transmission lines and details 

27 are provided in Table 9-9 and Table 9-10 (SCE&G 2009c, d). If the proposed project was sited 

28 at the FA-1 site, the staff assumes SCE&G would conduct its transmission-line-related cultural 

29 resource activities similar to what they have committed to do for the VCSNS site, as described 

30 in Section 4.6. 

31 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected cultural and historic 

32 resources include forestry practices at the FA-1 site and any road development and logging 

33 activities associated with those practices. No current or planned projects were identified in 

34 Table 9-6 that may contribute to cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources in the 

35 geographic area of interest. Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting 

36 facilities that can potentially directly affect cultural and historic resources include land-clearing, 

37 excavation, and grading activities. Given SCE&G’s site-planning process and no known cultural 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-81 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 resources at the FA-1 site based on reconnaissance-level information, the impacts on cultural 

2 resources due to site-development activities would be negligible. 

3 In addition, visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the 

4 visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are no known cultural 

5 resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are important, the visual 

6 impacts would be negligible. The staff assumes that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 

7 develop a management agreement in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

8 (SHPO) similar to the one that would be developed for VCSNS. 

9 Impacts on cultural and historic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the FA-1 

10 site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of 

11 transmission lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures currently used by 

12 SCE&G and Santee Cooper would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. 

13 Consequently, the incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and 

14 operations of the two new units and associated impacts on cultural resources would be 

15 negligible in the physical and visual APEs. 

16 Table 9-6 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes transmission 

17 lines; transportation improvements described in the South Carolina Strategic Corridor System 

18 Plan (SCDOT 2009); other parks, forests, and reserves; and future urbanization. These 

19 projects could affect historic and cultural resources in a manner similar to those associated with 

20 the operation of two new units. 

21 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

22 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s 

23 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

24 and operating two new nuclear generating units on the FA-1 site would be SMALL. This impact25 level determination reflects no known cultural resources that could be affected; however, if the 

26 FA-1 site was to be developed, then cultural resource surveys may reveal important historic 

27 properties that could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

28 9.3.3.9 Air Quality 

29 Because FA-1 is located only 5.5 mi from the VCSNS site, the air quality impacts of building and 

30 operating a nuclear facility at the FA-1 site would be similar to the air quality impacts at the 

31 VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the review team determined that the 

32 impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air quality at the VCSNS site would 

33 be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air 

34 quality at the FA-1 site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-82 April 2010

1 The FA-1 site is located in the Columbia Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, which is 

2 designated as being unclassified or in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality 

3 Standards (NAAQSs) (40 CFR 81.108). The resource area defined for this evaluation is 

4 Fairfield County, South Carolina. A single county was selected because designations of 

5 attainment or non-attainment are made on a county-by-county basis. As listed in Table 9-6, 

6 sources of gaseous emissions in Fairfield County include the VCSNS Unit 1 and the SCE&G 

7 Parr Steam Plant. Gaseous emissions from Unit 1 include sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, 

8 hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides associated with the intermittent operation of diesel 

9 generators (NRC 2004). The SCE&G Parr Steam Plant is located approximately 2 mi south of 

10 the VCSNS site and uses four natural-gas turbines to generate electricity. Gaseous emissions 

11 from the Parr Steam Plant include sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen 

12 oxides. Future development of the region around the VCSNS site could lead to increases in 

13 gaseous emissions related to transportation. Table 7-1 lists low-to-moderate potential for 

14 growth within Fairfield County. Given the intermittent operation of the diesel generators at both 

15 the existing Unit 1 and proposed Units 2 and 3, the low-to-moderate potential for growth in the 

16 county, and given the area is currently in attainment, the review team concludes the cumulative 

17 impacts, including the impacts from building and operating two new units on air quality, would 

18 be SMALL for criteria pollutants. 

19 Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

20 pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

21 Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

22 two AP1000 reactors located at the FA-1 site. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions at the 

23 FA-1 site considered in isolation would be minor, and the cumulative impact of greenhouse gas 

24 emissions would also be MODERATE, primarily due to national and world-wide impacts of 

25 emissions of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the FA-1 site 

26 would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

27 9.3.3.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

28 The following analysis considers nonradiological health impacts from building activities and 

29 operations. The analysis also includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

30 that impact the nonradiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the 

31 projects listed in Table 9-6. For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts at the FA-1 site, 

32 the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 6-mi area centered on the FA-1 site and 

33 the associated transmission-line corridors. The 6-mi radius is expected to encompass all 

34 nonradiological health impacts. Because the FA-1 site is located in close proximity to the 

35 VCSNS site, the geographic areas of interest overlap each other somewhat and are 

36 substantially the same in terms of characteristics. The VCSNS site vicinity (6-mi radius) is 

37 described in detail in Chapter 2. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-83 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Building Impacts 

2 Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

3 members of the public at the FA-1 alternative site would be similar to those evaluated in 

4 Section 4.8. They include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable 

5 Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the site6 preparation and building phase. The FA-1 site is located in a rural area and building impacts 

7 would likely be negligible on the surrounding populations that are classified as medium- and 

8 low-population areas. 

9 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected nonradiological health 

10 include the development and operation of the VCSNS Unit 1, located approximately 5.5 mi 

11 south-southwest of the FA-1 site; the development of the SCE&G Parr Hydroelectric Plant, 

12 located approximately 6.9 mi downstream on the Broad River; the Vulcan Materials 

13 Company/Blair Quarry, approximately 5 mi north of the FA-1 site; and the FPSF, approximately 

14 4.1 mi downstream on the Broad River. There are no major current projects in the geographic 

15 area of interest that would have a cumulative impact on nonradiological health in a similar way. 

16 Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

17 at the FA-1 site would include the proposed SCE&G Combined Site Emergency Operations 

18 Facility that may be located as close as 5 mi from the proposed FA-1 alternative site. 

19 Transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of 

20 interest and future urbanization would also be expected to occur. The review team concludes 

21 that the cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from building two new nuclear units and 

22 associated transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be minimal. 

23 Operational Impacts 

24 Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with the 

25 operation of cooling towers and transmission lines and they are fully described in Section 5.8. 

26 Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the FA-1 site (closed-cycle, wet cooling 

27 system with mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents would not likely increase the 

28 incidence of waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. Impacts on workers health from 

29 occupational injuries, noise, and electric fields would be similar. Noise and electric fields would 

30 be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health 

31 Administration (OSHA) regulations. 

32 No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

33 significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

34 of two new units at the FA-1 site. The review team therefore concludes that the impacts on 

35 nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines 

36 at the FA-1 site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-84 April 2010

1 Summary Statement 

2 Impacts on nonradiological health from building and operation of two new units at the FA-1 site 

3 are estimated based in the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

4 evaluation. The review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts on construction 

5 workers and the public resulting from the building of two new nuclear units and associated 

6 transmission lines at the FA-1 site would be minimal. The review team also expects that the 

7 occupational health impacts on the operations employees and the public of two new nuclear 

8 units at the FA-1 site would be minimal. Finally,the review team concludes that cumulative 

9 impacts from related past, present, and future actions in the geographic area of interest to 

10 nonradiological health would be SMALL. 

11 9.3.3.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

12 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

13 building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the FA-1 alternative site. The analysis 

14 also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

15 radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

16 Table 9-6. As described in Section 9.3.3, the FA-1 site is a greenfield site; there are currently 

17 no nuclear facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius 

18 of the FA-1 site. Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this geographic area of 

19 interest are the existing VCSNS Unit 1, the proposed independent spent fuel storage (ISFSI) 

20 facility at the VCSNS Unit 1, the proposed Lee Units 1 and 2, and the Westinghouse Fuel 

21 Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina. In addition, there are likely to be 

22 hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the FA-1 site that use radioactive material. 

23 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the FA-1 

24 site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

25 pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

26 regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those at the VSCNS site. 

27 The radiological impacts of the VCSNS Unit 1 include doses from direct radiation and liquid and 

28 gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people and biota 

29 offsite that would be well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological 

30 environmental monitoring program conducted around VCSNS Unit 1. In addition, the ongoing 

31 radiological environmental monitoring program conducted around VCSNS Unit 1 indicates that 

32 there are no significant cumulative radiological impacts from operation of the Westinghouse 

33 Fuel Fabrication Plant. The proposed ISFSI would produce negligible direct radiation offsite as 

34 discussed in Section 4.9.1. The ER submitted to the NRC as part of the application for the 

35 proposed plants at the Lee site indicates that operation of the proposed Lee reactors would 

36 result in radiological impacts from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. 

37 The Lee ER indicates that these pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-85 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 that would be well below regulatory limits (Duke 2009b). The NRC staff concludes that the dose 

2 from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive 

3 material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the FA-1 site. 

4 This conclusion is based on data from the radiological environmental monitoring programs 

5 conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. Based on the information provided 

6 by SCE&G and the NRC staff’s independent analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the 

7 cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the two proposed AP1000 plants 

8 and other existing and planned projects and actions in the geographic area of interest around 

9 the FA-1 site would be SMALL. 

10 9.3.3.12 Postulated Accident Impacts 

11 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

12 operations for two nuclear units at the FA-1 alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

13 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

14 postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

15 Table 9-6. As described in Section 9.3.3, the FA-1 site is a greenfield site; there currently are 

16 no nuclear facilities on the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and 

17 proposed nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted 

18 consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the FA-1 

19 alternative site. Existing facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this 

20 geographic area of interest are the existing VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee Units 

21 1, 2, and 3; Catawba Units 1 and 2; McGuire Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle Units 1 and 2. Other 

22 proposed reactors within this geographic area of interest include two AP1000 reactors at the 

23 Lee Nuclear Station and two AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle site. The Westinghouse Fuel 

24 Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina, is also within the geographic area of 

25 interest. 

26 As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

27 of design basis accidents (DBAs) at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. 

28 DBAs are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet 

29 NRC safety criteria. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions and the meteorology 

30 of the FA-1 and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

31 environmental consequences of DBAs at the FA-1 site would be minimal. Because the 

32 meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the FA-1 alternative site are expected to 

33 be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor 

34 located at the FA-1 alternative site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the 

35 proposed VCSNS site. These risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented in Tables 5-17 

36 and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, as 

37 discussed in Section 5.11.1, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-86 April 2010

fatality risks are well below the Commission’s(a) 1 safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing plants 

2 within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee Unit 1, 2, 

3 and 3; Catawba Units 1 and 2; McGuire Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle Units 1 and 2), the 

4 Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents 

5 are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the Lee Nuclear 

6 Station Environmental Report (Duke 2009a) and the EIS for the Vogtle Early Site Permit (ESP) 

7 (NRC 2008a), the risks from these proposed sites are also well below current-generation 

8 reactors and meet the Commission’s safety goals. There is no irradiated fuel at the 

9 Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant, and the plant is designed to prevent inadvertent 

10 criticalities; therefore, the additional risk is not significant in the evaluation of the cumulative 

11 severe accident risk for a nuclear power plant at the FA-1 site. On this basis, the NRC staff 

12 concludes that the cumulative risks from severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the FA13 1 alternative site would be SMALL. 

14 9.3.4 The Cope Generating Station Site 

15 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

16 a two-unit nuclear power plant at the 6000-ac Cope Generating Station (CGS) site located in 

17 Orangeburg County, South Carolina, 1.5 mi southwest of the town of Cope. The following 

18 sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major resource area. 

19 The specific resources and components that could be affected by the incremental effects of the 

20 proposed action if it were implemented at the CGS site and other actions in the same 

21 geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of NRC-authorized 

22 construction, operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the assessment are 

23 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and private actions that 

24 could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with the proposed action if 

25 implemented at the CGS site. Other actions and projects considered in this cumulative analysis 

26 are described in Table 9-13. 

27 The CGS is located in a predominantly rural area. The undeveloped sections on the site consist 

28 primarily of mixed pine and hardwood stands, wetland mixed hardwood forest, and cypress-gum 

29 swamplands. Wetlands are predominantly located along the floodplain of the Edisto River 

30 (South Fork), which crosses the SCE&G property 1 mi south of the CGS. A conservation 

31 easement granted to the Congaree Land Trust encompasses and protects 400 ac of wetlands 

32 located along the Edisto River at the site. Figure 9-6 shows the CGS alternative site region. 

 

(a) The Commission is the body of up to five NRC commissioners that formulates policies, develops regulations 

governing nuclear reactor and nuclear material safety, issues orders to licensees, and adjudicates legal matters. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-87 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-13. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

2 Considered in the Cope Generating Station Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Energy Projects 

Cope Generating Station A 430-MW(e) coal-fired 

electrical generating plant 

In same general location Operational(a)

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of 

one 996-MW(e) nuclear 

power generating plant. 

About 65 mi north of Cope Operational(b)

Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (VEGP) 

Nuclear power generating 

plant with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 2 

(1127 MW(e)) 

Within 50 mi of Cope Operational(c)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating 

plant with two 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water reactors 

About 45 mi west-southwest 

of Cope 

Proposed(d)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2 

Nuclear power generating 

plant with one 710-MW(e) 

unit 

About 90 mi northeast of 

Cope 

Operational(e)

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia, South Carolina 

Design and fabricate 

completed nuclear fuel 

assemblies and fuel-related 

products 

About 40 mi north of Cope Operational(f)

Savannah River Site Mixed 

Oxide (MOX) Fuel 

Fabrication facility 

Nuclear fuel fabrication About 40 mi west of Cope Construction of the MOX 

facility began in August 

2007; operation is expected 

to begin in 2016(g)

Other Actions/Projects: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Savannah River Site 

Research and industrial 

complex 

About 40 mi west of Cope Operational(h)

Barnwell Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Disposal 

Facility 

Low-level radioactive waste 

disposal 

About 25 mi west of Cope Operational(i)

Charleston Naval Weapons 

Station 

Radiological materials About 65 mi east-southeast 

of Cope 

Operational(j)

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi of Cope Operational in Orangeburg, 

Berkeley, Calhoun, 

Bamberg, Dorchester, 

Barnwell, Allendale, 

Richland and Lexington 

Counties. 

Kaiser Agricultural 

Chemicals 

Chemical facility About 1 mi east-northeast 

of Cope 

Listed on the EPA Facility 

Registry System 

3 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-88 April 2010

Table 9-13. (contd) 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status

Rockland-Bamberg 

Industries 

Fabric coating mill About 5 mi south-southwest 

of Cope 

Operational(k)

Town of Norway Sewage Treatment System 

Discharge 

About 8 mi northwest of 

Cope 

Operational(l)

Future Urbanization Construction of housing 

units and associated 

commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and railroad; 

construction of waterand/or wastewatertreatment and distribution 

facilities and associated 

pipelines, as described in 

local land-use planning 

documents. 

Throughout region. Construction would occur in 

the future, as described in 

State and local land-use 

planning documents 

(a) Source: SCE&G 2009g 

(b) Source: NRC 2004 

(c) Source: NRC 2009e 

(d) Source: NRC 2009f 

(e) Source NRC 2009b 

(f) Source: Westinghouse 2009 

(g) Source: DOE 2009a 

(h) Source: DOE 2009b 

(i) Source: South Carolina Energy Office 2009 

(j) Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(k) Source: EPA 2009e 

(l) Source: EPA 2009f 

1 The CGS, and an adjacent greenfield site, were originally identified in a 1974 siting evaluation 

2 for facilities development. The current CGS site has an existing 430-MW(e) coal-fired plant that 

3 has been in commercial operation since 1996. As a currently operational power plant, existing 

4 infrastructure includes rail access, transmission and distribution systems, and developed water 

5 resources. The power plant and associated support facilities are located on approximately 

6 550 ac. The primary source of cooling water for the CGS is pumped groundwater, with 

7 supplemental water supply provided through withdrawal of excess flow from the Edisto River. 

8 No additional land would need to be acquired for an expansion of generating capacity at the site 

9 (SCE&G 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-89 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-6. The CGS Alternative Site Region 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-90 April 2010

1 9.3.4.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors 

2 In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations, the cumulative analysis for the 

3 CGS site considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

4 contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal projects 

5 and the projects listed in Table 9-13. For the analysis of land-use impacts at the CGS site, the 

6 geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site, plus 

7 any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all of the 

8 transmission-line corridor length falls within a 50-mi radius of the site. Land-use planning for 

9 transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties 

10 and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering one county in isolation. 

11 Furthermore, in predominantly rural settings such as that surrounding the CGS site, land-use 

12 changes occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially influence 

13 land-use planning decisions close to the site. 

14 Roads and other public facilities and services in rural areas tend to serve people who are 

15 spread thinly but broadly over large portions of the landscape. Therefore land-use changes can 

16 affect roads and other facilities at greater distances than similar changes in more densely 

17 populated areas 

18 The CGS site is located in a sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small farms 

19 composing the dominant land use. Historically, the area has been used for crop production, and 

20 agriculture and silviculture are the dominant land uses in the vicinity. Several electric 

21 transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. Because 

22 the site already hosts a power station, the review team believes location of nuclear units there 

23 would not be inconsistent with existing zoning. 

24 Development of the proposed new units on the CGS site would convert existing land uses on 

25 about 400 ac of currently forested land to utility uses for the nuclear facility and associated 

26 structures and infrastructure. Similar to the VCSNS site, each AP1000 unit would require the 

27 addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, each of which would occupy a 100-ft-wide 

28 transmission-line corridor. Based on information provided by SCE&G (2009d) describing 

29 dimensions of conceptual transmission-line corridors for the CGS site, approximately 162 mi 

30 covering about 1179 ac of land would be affected. The review team concludes that the land-use 

31 impacts of the transmission-line installation activities would be generally similar to those 

32 described for the VCSNS site in Section 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated 

33 with nuclear facility and transmission-line development would be conducted according to 

34 Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

35 procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

36 Because the other projects described in Table 9-13 do not include any reasonably foreseeable 

37 changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the CGS site, there would not be any significant 

38 additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-91 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the new units 

2 have the potential to affect as much as 1179 ac over 162 mi of length. If additional transmission 

3 lines are built from other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use impact from the 

4 additional amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. Because 

5 transmission lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team expects that 

6 the cumulative impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning regulations of the 

7 affected counties. Nonetheless, consistent with previous discussions, multiple new 

8 transmission-line corridors could noticeably alter the land-use classification acreage proportions, 

9 both within the vicinity of the CGS and within the 50-mi region. 

10 Cumulative land-use impacts within the region are expected to be manageable because the 

11 activities would be consistent with existing land-use plans and zoning. However, due to the 

12 potential reclassification of acreage within the region caused by the transmission-line 

13 development, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts associated with 

14 the proposed project at the CGS site, related transmission-line corridor development, and other 

15 projects in the geographic area of interest would be MODERATE. Considering the land needs 

16 noted above, building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be a 

17 significant contributor to these impacts. 

18 9.3.4.2 Water Use and Quality 

19 The CGS site hydrology, water use, and water quality are discussed in ER Section 9.3.3.2 

20 (SCE&G 2009a); this section draws from information presented in the ER. Additional material 

21 for this alternative site is available in the Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech 

22 NUS, Inc. 2009). SCE&G currently uses groundwater as the primary source of water for 

23 operations and surface water as a backup source for the existing CGS. Groundwater is 

24 currently withdrawn on the site from the Middendorf aquifer and the Black Creek aquifer to 

25 support operation of the 430-MW(e) coal-fired plant onsite. These aquifers have high 

26 transmissivities and local well yields exceed 1000 gpm (2.2 cfs) (SCE&G 2009a). Two 

27 additional units at the CGS site would require an additional 83 cfs of total water withdrawal 

28 resulting in a 62-cfs consumptive loss through evaporation in the cooling towers and a 21-cfs 

29 return to the Edisto River as blowdown. Reliance solely on groundwater to meet station water 

30 demand would require an additional 28 groundwater wells, which would likely draw down the 

31 aquifer and result in interference with other local wells. Conversely, using the surface water 

32 from the adjacent South Fork Edisto River as the sole water source to support two new units at 

33 the site would exceed the 5-percent withdrawal limit of the river’s annual mean flow required by 

34 EPA’s Phase I regulations in 40 CFR 125.84(b)(3)(i). While the CGS site hydrology poses 

35 some challenges to supporting the building and operation of two new units, these challenges 

36 could be met by using both groundwater and surface water in combination with other water37 saving mitigation strategies, such as hybrid or dry cooling towers, or the construction of a 

38 cooling-water storage reservoir. Specific water consumption and mitigation strategies could 

39 include 5-percent consumptive use from the South Fork Edisto River, makeup groundwater 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-92 April 2010

1 withdrawn at a sustainable level, and the use of dry cooling towers and/or hybrid cooling towers 

2 to make up for any cooling-water shortfalls. 

3 Representative historical flow data for water years 1991–2008 is available for the South Fork 

4 Edisto River near Cope, South Carolina (USGS 2008b). The average flow is slightly lower than 

5 what is reported in the ER for this station due to the difference in periods covered. Table 9-14 

6 lists the South Fork Edisto River reduction in flow that would occur if 5 percent of the annual mean 

7 flow of the river was relied on as a partial water source for the operation of two units at this site. 

8 Table 9-14. South Fork Edisto River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels 

South Fork Edisto 

River Flow Condition 

River Flow 

Rate (cfs) Withdrawal Rate (cfs) 

Percent River 

Flow 

Reduction 

Annual Mean Flow 678 34 5 

Lowest Annual Flow 304 34 11.2 

9 Withdrawal of water from the South Fork Edisto River would be limited to 5 percent of the mean 

10 annual flow. Withdrawal of enough groundwater to meet the needs of the proposed units would 

11 likely create significant drawdowns at other local wells and might be difficult to sustain. Water12 use impacts would likely require some mitigation, such as the use of dry cooling towers or 

13 hybrid cooling towers, or the construction of a cooling-water storage reservoir to supplement 

14 water requirements during certain times of the year. 

15 SCE&G does not describe its proposed method for disposing of cooling-tower blowdown, but 

16 indicates that a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the nuclear 

17 project at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that 

18 the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are designed to ensure the 

19 protection of water quality, and therefore the impact on water quality from station blowdown to 

20 the Edisto River is assessed to be minimal. 

21 Impacts of building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater quality may occur due to 

22 leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents. However, based on the review team’s experience 

23 with other facilities, the review team concludes that, with the implementation of BMPs, the 

24 impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS 

25 site would likely be minimal. 

26 Cumulative Impacts 

27 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

28 cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

29 affect the same environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface 

30 water, the geographic area of interest for the CGS site is considered to be the drainage basin of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-93 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 the South Fork Edisto River upstream and downstream of the site, because this is the resource 

2 that would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, and future 

3 potential impacts on water supply and water quality in the South Fork Edisto River basin include 

4 the building and operation of the existing coal-fired plant at CGS, the sewage-treatment plant 

5 discharge for the town of Norway, and industrial activities in the South Fork Edisto River basin. 

6 For the cumulative analysis of impacts on groundwater, the geographic area of interest for the 

7 CGS site is considered to be the areas of the Middendorf and Black Creek aquifers up-gradient 

8 and down-gradient of the site. 

9 The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at this site 

10 are dominated by the water demands associated with station operation. The projected surface11 water withdrawal for the proposed units is expected to be no more than 34 cfs or a maximum of 

12 5 percent of the average river discharge of 678 cfs near the site, and therefore the surface13 water-use impacts are assessed to be SMALL. 

14 Increases in consumptive use of water in the South Fork Edisto River drainage is anticipated in 

15 the future. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-13 within this resource’s geographic 

16 area of interest are considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact 

17 on surface-water use. 

18 Impacts on groundwater use would be localized and temporary during building. Potential 

19 impacts on groundwater use during operations are anticipated to be significant because the two 

20 additional units on the CGS site would rely on groundwater to meet a significant portion of its 

21 water-supply needs. Because withdrawal of enough groundwater to meet the needs of the 

22 proposed units would adversely affect other local wells by noticeably drawing down the 

23 groundwater levels over time, water-use impacts are assessed to be MODERATE. Using both 

24 surface water and groundwater may require some mitigation such as the use of dry cooling 

25 towers, hybrid cooling towers, or the construction of a cooling-water reservoir. Building and 

26 operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be a significant contributor to the 

27 MODERATE impact. As discussed in Section 7.2, the review team is aware of the potential 

28 climate changes that could affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of 

29 reactor operations on water resources for other users. The impact of climate change would be 

30 similar for all the alternative sites. 

31 Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the South Fork Edisto River 

32 upstream and downstream of the CGS site, including the impact of operating the CGS, the 

33 sewage-treatment plant discharge for the town of Norway, and industrial activities in the South 

34 Fork Edisto River valley. Water-quality information presented above for the impacts of building 

35 and operating two new units at the CGS would also apply to evaluation of cumulative impacts. 

36 The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-13 are either considered in the analysis included 

37 above or would have little or no impact on surface-water quality. As mentioned above, a 

38 SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the nuclear project at this site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-94 April 2010

1 including disposing of cooling-tower blowdown. Effluent discharge through an NPDES2 permitted outfall would ensure that the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such 

3 permits are designed to ensure the protection of water quality. The review team also concludes 

4 that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from building and 

5 operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would likely be minimal, and therefore 

6 concludes that the cumulative impact on surface and groundwater quality would be SMALL. 

7 9.3.4.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

8 Site Description 

9 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

10 terrestrial ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

11 foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including other Federal 

12 and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-13. For the analysis of terrestrial 

13 ecological impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 6-mi 

14 region centered on the CGS site, plus the associated transmission-line corridors. This 6-mile 

15 radius is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features and species. 

16 The CGS site encompasses approximately 1143 ac and would be in the same general location 

17 as the existing CGS 430-MW(e) coal-fired electrical generating plant (SCE&G 2009a). Habitats 

18 present on the proposed CGS site and associated transmission-line corridors are typical of 

19 those found in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion. The southern floodplain forests 

20 include bottomland hardwood forest (bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash, 

21 bitternut hickory) and cypress-gum swamp (water tupelo, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and pond 

22 cypress ) (Griffith et al. 2002). Understory vegetation in the cypress-gum swamp community is 

23 sparse; however, a variety of wildlife species use this habitat, from amphibians to mammals. 

24 The CGS site includes primarily cypress-gum swamp, wetland mixed hardwoods, planted pine, 

25 and old fields (SCE&G 2009a). 

26 Common wildlife species present on the CGS project site (and in the vicinity) include many 

27 game species: white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, opossum, and raccoon, wild 

28 turkey (Meleagris gallpavo), northern bobwhite quail, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red 

29 fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), wood duck (Aix sponsa), mink 

30 (Mustela vision), otter (Lontra canadensis), and beaver (Castor canadensis) (SCE&G 2009a). 

31 SCE&G has not conducted any on-the-ground studies to determine whether threatened or 

32 endangered species occur on the proposed CGS project site; however, four Federally listed 

33 species are known to occur in Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties. These species include the 

34 delisted bald eagle (still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act), and 

35 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-95 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), the wood stork, 

2 the threatened flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), and one vascular plant, the 

3 Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi). 

4 In addition to the Federally listed species, the State of South Carolina has several listed species 

5 known to occur in the counties of the proposed site and vicinity, including those crossed by 

6 transmission lines. They include one mammal, two birds, two reptiles, and two amphibians (see 

7 Table 9-15 below), including endangered species such as Rafinesque's big-eared bat 

8 (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), the gopher tortoise, and the gopher frog (Rana capito) and State 

9 threatened species such as Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia), least tern (Sterna antillarum), 

10 spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), and the dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus). 

11 Table 9-15. Federally and State-Listed Species that May Occur on the CGS Alternative Site, 

12 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status County 

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SE Bamberg, Colleton, Orangeburg 

Birds

Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT/ST Colleton 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's plover ST Colleton 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BGEPA/SE Bamberg, Colleton, Orangeburg 

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Bamberg, Colleton 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Bamberg, Colleton, Orangeburg 

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Colleton 

Reptiles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Bamberg, Colleton 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE/SE Colleton 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Colleton 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle FE/SE Colleton 

Amphibians

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg 

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Orangeburg 

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Orangeburg 

Vascular Plants

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Bamberg, Colleton, Orangeburg 

Source: SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008 Southeast Region County Lists 

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-96 April 2010

1 Although four species of sea turtle occur in Colleton County, none would be found in the upland 

2 areas where the transmission-line corridors would be located. SCE&G has stated that on-the3 ground field surveys would be conducted prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing 

4 activities on the site or transmission-line corridors as part of the permitting process (SCE&G 

5 2009a). 

6 Building Impacts 

7 Although estimates of acreage of disturbance to habitat types were not given, SCE&G stated 

8 that the proposed project could be designed and sited to fit into previously disturbed land within 

9 the existing CGS site boundary (SCE&G 2009a). Based on a preliminary site layout of the 

10 tabletop footprint provided by SCE&G, approximately 15.9 ac of the 425.2 ac of wetlands 

11 present on the 1143.3-ac site would be affected during building activities for the two proposed 

12 units (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G states that the nuclear facility would be sited to avoid wetlands 

13 whenever possible and potential impacts on wetlands near building zones would be minimized 

14 through the use of established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

15 Each AP1000 unit would require the addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, which would 

16 each occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. The total length and acreage of new 

17 transmission-line corridor required (collectively) that would affect terrestrial ecological resources 

18 would be approximately 162 mi and 1179 ac . SCE&G and Santee Cooper would both have a 

19 portion of the new transmission lines and details are provided in Table 9-16 and Table 9-17 

20 below (SCE&G 2009c, d). 

21 One of the transmission lines would be in the Coastal Zone region of South Carolina, which 

22 would require review and certification under the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act. 

23 Due to the routing in the coastal zone and the amount of wetlands present within the proposed 

24 corridors, new lines could incur substantial wetland impacts. SCE&G stated that all land 

25 clearing associated with transmission-line development would be conducted according to 

26 Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

27 procedures, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

28 Table 9-16. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site 

TransmissionLine Segment 

Length of 

Corridor 

(mi) 

Acres of 

Corridor 

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands 

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands 

Acres of 

Open 

Water 

Linear Feet 

of Streams 

Cope-Orangeburg 22 32 0.3 1 -- 288 

Cope-St. George 34 345 103 42 0.4 4075 

Total 56 377 104 43 0.4 4363 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-97 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-17. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the CGS Alternative Site 

Wetlands Estimate 

New Corridor 

(106 mi, 802 ac) 

Existing Corridor 

(0 ac) 

Total Corridor 

(802 ac) 

Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors 

Hydric Soils 471 59 0 NA 471 59 

NWI Wetlands 138 17 0 NA 138 17 

NA = Not applicable; NWI = National Wetlands Inventory 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d 

2 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected terrestrial resources 

3 include the development and operation of the CGS, located in the same general location as the 

4 CGS site. The building of the existing CGS facilities resulted in the clearing of approximately 

5 550 ac of terrestrial resources to accommodate the power plant and associated buildings. The 

6 Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Company, located less than 1 mi east-northeast of the CGS site, 

7 also contributed to the loss of terrestrial habitat in the region. There are no major current 

8 projects in the geographic area of interest that would have a cumulative impact on terrestrial 

9 ecological resources in a similar way. 

10 Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

11 at the CGS site would include transmission-line development and/or upgrading throughout the 

12 designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to 

13 occur. 

14 Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

15 unavoidable, and activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading 

16 (temporary and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, 

17 heavy equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities 

18 would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the development areas. Some wildlife, 

19 including some individuals of important species, would perish or be displaced during land 

20 clearing for any of the above projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

21 competition for remaining resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and 

22 small mammals, would be at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such 

23 as birds, many of which would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land 

24 adjacent to the project could provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased 

25 competition for available space and resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also 

26 be subjected to impacts from noise and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall 

27 structures. The impact on wildlife from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The 

28 creation of new transmission-line corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those 

29 that inhabit early successional habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-98 April 2010

1 northern bobwhite quail, eastern meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as 

2 red-tailed hawks, would likely exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within 

3 the corridors would be converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition 

4 that could provide improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading birds. However, 

5 fragmentation of forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on large tracts of 

6 continuous forested habitat. 

7 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent review, the 

8 review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the building of 

9 two new nuclear units at the CGS site could be minimal. Because of the uncertainty about the 

10 possible routing of new transmission-line corridors, the review team concludes that the 

11 terrestrial resource impacts associated with the building of new transmission lines for the CGS 

12 site could be noticeable, although not ecologically destabilizing.

13 Operational Impacts 

14 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the operation of two new nuclear units at the 

15 CGS site primarily include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. Impacts 

16 resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines are discussed in detail in 

17 Section 9.3.3.3 and would apply to the CGS site. 

18 No other past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that 

19 would significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife, including important species, in ways 

20 similar to those associated with the operation of two new units and the associated transmission 

21 lines at the CGS site. The review team concludes that the impacts of operating two new units 

22 and associated transmission lines at the CGS site on terrestrial resources and wetlands would 

23 be minimal. 

24 9.3.4.4 Summary Statement 

25 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

26 SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. Past and future activities in the geographic 

27 area of interest could affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to the building of two units 

28 at the CGS site. Although much of the land disturbance would occur within existing developed 

29 areas on the CGS site, other affected areas on the site as well as some of the associated 

30 transmission-line corridors are natural habitats that would be substantially altered by 

31 development and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of 

32 terrestrial wildlife populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated development projects 

33 would further alter wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The 

34 review team concludes that cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for terrestrial resources 

35 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-99 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 would be noticeable in the regional ecosystem and hence MODERATE. Building and operating 

2 two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE 

3 impact. 

4 9.3.4.5 Aquatic Resources 

5 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

6 aquatic ecology resources. The CGS alternative site is located between Roberts Swamp and 

7 Snake Swamp (Sam Branch), which drain into the South Fork Edisto River watershed 

8 (SCDHEC 2004a; SCE&G 2009a), which falls within Orangeburg, Barnwell, and Bamberg 

9 Counties. This 164,149-ac watershed lies within the Upper and Lower Coastal Plain ecoregions 

10 of South Carolina (SCDHEC 2004a). Within the South Fork Edisto River watershed (Hydrologic 

11 Unit Code [HUC] 03050204-050), 18.7 percent of the area is classified as forested wetland 

12 swamps. Water and nonforested wetland marshes make up less than 1 percent of the land 

13 cover in this watershed (SCDHEC 2004a). The geographic area of interest is the South Fork 

14 Edisto River watershed because this region is the most likely to show impacts on water quality 

15 relative to the water-quality criteria for aquatic biota affected by CGS site activities. 

16 Historically, water-quality conditions within the South Fork Edisto River region have been and 

17 still are influenced by natural conditions and land-use practices. With no impoundments, the 

18 Edisto River is one of the longest blackwater rivers in the United States (SCDHEC 2005). A 

19 blackwater system is characterized by water-quality conditions that are characterized by 

20 naturally low pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations (SCDHEC 2004a). Near the vicinity of 

21 the proposed CGS alternative site, the upstream and downstream SCDHEC monitoring stations 

22 meet the water-quality criteria optimal for supporting aquatic life and have no restrictions for 

23 recreational use. However, a trend in increasing fecal coliform concentrations has been noted 

24 (SCDHEC 2004a), and elevated mercury concentrations within the watershed have resulted in a 

25 fish-consumption advisory. The SCDHEC (2009a) advises no consumption of bowfin (Amia 

26 calva), chain pickerel (Esox niger), and largemouth bass, and suggests limited consumption of 

27 redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) and redbreast sunfish (L. auritus) from the South Fork 

28 Edisto River. 

29 Recreationally Important Species 

30 The South Fork Edisto River is a known fishing area with largemouth bass, flat bullhead 

31 (Ameiurus platycephalus), and channel catfish being the most sought-after sport fish on the river 

32 (Angler Guide 2009). Catfish species are prized recreationally for consumption, and while adult 

33 catch sizes are modest (30–60 cm), channel catfish have been caught in excess of 1 m in 

34 length (Rohde and Parnell 1994). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-100 April 2010

1 Invasive Species 

2 No invasive or nuisance species have been specifically identified within the South Fork Edisto 

3 River near the proposed CGS site. 

4 Critical Habitats 

5 No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS in the vicinity of the CGS site. 

6 Federally and State-Listed Species 

7 Federal and State-listed threatened and endangered species that may occur near the CGS site 

8 or in counties sited for transmission-line corridor development are listed in Table 9-18. 

9 Table 9-18. Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the CGS 

10 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line 

11 Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT/ST Colleton

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT Colleton

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE Colleton

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle FE Colleton

Fish 

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Colleton, Dorchester, Orangeburg 

Sources: FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; FWS 2008; SCDNR 2006a

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, ST = State Threatened 

12 There are four Federally listed species of sea turtles in South Carolina. The loggerhead and 

13 green sea turtles are listed as threatened, whereas the leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea 

14 turtles are listed as endangered (FWS 2008). The loggerhead sea turtle is also listed as a State 

15 threatened species for Colleton County (SCDNR 2006a). The siting of the Cope-Varnville 

16 transmission line is projected to run to the west of I-95, which is well over 50 mi from the 

17 coastline, and does not cross any marine habitats (MACTEC 2009). Therefore, although the 

18 four species of sea turtles occur in Colleton County, no activities associated with transmission 

19 lines for the CGS site would affect these species. 

20 The shortnose sturgeon is the only Federally listed aquatic species known to occur in 

21 Orangeburg County. The shortnose sturgeon is a State and Federal endangered species (FWS 

22 2008). It is unknown whether the shortnose sturgeon occurs in the immediate vicinity of the 

23 proposed alternative site; however, populations are known to reside downstream in the Edisto 

24 River. It is unknown whether shortnose sturgeon migrate up the South Fork Edisto River, and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-101 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 no reliable records are available to document this species for this sub-basin. The shortnose 

2 sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered species in 1967 and is designated as a 

3 species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). This 

4 amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats to complete its life cycle 

5 (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). 

6 In South Carolina, populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and 

7 Edisto rivers (flowing to St. Helena Sound); the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing 

8 to Winyah Bay); and the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a small 

9 landlocked population of shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 

10 2003). 

11 In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

12 water. Spawning occurs in fresh waters characterized by low-to-moderate velocities and over 

13 substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006). 

14 Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having little turbidity (McCord 

15 2006). 

16 Building Impacts 

17 The proposed alternative site would be located within the existing footprint of the CGS, adjacent 

18 to the coal-fired facility. SCE&G (2009a) has indicated that the makeup water for the cooling 

19 system would be derived from groundwater sources, but may also include water from the South 

20 Fork Edisto River. The CGS alternative site requires additional intake and discharge structures 

21 that are discrete from the existing structures associated with the CGS and installation activities 

22 may impose temporary, localized impacts on aquatic biota in the South Fork Edisto River. 

23 Impacts on water quality would stem from direct (e.g., dredging, shoreline excavation) and 

24 indirect sources (e.g., stormwater runoff, sedimentation). Building associated with new 

25 infrastructure (e.g., roads, site footprint) and upgrading existing features (e.g., railroad lines) 

26 would affect approximately 432 linear feet out of a total of approximately 16,041 linear feet of 

27 onsite streams; however, there would be no impacts on the approximately 9.8 ac of open water 

28 on the site (SCE&G 2010a). 

29 Because the CGS alternative site footprint would likely occupy previously disturbed land 

30 adjacent to the existing coal facility, impacts on aquatic biota in nearby streams or ponds would 

31 likely be minimized during building activities. However, site-specific information pertaining to 

32 aquatic habitat and/or important aquatic biota is unavailable. Based on the absence of 

33 occurrence information, building in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures may result 

34 in impacts on important species, but impacts are likely to be temporary and largely mitigated by 

35 the use of appropriate water-quality BMPs. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-102 April 2010

1 If the new units were located at the CGS alternative site, the addition of up to six 230-kV 

2 transmission lines would be required. Installation of the new transmission lines may include 

3 upgrading existing transmission-line corridors, or the development of new transmission-line 

4 corridors. One transmission line would fall within the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Coastal 

5 Zone Management Act, thus requiring additional review and certification. Transmission-line 

6 corridors would be maintained by both SCE&G and Santee Cooper. For SCE&G lines, 

7 approximately 4363 linear feet of streams and 0.4 ac of open water are located within the new 

8 transmission-line rights-of-way (Table 9-16) (SCE&G 2009d). The Santee Cooper transmission9 line corridors associated with the CGS site would include an estimated 72 stream crossings, 

10 4 of which would be State Navigable Waters crossings, such as the South Fork Edisto River, 

11 and the Salkehatchie River (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated 

12 with transmission-line creation would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local 

13 regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, good 

14 construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

15 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have affected aquatic resources, including 

16 important species, in ways similar to those associated with the building of two new units at the 

17 CGS alternative site include the construction of the existing CGS coal-fired plant, located 

18 adjacent to the CGS alternative site. Proposed future actions that would affect aquatic 

19 resources in a similar way to development at the CGS alternative site would include 

20 transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic area of 

21 interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to occur. 

22 Operational Impacts 

23 Operational impacts expected to occur at the CGS alternative site would be dependent on site24 specific characteristics that include plant specifications (e.g., water sources, discharge design) 

25 as well as the occurrence of important aquatic biota. Impacts on aquatic biota within the South 

26 Fork Edisto River as a result of intake-related impingement and entrainment losses would 

27 depend on the final source of makeup water. If groundwater were to be used as the source of 

28 cooling-water makeup, impingement and entrainment would be nonexistent. However, if water 

29 were to be withdrawn from the river using conventional technology, there would be impingement 

30 and entrainment losses to aquatic biota. Several intake/discharge configurations are designed 

31 to minimize impacts on aquatic biota. SCE&G has stated that “[t]he design of the intake 

32 structure would comply with the requirements of Section 316(b) [Phase I regulations] of the 

33 Clean Water Act, thereby reducing the potential impacts of entrainment and impingement to 

34 sensitive species.” Nevertheless, there is still the potential for noticeable impacts on aquatic 

35 resources due to water withdrawal for cooling-system makeup water from the South Fork Edisto 

36 River as described in Section 9.3.4.2; it is dependent upon the degree to which the South Fork 

37 Edisto River would be used as a cooling-water source. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-103 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Operational impacts associated with water quality and discharge cannot be precisely 

2 determined without additional detailed analysis. However, based on the review team’s 

3 experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that, with proper design, the thermal 

4 and chemical impacts on aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the CGS 

5 site would likely be minimal except during periods of low flow or drought conditions when 

6 impacts on aquatic biota from discharge of station blowdown to the river could be noticeable. 

7 The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

8 the transmission-line corridors would be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs are used.

9 Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the CGS site would 

10 include intake-related impingement and entrainment losses and chemical and thermal discharge 

11 from station blowdown. Past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest that 

12 would affect aquatic ecological resources include aquatic biota impacts from the operation of a 

13 sewage-treatment plant for the town of Norway, South Carolina, located approximately 7.6 mi to 

14 the northwest of the CGS alternative site, which discharges into the Willow Swamp area of the 

15 South Fork Edisto River, and the CGS coal-fired plant, located immediately adjacent to the 

16 proposed CGS site, which discharges into the South Fork Edisto River. Both plants are 

17 compliant with NPDES permitting for discharges (SCE&G 2009a). Thermal and chemical 

18 discharges from the proposed nuclear units, when combined with the effluents from the existing 

19 coal-fired plant, may create significant NPDES challenges because the portion of the Edisto 

20 River adjacent to the site is relatively narrow, with low river velocities. Detailed information 

21 necessary to address these unknowns is not available, nor is site-specific information regarding 

22 the presence of important aquatic biota. Anthropogenic activities such as residential or 

23 industrial development near the vicinity of the nuclear facility may also contribute to cumulative 

24 impacts. 

25 Summary Statement 

26 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

27 SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, and the review team’s independent review. There are 

28 past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic ecology 

29 resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the CGS site. Overall, the 

30 cumulative impact of building and operating two new units at the CGS site is expected to be 

31 SMALL to MODERATE. Effects on aquatic biota may be SMALL if habitat for protected species 

32 is avoided through proper siting; BMPs are used during building, both at the site and along the 

33 new transmission lines; and groundwater is used for part of the station cooling water. However, 

34 if siting of buildings or ancillary services and transmission-line corridor routing is unable to avoid 

35 waterbodies with known populations of protected species, there may be noticeable effects on 

36 populations of these important organisms. In addition, due to the relatively low flow rates in the 

37 South Fork Edisto River, the use of river water for station cooling could adversely affect aquatic 

38 biota due to intake-related impingement and/or entrainment losses, as well as from station 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-104 April 2010

1 blowdown effects, particularly during periods of drought. Therefore, it is possible that aquatic 

2 biota may be noticeably altered due to the building and operating of two additional units at the 

3 CGS, thereby resulting in a MODERATE impact. Building and operating two new nuclear units 

4 at the CGS would be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

5 9.3.4.6 Socioeconomics 

6 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is 

7 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site with special consideration of 

8 Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties, because that is 

9 where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the 

10 socioeconomic impacts of project development and operation at the CGS site in Orangeburg 

11 County, just north of the town of Bamberg, South Carolina, the review team undertook a 

12 reconnaissance survey of the region using readily obtainable data from the ER, the alternative 

13 site audit, and Federal, State, and local government agencies. The analysis also considers 

14 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the same 

15 environmental resources, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects 

16 listed in Table 9-13. Impacts from both building and station operation are discussed. 

17 Physical Impacts 

18 Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

19 Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

20 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

21 roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

22 equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and 

23 disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

24 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

25 visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 

26 produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

27 and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

28 assumed that the same standard noise protection and abatement procedures used for the 

29 VCSNS site would be used to control noise coming from the CGS site. This practice also would 

30 be expected to apply to all alternative sites. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed 

31 limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level 

32 generated by the workforce commuting to the alternative site. 

33 The new units at the CGS site would likely have standby diesel generators and auxiliary power 

34 systems. Permits obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply with 

35 applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short-term 

36 basis. During normal plant operation, new units would not use a significant quantity of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-105 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads 

2 and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

3 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

4 the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

5 units at the CGS site would be minimal. 

6 Demography 

7 The CGS is located in Orangeburg County, South Carolina, approximately 35 air mi from 

8 Columbia, South Carolina (2007 population 124,818), the closest major economic center. The 

9 2007 population of Orangeburg County is 89,952, Bamberg County is 15,452, Lexington County 

10 is 243,270, Colleton County is 38,903, Aiken County is 152,307, and Barnwell County is 22,975 

11 for a total population of 562,859 for the six counties (see Table 2-24). 

12 Ninety percent of the current CGS workforce resides in Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, 

13 Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties. The review team expects the in-migrating population 

14 would reside within this six-county area in about the same pattern as the existing CGS 

15 workforce. However, because of the proximity of the town of Bamberg to the site, the review 

16 team expects Bamberg County would receive a noticeable influx of workers (SCE&G 2009a). 

17 Therefore, these six counties compose the economic impact area and are the focus of the 

18 following analysis. Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the CGS site 

19 also hosts an existing power plant, development of the proposed new units on the CGS site 

20 would have similar socioeconomic impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the 

21 VCSNS site. Building the new units would require 3600 workers at the peak of the project. The 

22 review team believes that because the economic impact area includes portions of two larger 

23 metropolitan areas (Aiken and Columbia), migration patterns would be similar to those expected 

24 at the VCSNS site. About 50 percent or 1800 would migrate to the economic impact area in 

25 rough proportion to the current operating workforce of the CGS. As the building period winds 

26 down, the operations staff would be hired, eventually reaching a workforce of 930. The 

27 demographic impacts of the project are expected to be minor, with the exception of Bamberg 

28 County, where the impact likely would be noticeable. Based on review team assumptions for 

29 the VCSNS site and similarity of the economic impact areas, the review team expects that 

30 50 percent of the operations workforce or 465 employees would migrate to the region. The 

31 review team expects the demographic impact during operations to be minimal. 

32 Taxes and Economy 

33 If the proposed nuclear facility were located at the CGS, taxes and fee-in-lieu-of-taxes 

34 agreements would be governed by South Carolina law. Corporate and personal income taxes 

35 along with sales and use taxes would be collected during both building and operation, but 

36 property taxes would not be paid until operations begin. Once operations begin, SCE&G would 

37 have likely entered into a fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with the State as it has with the VCSNS 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-106 April 2010

1 site. Based on the agreement SCE&G has with the State in regard to VCSNS, which has an 

2 assessment ratio of 4 percent and a special revenue credit of 20 percent of the fee-in-lieu-of3 taxes payments during the first 20 years, SCE&G estimates VCSNS annual payments to be 

4 between $13.7 million and $31.6 million over 40 years of the license period. If SCE&G entered 

5 into a similar agreement for the CGS site, the tax payments would increase Orangeburg County 

6 property tax revenues (currently $86.5 million (SCBCB 2007) by 16 to 37 percent. The total fee7 in-lieu-of-taxes payments to Orangeburg County are expected to be substantial and beneficial 

8 during operations. 

9 Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton, and Lexington Counties have service-based economies while the 

10 Barnwell and Orangeburg County economies are dominated by manufacturing (SCE&G 2009a). 

11 Aiken and Lexington Counties have the largest economies followed by Orangeburg and 

12 Barnwell Counties, and the smallest economies are in Bamberg and Colleton Counties. The 

13 wages and salaries of the workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result in increases 

14 in business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. 

15 SCE&G acquired RIMS II economic multiplier values specific to this economic impact area from 

16 the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006; SCG&E 2009a), which permit detailed 

17 examination of potential economic impacts with individual multipliers attributable to construction 

18 activities and plant operations activities. Using the RIMS multiplier of 1.34, the 3600 

19 construction jobs would create 1224 indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 

20 4824 jobs supported by the project. Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the 

21 project workforce would migrate to the region, the approximate net employment effect of the 

22 project would be 2412 new jobs spread over the six counties. This would have a beneficial but 

23 temporary impact on the business community and could provide (1) opportunities for new 

24 businesses to get started and (2) increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new 

25 units are operational, approximately 930 new operations jobs would be added to the local 

26 economy. Using a multiplier of 1.70 jobs, the 930 operations and support jobs would create 651 

27 indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 1581 jobs supported by plant operations. 

28 Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the workforce would migrate to the region, the 

29 approximate net employment effect of operations would be 790 new jobs spread over the six 

30 counties. The new jobs from project-related activities would constitute a minor beneficial impact 

31 on the six-county economic impact area, but these impacts would be noticeable in Orangeburg 

32 and Bamberg Counties. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

33 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the combination of economic and tax 

34 base impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be minor in 

35 the six-county area, but would be substantial in Orangeburg County and noticeable in Bamberg 

36 County. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-107 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Transportation and Housing 

2 The CGS is accessed by US-301/601, SC-193, and the plant entrance road. US-301/601 is a 

3 four-lane divided highway that runs north-south through Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties. 

4 SC-193 is a paved two-lane road that has been upgraded between the plant entrance and 

5 US-301/601 to accommodate existing plant traffic. The 2005 AADT count for US-301/601 was 

6 7800 south of the site and 7600 north of the site. The second nuclear facility access route is via 

7 SC-332, SC-1144, and the plant entrance road. SC-332 is a paved two-lane east-west route 

8 north of the site with an AADT count of 500 vehicles. Based on the analysis in Section 4.5, an 

9 additional 1800 cars could be on the road at shift change. Also, project-related deliveries of 

10 100 trucks per day are expected (SCE&G 2009a). Access to the site would be from one of 

11 three approaches depending on worker residence. Several routes link the various cities and 

12 towns in the economic impact area with the CGS site. The review team expects that although 

13 the peak workforce represents significant vehicle traffic, the availability of multiple access routes 

14 would help disperse site-related traffic, and impacts would be less noticeable than at the 

15 VCSNS site. Because the review team expects these impacts would be of short duration and 

16 temporary, and would be substantially mitigated by traffic management planning by SCE&G, the 

17 review team concludes traffic-related impacts would be minor. 

18 Approximately 1800 construction workers could migrate into the region during peak project 

19 employment. Approximately 465 operations workers could migrate into the region by the time 

20 the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, use 

21 mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to buy a 

22 house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 227,719 housing units in the six-county 

23 economic impact area, of which 6400 in Aiken County, 1007 in Bamberg County, 1170 in 

24 Barnwell County, 3659 in Colleton County, 7738 in Lexington County, and 5186 in Orangeburg 

25 County were vacant, for a total of 25,160 vacant units (SCE&G 2009a). Based on the 

26 information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team 

27 concludes that transportation and housing impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

28 units at the CGS site would be minimal across the six-county area and the wider region. 

29 Public Services and Education 

30 In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely affect local 

31 municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. These 

32 impacts would likely be in proportion with the demographic impacts experienced in the region, 

33 unless these resources have excess capacity or are particularly strained during building, which 

34 would decrease or increase the impact, respectively. The in-migrating workers represent a 

35 small portion of the total population of Orangeburg County and likely would not have a 

36 noticeable impact on their public services. During operations the impact on public services 

37 would likely be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-108 April 2010

1 SCE&G reports in its ER (SCE&G 2009a) that during the 2004–2005 school year, Aiken County 

2 had 40 preschool through 12th grade (PK-12) schools, Bamberg County had 7 schools, 

3 Barnwell County had 11 schools, Colleton County had 12 schools, Lexington County had 66 

4 schools, and Orangeburg County had 30 schools. Total enrollment for Aiken, Bamberg, 

5 Barnwell, Colleton, Lexington and Orangeburg Counties for the 2004–2005 school year was 

6 25,299, 2744, 4721, 6592, 51,276, and 15,449, respectively. A maximum of 938 students are 

7 expected to migrate into the four-county economic impact area during peak project employment 

8 and this number would decline to 484 during operations. This would increase the student 

9 population during peak project employment in Aiken County by 0.3 percent, Bamberg County by 

10 7.9 percent, Barnwell County by 1.3 percent, Colleton County by 0.2 percent, Lexington County 

11 by 0.2 percent, and Orangeburg County by 2.4 percent. During operations, the student body 

12 population increase in Aiken, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Lexington, and Orangeburg 

13 Counties would be 0.2 percent, 4.1 percent, 0.8 percent, 0.7 percent, 0.1 percent, and 

14 1.3 percent, respectively (SCE&G 2009a). Building and operating a nuclear facility on the CGS 

15 site would have a minor impact on education, with the exception of a more noticeable impact on 

16 Bamberg County during peak project employment. Based on the information provided by 

17 SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public 

18 services and education impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site 

19 would be minor, except for a noticeable impact on education services in Bamberg County during 

20 peak project employment. 

21 Aesthetics and Recreation 

22 No recreational facilities exist within the site boundary. There are nine State parks and one 

23 national recreational area (Congaree National Park) within 50 mi of the plant. With the 

24 exception of the South Fork Edisto River, there are no national and State recreational areas 

25 within 6 mi of the site. The North and South Fork Edisto rivers merge 10 mi from the site to form 

26 the Edisto River. These three rivers provide numerous recreational activities such as fishing, 

27 hunting, boating, and nature study. 

28 The visual aesthetics of the site have already been altered by the existing coal-fired unit. The 

29 upper portions of the stacks are visible from most of the surrounding area, while other existing 

30 facilities are visible from nearby roads and from the South Fork Edisto River. The proposed 

31 project would be visible from some offsite locations and the cooling towers would be visible 

32 during operations. Project activities would increase the noise level at the site, but given the 

33 rural nature in the vicinity of the proposed site, this would likely not have a significant impact. 

34 The CGS site is already connected to the electric grid with existing transmission lines traversing 

35 mostly agricultural land, and the addition of new lines would not add significantly to the existing 

36 visual impact. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

37 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public aesthetics and recreation 

38 impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-109 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Summary of Socioeconomics 

2 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

3 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

4 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

5 on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

6 the review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating a new nuclear plant at the 

7 CGS site on socioeconomics would be minimal and adverse for most of the region but could be 

8 noticeable, but not destabilizing, for Bamberg County in terms of education system impacts 

9 during peak project employment. Noticeable demographic impacts may be possible in 

10 Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties during the building phase, depending on worker settlement 

11 patterns. During operations, these impacts are expected to be minimal. Impacts on aesthetics 

12 are expected to be minor. The impacts on the Orangeburg County tax base during operations 

13 likely will be substantial and beneficial; however only minor beneficial impacts would result in 

14 the rest of the region. The new jobs from project-related activities would constitute a minor 

15 beneficial impact on the six-county economic impact area, but these impacts would be 

16 noticeable in Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties. 

17 Cumulative Impacts 

18 The projects identified in Table 9-13, particularly the future urbanization of the Columbia, South 

19 Carolina, and Augusta, Georgia, metropolitan areas, have contributed or would contribute to the 

20 demographics, economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally 

21 result in increased urbanization and industrialization. Because the projects within the review 

22 area identified in Table 9-13 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control 

23 policies, the review team considers the cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to 

24 be manageable. 

25 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is 

26 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site, with special consideration of 

27 Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties, because that is 

28 where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. 

29 The CGS site is located in a rural area of southern Orangeburg County. The site currently hosts 

30 a 430-MW(e) coal-fired power station that is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with 

31 residential and agricultural development in the vicinity. The site is about 4.5 mi north of 

32 Bamberg (2007 population 3463), the Bamberg County Seat and about 13.5 mi southwest of 

33 Orangeburg (2007 population 12,756), the Orangeburg County Seat. The 50-mi region includes 

34 Columbia and Aiken, South Carolina, two larger urban areas. The economy of the region has 

35 been and continues to be largely agriculture-based. Most of the current CGS workforce 

36 (90 percent) lives in Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties 

37 (SCE&G 2009a). The review team believes these six counties make up the economic impact 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-110 April 2010

1 area. The review team expects the project workforce would be distributed within the economic 

2 impact area in approximately the same proportion as the existing CGS workforce. 

3 In addition to assessing the socioeconomic impacts from the building and operations of two 

4 additional nuclear units on the CGS site, the cumulative impact is also considered. The 

5 cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

6 that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, including other 

7 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-13. The projects identified 

8 in Table 9-13 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, and 

9 community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and 

10 industrialization. However, many impacts such as those on housing or public services are able 

11 to adjust over time, particularly with increased tax revenues. Furthermore, State and county 

12 plans along with modeled demographic projections include forecasts of future development and 

13 population increases. Because the other projects described in Table 9-13 do not include any 

14 significant reasonably foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the CGS 

15 site, the review team determined there would not be any significant additional cumulative 

16 socioeconomic impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated 

17 with activities listed in Table 9-13 would have been considered as part of the socioeconomic 

18 baseline. 

19 The review team concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the building and operation of a 

20 new two unit nuclear plant at the CGS site would be SMALL and adverse across most of the 

21 region but could be MODERATE and adverse for Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties in terms 

22 of demographic and education system impacts during the building phase. The cumulative 

23 impacts on the Orangeburg County tax base during plant building and operation likely would be 

24 beneficial and LARGE. The cumulative impacts from project-related activities on creating new 

25 jobs likely would be beneficial and MODERATE in Orangeburg and Bamberg Counties. 

26 Building and operating a new plant at the CGS site would make a significant incremental 

27 contribution to these impact levels. 

28 9.3.4.7 Environmental Justice 

29 In addition to environmental justice impacts from building and operations, the cumulative 

30 analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

31 contribute to disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations, 

32 including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-13. For the 

33 analysis of environmental justice impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is 

34 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the CGS site. 

35 The CGS site is located in a rural area of southern Orangeburg County. The site currently hosts 

36 a 430-MW(e) coal-fired power station that is surrounded by wetlands and pine forest, with 

37 residential and agricultural development in the vicinity. The site is about 4.5 mi north of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-111 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Bamberg (2007 population 3463), the Bamberg County Seat, and about 13.5 mi southwest of 

2 Orangeburg (2007 population 12,756), the Orangeburg County Seat. The 50-mi region includes 

3 Columbia and Aiken, South Carolina, two larger urban areas. The economy of the region has 

4 been and continues to be largely agriculture-based. Most of the current CGS workforce 

5 (90 percent) lives in Orangeburg, Bamberg, Lexington, Colleton, Aiken, and Barnwell Counties 

6 (SCE&G 2009a). 

7 From an environmental justice perspective, the review team determined there is a potential for 

8 minority and low-income populations to be disproportionately and adversely affected by 

9 environmental impacts. In and around the town of Bamberg, the review team found low-income, 

10 African American, and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria 

11 established in Section 2.6.1 for environmental justice analyses. Furthermore, several of these 

12 populations are clustered in the vicinity of the CGS site (see Figure 9-7 and Figure 9-8). 

13 Because the other projects described in Table 9-13 do not include any significant reasonably 

14 foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the CGS site, the review team 

15 concluded there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental justice 

16 impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated with activities 

17 listed in Table 9-13 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline. For 

18 example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, 

19 etc., are part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts 

20 and associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of 

21 reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

22 The review team based its environmental justice determinations on the methodology discussed 

23 in Section 2.6.1, including a closer look at potential areas of interest using a series of health and 

24 physical considerations. Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the CGS 

25 site also hosts an existing power plant, the review team determined the hypothetical 

26 development of the proposed new units on the CGS site would have similar environmental 

27 justice impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the VCSNS site. However, as 

28 discussed in Section 9.3.4.6, the traffic-related impacts expected at the VCSNS site and the 

29 FA-1 site would not be expected at the CGS site because of the extensive road network 

30 providing access to the site from many directions. Under the limitations of a reconnaissance31 level analysis, the review team found no other health or physical considerations and no unique 

32 characteristics or practices that could lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact on 

33 any minority or low-income community at the CGS site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-112 April 2010

1 

2 Figure 9-7. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

3 Justice Selection Criteria at the CGS Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-113 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-8. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

3 Selection Criteria at the CGS Site
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-114 April 2010

1 Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

2 review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that when viewed in the context 

3 of the wider region, locating the proposed action at the CGS site would not contribute additional 

4 cumulative impacts beyond the impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. 

5 Furthermore, the based on the above discussion, the review team determined any traffic-related 

6 impacts would be less than those described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. The 

7 review team concluded that the environmental justice impacts would be minimal locally and 

8 would not create pathways to increase expected cumulative impacts on minority and low9 income populations in the region. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that 

10 cumulative environmental justice impacts associated with building and operating two new 

11 nuclear units at the CGS site would be SMALL. 

12 9.3.4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources 

13 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

14 generating units at the CGS Site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

15 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other 

16 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-13. For the analysis of 

17 cultural impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE 

18 that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the physical APE, defined as 

19 the area directly affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site and 

20 transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi radius 

21 around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a maximum distance from 

22 which the structures can be seen. 

23 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

24 these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

25 cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

26 reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissance27 level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

28 can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

29 cultural resources at the CGS site the following information was used: 

30  SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2009a) – including records held by the South Carolina Institute of 

31 Archeology and Anthropology and the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 

32 which include the results of a cultural resource survey completed in 1991 prior to 

33 construction of the CGS. 

34  NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009. 

35 Historically, the CGS site and vicinity was largely undisturbed by land development and likely 

36 contained intact archaeological sites associated with the past 10,000 years of human 

37 settlement. Over time, the CGS site has been disturbed first by forestry practices and later by 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-115 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 development of the coal-fired facility (SCE&G 2009a, j). Eight standing structures were 

2 identified in 1991, none were determined to be eligible for the National Register. The closest 

3 archaeological sites identified near the CGS include a ceramic scatter and a lithic scatter that 

4 are located 5 mi away. The physical and visual APEs for a proposed plant at the CGS site do 

5 not appear to have any significant historic properties located within the area likely to be affected 

6 by building or operating new plants. The Cope Depot is the closest significant National 

7 Register-listed resource to the CGS site (within 6 mi of the CGS site) (SCE&G 2009a). In 

8 addition, SCE&G found that there are 94 historic sites listed in the National Register within 

9 several counties in the vicinity of the CGS site (SCE&G 2009a). 

10 SCE&G has stated that if the proposed project was sited at the CGS site, the project would be 

11 developed in previously disturbed areas (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G has also stated that 

12 identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural resource surveys. 

13 The results would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resource impacts. If 

14 significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, SCE&G would also develop 

15 protective measures similar to what it has in place for the VCSNS site. In addition, inadvertent 

16 discovery procedures would be developed if cultural resources were discovered during site17 development activities (SCE&G 2009i). 

18 A nuclear facility located at this site would require three 230-kV transmission lines for each unit 

19 with a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. The new transmission lines would either be 

20 installed via expansion of existing transmission-line corridors or they would follow a new 

21 transmission-line corridor. If the proposed project is located at the CGS site, the staff assumes 

22 SCE&G would conduct its transmission-line-related cultural resource activities in ways similar to 

23 what it has committed to do for the VCSNS site described in Section 4.6. 

24 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected cultural and historic 

25 resources include forestry practices at the CGS site, road development and logging activities 

26 associated with those practices, development of the coal-fired plant, and ground-clearing 

27 associated with building the Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Plant. 

28 Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting facilities that can potentially 

29 affect cultural and historic resources include land clearing, excavation and grading activities. 

30 Given SCE&G’s site-planning process, and the lack of significant cultural resources known to 

31 exist at the CGS site based on reconnaissance-level information and the land disturbance 

32 where the new plant would be located, the impacts on cultural resources due to site33 development activities would be negligible. 

34 In addition, visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the 

35 visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are no known cultural 

36 resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are important, the visual 

37 impacts would be negligible. The staff assumes that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-116 April 2010

1 develop a management agreement in consultation with the SHPO similar to the one that would 

2 be developed for VCSNS. 

3 Impacts on cultural and historic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the CGS 

4 site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of transmission 

5 lines. The review team assumes that the same procedures currently used by SCE&G and 

6 Santee Cooper would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the 

7 incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operations of the two 

8 new units and associated impacts on cultural resources would be negligible in the physical and 

9 visual APEs. 

10 Table 9-13 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes the CGS, 

11 Kaiser Agricultural Chemical, and future urbanization. These projects could affect historic and 

12 cultural resources in a manner similar to those associated with the operation of two new units. 

13 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

14 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s 

15 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

16 and operating two new nuclear generating units on the CGS site would be SMALL. This impact17 level determination reflects no known cultural resource surveys, which may reveal important 

18 historic properties that could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

19 9.3.4.9 Air Quality 

20 Because the CGS site is located in a climate regime similar to the VCSNS site, the air quality 

21 impacts of building and operating a nuclear facility at the CGS site would be similar to the air 

22 quality impacts at the VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the review team 

23 determined that the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air quality at the 

24 VCSNS site would be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating two new 

25 nuclear units on air quality at the CGS site would be minimal. 

26 The CGS site is located in the Augusta-Aiken Interstate Air Quality Control Region, which is 

27 designated as being in attainment with the NAAQSs (40 CFR 81.341) (SCE&G 2009a). The 

28 resource area defined for this evaluation is Orangeburg County, South Carolina. A single 

29 county was selected because designations of attainment or non-attainment are made on a 

30 county-by-county basis. As listed in Table 9-13, sources of gaseous emissions near the 

31 proposed location include the CGS. The CGS is a 430-MW(e) coal-fired electrical generating 

32 plant, and emissions include sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen 

33 oxides. Given the intermittent operation of the diesel generators at the proposed two new units, 

34 and that Orangeburg County is currently in attainment, the review team concludes the 

35 cumulative impacts, including the impacts from building and operating two new units on air 

36 quality, would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-117 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

2 pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

3 Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

4 two AP1000 reactors located at the CGS site. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions at the 

5 CGS site considered in isolation would be minor, and the cumulative impact of greenhouse gas 

6 emissions would be MODERATE, primarily due to national and world-wide impacts of emissions 

7 of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two new nuclear reactor units at the CGS site 

8 would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

9 9.3.4.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

10 The following impact analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from building 

11 activities and operations. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

12 foreseeable future actions that impact the nonradiological health resources, including other 

13 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-13. For the analysis of 

14 nonradiological health impacts at the CGS site, the geographic area of interest is considered to 

15 be the 6-mi area centered on the CGS site and the associated transmission-line corridors. This 

16 6-mi radius is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

17 Building Impacts 

18 Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

19 members of the public at the CGS site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8. They 

20 include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable Federal and State 

21 regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the site-preparation and 

22 building phase. The CGS site is located in a rural area and building impacts would likely be 

23 negligible on the surrounding populations that are classified as medium- and low-population 

24 areas. 

25 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected nonradiological 

26 resources include the development and operation of the CGS, located in the same general 

27 location as the CGS site, and the Kaiser Agricultural Chemical Company, located less than 1 mi 

28 east-northeast of the CGS site. There are no major current projects in the geographic area of 

29 interest that would cumulatively impact nonradiological health in a similar way. 

30 Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

31 at the CGS site would include transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the 

32 designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to 

33 occur. The review team concludes that the impacts on nonradiological health from building two 

34 new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the CGS site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-118 April 2010

1 Operational Impacts 

2 Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with the 

3 operation of cooling towers and transmission lines and are fully described in Section 5.8. Based 

4 on the configuration of the proposed new units at the CGS site (closed-cycle, wet cooling 

5 system with mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents would not likely increase the 

6 incidence of waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. Impacts on workers health from 

7 occupational injuries, noise, and electric fields would be similar. Noise and electric fields would 

8 be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable OSHA regulations. 

9 No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

10 significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

11 of two new units at the CGS site. The review team therefore concludes that the impacts on 

12 nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines 

13 at the CGS site would be minimal. 

14 Summary Statement 

15 Impacts on nonradiological health from development and operation of two new units at the CGS 

16 site are estimated based in the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s 

17 independent evaluation. The review team concludes that health impacts on construction 

18 workers and the public resulting from the development of two new nuclear units at the CGS site 

19 would be SMALL. The review team expects that the occupational health impacts on the 

20 operations employees of two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be SMALL. Similarly, 

21 impacts on public health of two new nuclear units operating at the CGS site would be expected 

22 to be SMALL. 

23 There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect 

24 nonradiological health in ways similar to the building of two units at the CGS site. The review 

25 team concludes, however, that cumulative impacts from past, present, and future actions on 

26 nonradiological health from building and operating two new units at the CGS would be SMALL. 

27 9.3.4.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

28 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

29 building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the CGS alternative site. The analysis 

30 also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

31 radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

32 Table 9-13. As described in Section 9.3.4, a 430-MW(e) coal-fired generating plant is located at 

33 the CGS site along with an adjacent greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on 

34 the site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius of the CGS site. 

35 Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this geographic area of interest are the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-119 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 operating Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2, the proposed VEGP Units 3 

2 and 4, DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS), the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication facility at 

3 theSRS, the Energy Solutions (Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, and 

4 the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina. In addition, 

5 there are likely to be hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the CGS site that use 

6 radioactive material. 

7 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the CGS 

8 site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

9 pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

10 regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the VSCNS site. 

11 The radiological impacts of existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 also include doses from direct radiation 

12 and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result in low doses to people and 

13 biota offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological 

14 environmental monitoring program conducted around the Vogtle site. The EIS for proposed 

15 VEGP Units 3 and 4 indicates that operation of the proposed reactors would result in 

16 radiological impacts form direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The EIS 

17 indicates that these pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be 

18 well below regulatory limits (NRC 2008b). 

19 SRS, the MOX Fuel Fabrication facility at SRS, the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

20 Disposal Facility, and the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant are all located 25 mi or more 

21 from the CGS site. The NRC staff concludes that these non-reactor facilities are located far 

22 enough from the CGS site that there would be no significant cumulative radiological impact. 

23 This conclusion is consistent with the results of the ongoing radiological environmental 

24 monitoring program conducted around the Vogtle site. In addition, the NRC staff concludes that 

25 the dose from direct radiation and effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use 

26 radioactive material would be an insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the 

27 CGS site. This conclusion is based on data from the radiological environmental monitoring 

28 programs conducted around currently operating nuclear power plants. 

29 The NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating 

30 the two proposed AP1000 plants and other existing and planned projects and actions in the 

31 geographic area of interest around the CGS site would be SMALL. 

32 9.3.4.12 Postulated Accident Impacts 

33 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

34 operations for two nuclear units at the CGS alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

35 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

36 postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-120 April 2010

1 Table 9-13. As described in Section 9.3.4, a 430-MW(e) coal-fired generating plant is located at 

2 the CGS site along with an adjacent greenfield site; there are currently no nuclear facilities on 

3 the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power 

4 plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) 

5 from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the CGS alternative site. Existing facilities 

6 potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are the 

7 existing VCSNS Unit 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, and VEGP Units 1 and 2. In addition, two 

8 AP1000 reactors have been proposed at the Vogtle site. DOE’s SRS, the MOX Fuel 

9 Fabrication Facility at the SRS, the Energy Solutions (Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

10 Disposal Facility, and the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South 

11 Carolina are also within the geographic area of interest. 

12 As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

13 of DBAs at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

14 specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

15 The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and the meteorology of the CGS 

16 alternative and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

17 environmental consequences of DBAs at the CGS alternative site would be minimal. Because 

18 the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the CGS alternative site are expected 

19 to be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an AP1000 reactor 

20 located at the CGS alternative site are expected to be similar to those analyzed for the 

21 proposed VCSNS site. These risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented in Tables 5-17 

22 and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In addition, as 

23 discussed in Section 5.11.1, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent cancer 

24 fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing plants 

25 within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1, H.B. Robinson Unit 1, and VEGP Units 1 

26 and 2), the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe 

27 accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). According to the Vogtle ESP 

28 (NRC 2008b), the risks from this proposed site are also well below current-generation reactors 

29 and meet the Commission’s safety goals. 

30 There are no reactors currently operating at DOE’s SRS; however, there is some severe 

31 accident risk associated with the spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes that 

32 may be processed or stored at SRS. The severe accident risks associated with stored spent 

33 fuel at operating nuclear power plants are lower than the risks for severe accidents involving the 

34 reactor core. Likewise, the severe accident risks associated any spent reactor fuel or other 

35 high-level radioactive waste processed or stored at SRS would be lower than the risks for 

36 severe accidents involving the reactor core. There is no irradiated fuel at the Westinghouse 

37 Fuel Fabrication Plant or the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility at SRS, and these facilities are 

38 designed to prevent inadvertent criticalities. Other facilities at SRS and the Barnwell Low-Level 

39 Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility may contain substantial amounts of radioactive material, 

40 but there is no credible severe accident risk like there is for an operating reactor. Therefore, the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-121 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 additional risk from these facilities is not significant in the evaluation of the cumulative severe 

2 accident risk for a nuclear power plant at the CGS site. 

3 On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe accidents at any 

4 location within 50 mi of the CGS alternative site would be SMALL. 

5 9.3.5 The Saluda Site 

6 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

7 a two-unit nuclear power plant) at the 850-ac Saluda site in Saluda County, South Carolina. 

8 The following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for each major 

9 resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by the 

10 incremental effects of the proposed action if it were implemented at the Saluda site and other 

11 actions in the same geographic area were assessed. This assessment includes the impacts of 

12 NRC-authorized construction, operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the 

13 assessment are other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and 

14 private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with 

15 the proposed action if implemented at the Saluda site. Other actions and projects considered in 

16 this cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-19. 

17 Table 9-19. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

18 Considered in the Saluda Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of 

one 996-MW(e) nuclear 

power generating plant. 

About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site 

VCSNS Unit 1 is currently 

operational and is 

licensed to continue 

operations through 

August 6, 2042(a)

Carolinas-Virginia Tube 

Reactor (CVTR) 

Experimental pressurized 

tube heavy water nuclear 

power reactor 

About 24 mi east of the 

Saluda site 

Undergoing 

Decommissioning(b)

Independent Spent Fuel 

Storage Installation 

Dry spent-fuel storage About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site 

Proposed(c)

Old Steam Generator 

Recycle Facility 

Decommissioned steam 

generator storage 

About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site 

Operational(c)

Lee Nuclear Station Two Westinghouse 

Advanced Passive 1000 

(AP1000) pressurized 

water reactors 

About 60 mi north of the 

Saluda site 

Proposed new nuclear 

plant. Operation would 

begin in 2018-2021(d)

Vogtle Electric Generating 

Plant (VEGP) 

Nuclear power generating 

plant with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 

2 (1127 MW(e)) 

About 70 mi south of the 

Saluda site 

Operational(e)

19 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-122 April 2010

Table 9-19. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating 

plant with two 

Westinghouse AP1000 

pressurized water 

reactors 

About 70 mi south of the 

Saluda site 

Proposed(f)

H.B. Robinson Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit 2 

Nuclear power generating 

plant with one 710-MW(e) 

unit 

About 90 mi east of the 

Saluda site 

Operational(g)

Catawba Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2 

Two 1129-MW(e) 

Westinghouse reactors 

About 70 mi northeast of 

the Saluda site 

Operational(h)

Oconee Nuclear Station, 

Units 1, 2 and 3 

Three 846-MW(e) 

Babcock and Wilcox 

reactors 

About 80 mi westnorthwest of the Saluda 

site 

Operational(i)

McGuire Nuclear Station, 

Units 1 and 2 

Two 1100-MW(e) 

Westinghouse reactors 

About 96 mi northeast of 

the Saluda site 

Operational(j)

SCE&G Parr 

Hydroelectric Plant 

A 14-MW(e) hydroelectric 

plant 

About 24 mi east of the 

Saluda site 

Parr Hydro Plant is 

currently operational(k) 

SCE&G Fairfield Pumped 

Storage Plant 

A 511.2-MW(e) 

hydroelectric plant. 

VCSNS Units 2 and 3 will 

use water supply from this 

facility. 

About 25 mi east of the 

Saluda site 

The Fairfield Pumped 

Storage Plant is currently 

operational(c)

Buzzard Roost 

Combustion Turbine 

Station 

A 196-MW oil/gas-fired 

peaking facility 

About 6 mi west of Saluda 

site 

Operational(l)

Buzzard’s Roost Dam A 15-MW hydroelectric 

facility 

About 6 mi west of Saluda 

site 

Operational(m)

Saluda Dam (SCE&G, 

commonly called the Lake 

Murray Dam) 

A 206-MW hydroelectric 

facility; the Saluda Dam 

created Lake Murray 

About 32 mi southeast of 

Saluda site 

Operational, currently in 

process of relicensing(n)

McMeekin Station 252-MW coal-fired plant About 32 mi southeast of 

Saluda site 

Operational 

Westinghouse Fuel 

Fabrication Plant in 

Columbia SC 

Design and fabricate 

completed nuclear fuel 

assemblies and fuelrelated products 

About 42 mi east of 

Saluda site 

Operational(o)

Mining Projects 

Hanson Brick 

East/Minchew Pit 

Surface mining operation 

for Hanson Brick 

About 2 mi southwest of 

the Saluda site 

Operational(p)

Hanson Brick 

East/Bauknight Pit 

Surface mining operation 

for Hanson Brick 

About 8 mi southwest of 

the Saluda site 

Operational(p)

Hanson Brick East/Hicks 

Pit 

Surface mining operation 

for Hanson Brick 

About 10 mi westsouthwest of the Saluda 

site 

Operational(p)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-123 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 9-19. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Transportation Projects 

South Carolina Strategic 

Corridor System Plan 

Strategic system of 

corridors forming the 

backbone of the State’s 

transportation system. 

State-wide Planning document with 

no explicit schedules for 

projects; however, many 

strategic corridors 

coincide with routes that 

would/could be used for 

development at the CGS 

site(q)

Other Facilities 

International Paper 

Silverstreet Chip Mill 

Paper mill About 2 mi northwest of 

the Saluda site 

Operational(r)

George Hugh Connelly 

WWTP 

Newbury/Bush River 

WWTF 

Ninety Six CPW Pier 96 

WWTP 

WR Wise WTF 

Wilson Creek WWTP 

NCW&SA/Broad River 

WWT 

Waste water treatment 

facilities 

Within 10–15 mi of the 

Saluda site 

Operational(s)

Parks and Aquaculture Facilities 

Greenwood State Park Small park on Lake 

Greenwood 

About 10 mi west of the 

Saluda site. 

Currently managed by 

South Carolina 

Department of Parks, 

Recreation and Tourism(t)

Sumter National Forest 371,000-acre national 

forest. 

Throughout 40- to 50-mi 

region. 

Currently managed by 

U.S. Forest Service(u)

Parr Hydro Wildlife 

Management Area 

4400-acre wildlife 

management area 

About 20 mi eastnortheast Currently managed by 

SCDNR(v)

Other parks, forests, and 

reserves 

Several parks, recreation, 

and conservation areas 

are located within the 50-

mi region. Examples of 

such areas include the 

following: Lake Wateree, 

the Catawba River, 

Monticello and Parr 

reservoirs, Broad River, 

Lake Murray, Dreher 

Island State Park, Lake 

Greenwood, Riverbanks 

Zoo and Garden, 

Throughout region Currently managed by 

various local, State, and 

Federal agencies and 

organizations. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-124 April 2010

Table 9-19. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Congaree National Park, 

Harbison State Forest, 

and Sesquicentennial 

State Park. 

Other Actions/Projects 

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in Columbia, 

Lexington, Newberry, 

Rock Hill, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Greenwood, and 

Camden 

Future Urbanization Construction of housing 

units and associated 

commercial buildings; 

roads, bridges, and 

railroad; construction of 

water- and/or wastewatertreatment and distribution 

facilities and associated 

pipelines, as described in 

local land-use planning 

documents. 

Throughout region. Construction would occur 

in the future, as described 

in State and local landuse planning documents 

(a) Source: NRC 2004 

(b) Source: NRC 1996 

(c) Source: SCE&G 2009a 

(d) Source: NRC 2007 

(e) Source: NRC 2009e 

(f) Source: NRC 2009f 

(g) Source: NRC 2009b 

(h) Source: NRC 2009a 

(i) Source: NRC 2009d 

(j) Source: NRC 2009c 

(k) Source: EPA 2009g 

(l) Source: Duke 2009b 

(m) Source: Greenwood County 2008 

(n) Source: SCE&G 2009h 

(o) Source: Westinghouse 2009 

(p) Source: EPA 2009i 

(q) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(r) Source: EPA 2009j 

(s) Source: EPA 2009k 

(t) Source: South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 2009 

(u) Source: USFS 2004 

(v) Source: SCE&G 2010a 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-125 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The Saluda site is an approximately 850-ac undeveloped property owned by SCE&G in Saluda 

2 County on the Saluda River arm of Lake Murray at the confluence with Mill Creek. The site is 

3 bounded on the north side by the Saluda River arm of Lake Murray and SC-121 borders the 

4 eastern portion of the site. Figure 9-9 shows the Saluda alternative site region. 

5 The Saluda site is an SCE&G-owned, greenfield site located in a predominantly rural area of 

6 Saluda County characterized by moderately rolling topography. The undeveloped sections of 

7 the site consist primarily of pine, hardwood, and mixed forested land with a significant portion of 

8 the forest land dedicated to silviculture and routine harvesting. There has historically been little 

9 use of the site for any alternative purposes other than its current use, but it is maintained by 

10 SCE&G as a potential site for future development if required. 

11 9.3.5.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors 

12 In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations, the cumulative analysis for the 

13 Saluda site also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

14 could contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal 

15 projects and the projects listed in Table 9-19. For the analysis of land-use impacts at the 

16 Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the 

17 Saluda site, plus any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. Most but not all 

18 of the transmission-line corridor length falls within a 50-mi radius of the site. Land-use planning 

19 for transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of adjoining counties 

20 and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering one county in isolation. 

21 Furthermore, in predominantly rural settings such as that surrounding the Saluda site, land-use 

22 changes occurring substantial distances away from a project site can substantially influence 

23 land-use planning decisions close to the site. 

24 The Saluda site presently is mostly undeveloped and predominantly forested. It is located in a 

25 sparsely populated, largely rural area, with forests and small farms composing the dominant 

26 land use, typical of much of rural South Carolina. Historically, most upland areas have been 

27 used for crop production, but presently are used for silviculture. Several electric transmission 

28 lines, state routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. In many respects the 

29 Saluda site is similar to the VCSNS site, although it is much smaller. The land is owned by 

30 SCE&G and the review team expects that development of the site for power generation would 

31 not be inconsistent with local land-use plans and zoning ordinances. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-126 April 2010

1 

2 Figure 9-9. Saluda Alternative Site Region
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-127 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Development of the proposed new units on the Saluda site would convert existing land uses on 

2 about 400 ac of currently forested land to utility uses for the nuclear facility and associated 

3 structures and infrastructure. In addition, the principal access route, SC-121 would need to be 

4 slightly rerouted to conform to exclusion area boundaries, and this rerouting would affect about 

5 50 ac of additional land. A makeup water intake line, approximately 9 mi long, would be 

6 constructed along the Saluda River valley from the site to a location near the confluence of the 

7 Bush River and Lake Murray. Although this impact would be locally noticeable, in the 

8 cumulative it would not represent a significant land-use impact. Similar to the VCSNS site, each 

9 AP1000 unit would require the addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, each of which would 

10 occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. Based on information provided by SCE&G, 

11 (SCE&G 2009d) describing the dimensions of conceptual transmission-line corridors for the 

12 Saluda site, approximately 468 mi covering nearly 5720 ac of land would be needed. The 

13 proposed routing would use existing corridors to the extent practicable, so that although the 

14 linear runs extend nearly 470 mi, relatively little of that distance would require entirely new 

15 corridor. The actual area of land disturbance, used for assessing impacts on terrestrial ecology 

16 and cultural resources, is therefore substantially lower than suggested by the overall land-use 

17 requirements. The review team concludes that the land-use impact of the transmission-line 

18 installation activities would be generally similar to those described for the VCSNS site in Section 

19 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear facility and transmission-line 

20 development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit 

21 requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, good construction practices, 

22 and established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

23 Because the other projects described in Table 9-19 do not include any reasonably foreseeable 

24 significant changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the Saluda site, there would not be any 

25 significant additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities. 

26 As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the proposed new 

27 units could need as much as 5720 ac over nearly 470 mi of length; however, the review team 

28 expects that final routing would lead to significantly less land-use impacts. If additional 

29 transmission lines are built from other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use 

30 impact from the additional amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. 

31 Because transmission lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team 

32 expects that the cumulative impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning 

33 regulations of the affected counties. However, multiple new transmission-line corridors could 

34 noticeably alter the land-use classification acreage proportions, both within the vicinity and 

35 within the 50-mi region. 

36 Cumulative land-use impacts within the region are expected to be manageable because the 

37 activities would be consistent with existing land-use plans and zoning. However, due to the 

38 potential reclassification of acreage within the region caused by the transmission-line 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-128 April 2010

1 development, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts associated with 

2 the proposed project at the Saluda site, related transmission-line corridor development, and 

3 other projects in the geographic area of interest would be MODERATE. Building and operating 

4 two new nuclear units at the CGS site would be a significant contributor to these impacts. 

5 9.3.5.2 Water Use and Quality 

6 Saluda site hydrology, water use, and water quality are discussed in ER Section 9.3.3.3.3 

7 (SCE&G 2009a); this EIS section draws from information presented in the ER and in responses 

8 to subsequent requests by the review team for additional information, as well as the Nuclear 

9 Plant Site Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009). 

10 The cooling- and service-water supply for a two-unit nuclear generating station located at the 

11 Saluda site would most likely be Lake Murray, a run-of-the-river impoundment on the Saluda 

12 River near Columbia, South Carolina (SGE&G 2010a). A 9-mi-long pipeline would be needed to 

13 transfer water to and from the lake to the nuclear facility. Lake Murray’s surface area is over 

14 49,000 ac and the total and useable water storages for the reservoir are 2,200,000 and 

15 1,056,000 ac-ft, respectively. The mean annual inflow to Lake Murray is 2595 cfs. Two nuclear 

16 units located at the Saluda site would withdraw approximately 83 cfs of makeup water from 

17 Lake Murray. Sixty-two cubic feet per second would be consumptively lost through evaporation 

18 and drift from the station cooling towers and 21 cfs would be returned via pipeline to the lake at 

19 the discharge location. 

20 For the purposes of assessing water-use impacts, the review team compared the station 

21 consumptive water loss from evaporation and drift from the cooling towers (62 cfs) to the mean 

22 annual inflow to Lake Murray (2595 cfs). The consumptive water loss would be about 2.4 

23 percent of the average annual inflow. Based on the use of Lake Murray as the source of cooling 

24 water and sink for blowdown, the large storage capacity of the reservoir, the relatively high 

25 mean annual inflow to the reservoir from the upstream tributaries when compared to the 

26 anticipated consumptive losses related to station operation, and the lack of reliance on the free 

27 flowing section of the Saluda River near the site for a source of cooling water, the review team 

28 concludes the impact on surface waters of two units at the Saluda site would be negligible. 

29 SCE&G does not plan to use groundwater for the project, so no impacts on groundwater supply 

30 are expected (SCE&G 2009a). 

31 SCE&G indicates that blowdown from the proposed units would be discharged to Lake Murray 

32 upstream of the intake embayment (SCE&G 2010a). A SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would 

33 be required to operate the nuclear project at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES34 permitted outfall would ensure that the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such 

35 permits are designed to ensure the protection of water quality and therefore the impact on water 

36 quality is assessed to be minor. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-129 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Impacts of building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater quality may occur due 

2 to leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents into the subsurface. However, based on the 

3 review team’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that with the 

4 implementation of BMPs the impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two 

5 new nuclear units at the Saluda site would likely be minimal. 

6 Cumulative Impacts 

7 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

8 cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

9 affect the same environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface 

10 water, the geographic area of interest for the Saluda Site is considered to be the drainage basin 

11 of the Saluda River upstream of the site and Lake Murray because this is the resource that 

12 would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, and future 

13 potential impacts on water supply and water quality in Lake Murray and the Saluda River basin 

14 include Buzzards Roost Dam and Saluda Dam on the Saluda River. These dams serve to 

15 increase the reliability of water supply to the region and to provide power. The McMeekin 

16 Station, a 252-MW coal-fired plant located just below Saluda Dam, has past, present, and future 

17 impacts on water quality and water supply in the region because it uses Lake Murray as a 

18 source of cooling water. 

19 Water Use 

20 The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at the Saluda 

21 site are dominated by the higher demands that would occur under normal operation. The 

22 projected consumptive water use of proposed units from Lake Murray is expected to be about 

23 62 cfs or approximately 2.4 percent of the average inflow to Lake Murray. The average flow 

24 rate is influenced by upstream cumulative consumptive uses of current users. Increases in 

25 consumptive use of water in the Saluda River drainage is anticipated in the future. The impacts 

26 of operational projects listed in Table 9-19 are considered in the above analysis or would have 

27 little or no impact on surface-water use. 

28 Because of the availability of surface water and the relatively low yield of groundwater wells no 

29 groundwater would be used during building and operations. Potential impacts on groundwater 

30 use would be limited to groundwater withdrawal for dewatering excavations. Dewatering, if 

31 required, would require limited withdrawal of water because of the low permeability of the 

32 geologic materials in this area and would be temporary. 

33 As discussed in Section 7.2 the review team considered potential climate changes that could 

34 affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on water 

35 resources for other users. The impact of climate change would be similar for all of the 

36 alternative sites. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-130 April 2010

1 The review team concludes that the cumulative impact of past, present, and future uses of water 

2 resources, both surface water and groundwater including any incremental impact associated 

3 with the building and operation of two units at the Saluda site would be SMALL. 

4 Water Quality 

5 Water-quality impacts of building and operation of the proposed units are described above in the 

6 context of current conditions in the Saluda River. The conditions include the impact of operating 

7 Buzzards Roost Dam and Lake Murray Dam. The impacts of other projects listed in Table 7-1 

8 are either considered in the analysis included above or would have little or no impact on 

9 surface-water quality. As mentioned above, blowdown water from the site would be discharged 

10 to Lake Murray and the requirements of the NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that the 

11 discharges comply with the Clean Water Act and therefore the impact on surface-water quality 

12 is assessed to be minor. 

13 Impacts of the building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater may occur due to 

14 leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents into the subsurface. However, based on the review 

15 team’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that with the implementation 

16 of BMPs the impacts on groundwater from building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

17 Saluda site would likely be minimal. Due to the low permeability of geologic materials on the 

18 site and in the surrounding region no impacts on groundwater quality off the site are anticipated, 

19 and therefore no cumulative impacts on groundwater quality are anticipated. 

20 The review team also concludes that with the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on 

21 groundwater quality from building and operating two units at the Saluda would likely be minimal 

22 and therefore, concludes the cumulative impact on surface and groundwater quality would be 

23 SMALL. 

24 9.3.5.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

25 Site Description 

26 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

27 terrestrial ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

28 foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including other Federal 

29 and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-19. For the analysis of terrestrial 

30 ecological impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 

31 6-mi region centered on the Saluda site, plus the associated transmission-line corridors. This 6-

32 mi radius is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape features and species. 

33 The natural history of the site is similar to that of the VCSNS site, described in Section 2.4.1. 

34 The Saluda site is located in Saluda County on a primarily forested 1233-ac piece of property 

35 owned by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a). The land surrounding the proposed site is predominately 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-131 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 rural and habitats are typical of the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion, consisting of planted 

2 and naturally vegetated pine, mixed pine-hardwood, and hardwood forests. Common canopy 

3 species include white oak, southern red oak, black oak, mockernut and pignut hickories, 

4 intermixed with some loblolly pine and shortleaf pine. Beech, northern red oak, tulip poplar, and 

5 red maple are found on more mesic sites (Griffith et al. 2002). 

6 The associated proposed transmission-line corridors begin in the Southern Outer Piedmont 

7 ecoregion and cross the Sandhills into the Coastal Plain ecoregion (see Section 2.2.2). 

8 Vegetation community types in the Sandhills ecoregion include grassland and early 

9 successional habitats, Sandhills pine woodland, seepage slopes, ponds and depressions, 

10 blackwater stream systems, and river bottoms (SCDNR 2005). The sandy soils create a xeric 

11 environment that supports a distinctive type of vegetation dominated by longleaf pines and 

12 turkey oaks. The Coastal Plain, the largest ecoregion in South Carolina, include bottomland 

13 hardwood forest consisting of bottomland oaks, red maple, sweetgum, green ash, bitternut 

14 hickory, and cypress-gum swamps dominated by water tupelo, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and 

15 pond cypress (Griffith et al. 2002). 

16 Common wildlife associated with the Piedmont ecoregion that also occur on the Saluda site and 

17 proposed transmission-line corridors include white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, 

18 opossum, and raccoon. Various bird, reptile, and amphibian species also reside on the Saluda 

19 site (SCE&G 2009a). 

20 No Federally listed species are known to occur on the Saluda site, but formal surveys have not 

21 been conducted. Two species are listed as endangered in Saluda County: the red-cockaded 

22 woodpecker, and the vascular plant harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum). The pool-sprite 

23 (Amphianthus pusillus) is listed as threatened. The wood stork is the only Federally listed 

24 species in neighboring Newberry County. In addition to the Federally listed species, the State of 

25 South Carolina has listed Webster's salamander (Plethodon websteri) as endangered in Saluda 

26 County. 

27 The proposed transmission-line corridors would cross Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, Chester, 

28 Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, and 

29 Saluda Counties to connect to the proposed St. George substation in Colleton County (FP&S 

30 2008). Table 9-20 lists all Federally and State-listed species that occur in counties crossed by 

31 the proposed transmission-line corridors. SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground field surveys 

32 would be conducted prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activities related to the 

33 site or transmission-line corridors as part of the permitting process (SCE&G 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-132 April 2010

1 Table 9-20. Federally and State-Listed Species that May Occur on the Saluda Alternative Site, 

2 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status County 

Mammals

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared 

bat 

SE Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton, 

Dorchester, Orangeburg, 

Richland 

Birds

Charadrius melodus Piping plover FT/ST Colleton 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's plover ST Colleton 

Elanoides forficatus American swallow-tailed 

kite 

SE Dorchester 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, 

Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Fairfield, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, 

Saluda 

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, 

Colleton, Dorchester, Lexington, 

Newberry, Richland 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

FE/SE Aiken, Bamberg, Calhoun, 

Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland, 

Saluda 

Sterna antillarum Least tern ST Colleton 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Bamberg, Colleton 

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE/SE Colleton 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Colleton, Dorchester 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle FE/SE Colleton 

Amphibians 

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods salamander FT/SE Orangeburg 

Hyla andersonii Pine barrens tree frog ST Richland 

Plethodon websteri Webster's salamander SE Saluda 

Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf siren ST Orangeburg 

 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-133 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-20. (contd) 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status County 

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Aiken, Dorchester 

Vascular Plants 

Amphianthus pusillus Pool sprite FT/ST Lancaster, Saluda 

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Lancaster, Lexington, 

Richland 

Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower FE/SE Lancaster, Lexington 

Isoetes melanospora Black-spored quillwort FE/SE Lancaster 

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry FE/SE Dorchester 

Lysimachia asperulifolia Rough-leaved loosestrife FE/SE Richland 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Bamberg, Colleton, Dorchester, 

Orangeburg, Richland 

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken, Saluda 

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken 

Source: SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008, Southeast Region County Lists 

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened 

2 Building Impacts 

3 The proposed project would require clearing approximately 500 ac of terrestrial habitats. The 

4 nuclear facility footprint would be approximately 240 ac, which would include the switchyard, 

5 parking lots, temporary facilities, laydown yards, and spoils storage area (SCE&G 2009a). 

6 Because the site is greenfield, a substantial amount of infrastructure to facilitate the building and 

7 operation of a new nuclear power facility would be required. An additional approximately 130 ac 

8 of land would be disturbed for the building of roads, railroad spur, and bridge. A new 9-mi 

9 makeup-water line would also be required, which would temporarily disturb approximately 55 ac 

10 along the Saluda River valley (SCE&G 2009a). Based on a preliminary site layout of the 

11 tabletop footprint provided by SCE&G, approximately 7.3 ac of the 17.4 ac of wetlands present 

12 on the 1,232.8-ac site would be affected during building activities for the two proposed units 

13 (SCE&G 2010a). 

14 Each AP1000 unit would require the addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, which would 

15 each occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. The total length and acreage of new 

16 transmission-line corridor required (collectively) that would affect terrestrial ecological resources 

17 would be approximately 254 mi and 2456 ac, which is a portion of the total 468 mi and 5720 ac 

18 required (SCE&G 2009c, d). Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of 

19 miles and acres of clearing required for right-of-way widening and/or development activities 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-134 April 2010

1 (SCE&G 2009c, d). SCE&G and Santee Cooper would both have a portion of the new 

2 transmission lines and details are provided in the Table 9-21 and Table 9-22 below (SCE&G 

3 2009c, d). 

4 Table 9-21. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site 

Transmission-Line 

Segment 

Length of 

Corridor 

(mi) 

Acres of 

Corridor 

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands 

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands 

Acres of 

Open 

Water 

Linear 

Feet of 

Streams 

Saluda-Saluda Switching 14 157 6 0.3 0.1 5249 

Saluda SwitchingSt. George 101 1143 180 40 4 13,352 

Saluda-VCSNS-Parr 1 12 -- -- -- 176 

Saluda-VCSNS 30 337 11 1 14 7680 

Total 146 1649 197 41 18 26,457 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d 

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for right-ofway widening and/or development activities. 

5 Table 9-22. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the Saluda Alternative Site 

Wetlands Estimate 

New Corridor 

(108 mi, 807ac) 

Existing Corridor 

(213 mi, 3257 ac) 

Total Corridor 

(4064 ac) 

Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors 

Hydric Soils 73 9 1135 35 1208 30 

NWI Wetlands 9 1 255 8 264 6 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d 

NWI = National Wetlands Inventory 

NOTE: Acreages were determined by calculating the total number of miles and acres of clearing required for right-ofway widening and/or development activities. 

6 SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with plant and transmission-line site preparation 

7 and development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit 

8 requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, and established BMPs (SCE&G 

9 2009a). 

10 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected terrestrial resources 

11 include the development and operation of the Buzzard’s Roost Combustion Turbine Station, 

12 located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site. The building of this 196-MW oil/gas-fired 

13 peaking facility resulted in the loss of terrestrial habitat. The development of the Buzzard’s 

14 Roost Dam, located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site, dammed the Saluda River and 

15 created Lake Greenwood. The creation of Lake Greenwood flooded approximately 11,400 ac of 

16 terrestrial habitat (SCDPRT 2009)). The Hanson Brick East/Minchew Plant, approximately 2 mi 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-135 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 southwest of the Saluda site, and the International Paper Silverstreet Chip Mill, approximately 

2 2 mi from the Saluda site, also contributed to the loss of terrestrial habitat. There are no major 

3 current projects in the geographic area of interest that would cumulatively affect terrestrial 

4 ecological resources in a similar way. 

5 Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

6 at the Saluda site would include transmission-line building and/or upgrading throughout the 

7 designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to 

8 occur. 

9 Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

10 unavoidable. Activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading (temporary 

11 and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, heavy 

12 equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities would 

13 likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the affected areas. Some wildlife, including some 

14 individuals of important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the 

15 above projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 

16 resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

17 at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

18 would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to the project could 

19 provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

20 resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise 

21 and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife 

22 from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The creation of new transmission-line 

23 corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit early successional 

24 habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite quail, eastern 

25 meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks would likely 

26 exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be 

27 converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide 

28 improved foraging habitat for some waterfowl and wading birds. However, fragmentation of 

29 forests could adversely affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous forested 

30 habitat. 

31 The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from building two new 

32 nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Saluda site would be noticeable, but not 

33 destabilizing. 

34 Operational Impacts 

35 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the operation of two new nuclear units at the 

36 Saluda site primarily include those associated with cooling towers and transmission lines. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-136 April 2010

1 Impacts resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines are discussed in 

2 detail in Section 9.3.3.3 and would apply to the Saluda site. 

3 No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

4 significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife including important species in ways similar to 

5 those associated with the operation of two new units. 

6 The review team concludes that the impacts of operating two new units and associated 

7 transmission lines at the Saluda site on terrestrial resources and wetlands would be minimal. 

8 9.3.5.4 Summary Statement 

9 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based in the information provided by 

10 SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. There are past and future activities in the 

11 geographic area of interest that could affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to the 

12 building of two units at the Saluda site. 

13 The Saluda site and some of the associated transmission lines are natural habitats that would 

14 be substantially altered by development and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the 

15 level and movement of terrestrial wildlife populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated 

16 development projects would further alter wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the 

17 surrounding landscape. The review team therefore concludes that cumulative impacts on 

18 baseline conditions for terrestrial resources would be MODERATE. Building and operating two 

19 new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Saluda site would be significant 

20 contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

21 9.3.5.5 Aquatic Resources 

22 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

23 aquatic ecology resources. The Saluda River basin consists of 21 watersheds that span 2523 

mi2 24 across the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Sand Hills physiographic provinces (SCDHEC 

25 2004b). The Saluda alternative site is located on the Saluda River, downstream of the 

26 confluence with Mill Creek and upstream of the Little River watershed confluence. This 

27 segment of the river drains into the Saluda River arm of Lake Murray (SCDHEC 2004b; SCE&G 

28 2009a). The site vicinity falls within the Saluda River/Lake Murray watershed (HUC 03050109-

29 150) in the Piedmont ecoregion. Within the 182,441 ac of the Saluda River/Lake Murray 

30 watershed, there are 276.8 mi of streams and over 3430.5 ac of lake waters (SCDHEC 2004b). 

31 The geographic region of interest would include the Saluda River and Lake Murray to the 

32 Saluda Dam structure as the most affected waterbodies. 

33 Historically, Lake Murray was created by impoundment of the Saluda River in 1930 as a part of 

34 a hydroelectric project by Santee Cooper (iDATA 2009). Of the seven reservoirs and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-137 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 impoundments in the Saluda River basin, Lake Murray is the largest, covering 48,000 ac that 

2 are bordered by 691 mi of shoreline (Kleinschmidt 2005; SCDNR 2009d). The aquatic habitats 

3 associated with Lake Murray include a diversity of open water, shallow coves, and wetlands. 

4 Submerged artificial structures have been installed throughout the lake by SCDNR to attract fish 

5 for recreational anglers (SCDNR 2009a). Lake Murray serves multiple purposes; it is used for 

6 hydroelectric generation, maintenance of downstream water quality, industrial and municipal 

7 water supply, irrigation, and recreation (SCE&G 2009a). 

8 Near the proposed Saluda alternative site, SCDHEC has reported on water-quality conditions at 

9 two stations within the Saluda River/Lake Murray watershed. The following information was 

10 derived from the SCDHEC report titled Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Saluda River 

11 Basin (SCDHEC 2004b). At the nearest upstream monitoring station, approximately 9 river 

12 miles from the vicinity of the proposed alternative site, SCDHEC determined that water-quality 

13 conditions were hampered by elevated copper concentrations from unknown sources. Water 

14 quality is optimal for supporting aquatic life because the values exceed the acute criteria. 

15 Recreational uses, however, are not restricted. At the nearest downstream monitoring station, 

16 approximately 2 river miles downstream from the vicinity of the proposed alternative site, water 

17 quality is suboptimal for supporting aquatic life; however, there are no restrictions for 

18 recreational activities. 

19 Elevated mercury concentrations within the Saluda River/Lake Murray watershed have resulted 

20 in a fish-consumption advisory. The SCDHEC (2009a) suggested that consumption of 

21 largemouth bass and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) be limited to one meal per week. Bowfin 

22 consumption is advised not to exceed one meal per month. 

23 As described in Section 9.3.5.2, the proposed intake and discharge structures would be located 

24 in Lake Murray over 9 mi downstream of the nuclear facility (SCE&G 2009f). The SCDHEC 

25 (2004b) monitoring results indicated that the pH did not meet the established criteria, which 

26 resulted in the assessment that water quality is not able to support aquatic life near the 

27 monitoring station in the vicinity of the proposed intake and discharge structures 

28 Recreationally Important Species 

29 Lake Murray provides abundant recreational opportunities, the most popular being recreational 

30 fishing (Kleinschmidt 2007). Recreational species found in Lake Murray include largemouth 

31 bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white bass (M. chrysops), white 

32 catfish (Ameiurus catus), channel catfish, crappie (Pomoxis spp.), and white perch 

33 (M. americana) (Kleinschmidt 2005) There is also a small commercial bait fishery for blueback 

34 herring (Alosa aestivalis) on the lake. The most predominant forage fish within the lake are 

35 threadfin (Dorosoma petenense) and gizzard shad (D. cepedianum) (Kleinschmidt 2005). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-138 April 2010

1 Invasive Species 

2 Invasive aquatic plants encompass an estimated 100 ac in Lake Murray and include hydrilla 

3 (Hydrilla verticillata), Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis), water primrose (Ludwigia 

4 uruguayensis), and alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides). Management strategies for 

5 invasive vegetation in Lake Murray include the introduction of sterile grass carp 

6 (Ctenopharyngodon idella), mechanical harvesting, and the targeted application of aquatic 

7 herbicides (SCDNR 2009b). 

8 Critical Habitats 

9 No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS in the vicinity of the Saluda site. However, 

10 critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is present in waterbodies proposed for transmission11 line crossing in Chester and Lancaster Counties. 

12 Federally and State-Listed Species 

13 Federally and State-listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the site or in aquatic habitats 

14 crossed by the proposed transmission-line corridors are listed in Table 9-23. The proposed 

15 transmission-line corridors would cross Calhoun, Chester, Colleton, Dorchester, Fairfield, 

16 Greenwood, Hampton, Lancaster, Lexington, Newberry, Orangeburg, Richland, and Saluda 

17 Counties (FP&S 2008; SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G has stated that on-the-ground field surveys 

18 would be conducted once final routes are determined and prior to commencement of any 

19 building activities related to the site or transmission-line corridors as part of the permitting 

20 process (SCE&G 2009a). 

21 Table 9-23. Federal and State-listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the Saluda 

22 Alternative Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County 

Reptiles 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle FT/ST Colleton 

Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle FT Colleton

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle FE Colleton

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s ridley sea turtle FE Colleton 

Fish 

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Calhoun, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, 

Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter ST Richland 

Mollusks 

Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter FE/SE Chester, Fairfield, Greenwood, Lancaster, 

Richland, Newberry, Saluda, Lexington

Sources: FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; FWS 2008; SCDNR 2006a

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, ST = State Threatened 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-139 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 There are four Federally listed species of sea turtles in South Carolina. The loggerhead and 

2 green sea turtles are listed as threatened whereas the leatherback and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles 

3 are listed as endangered (FWS 2008). The loggerhead sea turtle is also listed as a State 

4 threatened species for Colleton County (SCDNR 2006a). The siting of the Pomaria-Varnville 

5 transmission line is projected to run to the west of I-95, which is well over 50 mi from the 

6 coastline, and does not cross any marine habitats (MACTEC 2009). Therefore, although the 

7 four species of sea turtles occur in Colleton County, no activities associated with transmission 

8 lines for the Saluda site would affect these species. 

9 The shortnose sturgeon is a State and Federal endangered species (FWS 2008). It is unknown 

10 whether the shortnose sturgeon occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed alternative site; 

11 however, populations are known to reside in the Edisto River, which is proposed for 

12 transmission corridor crossing. The shortnose sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally 

13 endangered species in 1967 and is designated as a species of highest conservation priority by 

14 SCDNR (McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). This amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, 

15 and marine habitats to complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). 

16 In South Carolina, populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and 

17 Edisto rivers (flowing to St. Helena Sound); the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing 

18 to Winyah Bay); and the Savannah, Cooper and Santee rivers. There is also a small landlocked 

19 population of shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 2003). 

20 In freshwater habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep 

21 water. Spawning occurs in freshwaters characterized by low to moderate velocities and over 

22 substrates that include clay, sand, gravel, and woody debris (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006). 

23 Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having little turbidity (McCord 

24 2006). 

25 The Carolina darter, a Federal species of concern, is listed as a State threatened species for 

26 Richland County (SCDNR 2009). While there are reported accounts pertaining to the 

27 distribution of the Carolina darter within the Piedmont ecoregion, the overall abundance of this 

28 species is unknown (Hayes and Bettinger 2006). 

29 The Carolina heelsplitter is a Federally listed aquatic species (FWS 2008). It is unknown 

30 whether the Carolina heelsplitter occurs in the vicinity of the proposed alternative site. 

31 However, there are six known populations of the Carolina heelsplitter within the state defined by 

32 geographic location; (1) Savannah River tributaries in Edgefield and McCormick Counties, 

33 (2) Cuffeytown Creek in Greenwood and McCormick Counties, (3) Lynches River and Flat 

34 Creek in Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Lancaster Counties, (4) Gills Creek in Lancaster County, 

35 (5) Fishing Creek in Chester County, and (6) Bull Run Creek in Chester County (Price 2006d; 

36 67 FR 44502). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-140 April 2010

1 Designated critical habitat includes 103.2 km of streams and rivers in South Carolina that occur 

2 in conjunction with the known populations. The lateral boundaries of the critical habitats for the 

3 Carolina heelsplitter are denoted by the ordinary high-water mark along channel edges (67 FR 

4 44502). Designated critical habitats for the Carolina heelsplitter do not occur in the vicinity of 

5 the Saluda site. However, critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is present in waterbodies 

6 proposed for transmission-line crossings in Chester and Lancaster Counties. 

7 Building Impacts 

8 Cooling-system makeup water would be derived from the Lake Murray arm of the Saluda River, 

9 which is also proposed to receive station blowdown water (SCE&G 2009f). The transport of 

10 cooling-system makeup water and plant discharge water between the intake and discharge 

11 structures to the proposed plant would require the installation of a 9-mi-long pipeline along the 

12 Saluda River Valley from Lake Murray to the nuclear facility. As previously mentioned in 

13 Section 9.3.5.3, the installation footprint for this task would require disturbing approximately 

14 55 ac (SCE&G 2009a). Installation activities associated with new intake and discharge 

15 structures would likely include impacts on water quality stemming from direct (e.g., dredging, 

16 shoreline excavation, removal of riparian vegetation) and indirect sources (e.g., stormwater 

17 runoff, sedimentation). These activities would result in temporary displacement of fish within the 

18 vicinity of the intake and discharge construction areas. Sedimentation due to disturbances of 

19 the shoreline and bottom could affect local benthic populations; however, the impacts on aquatic 

20 organisms would be temporary and largely mitigable through the use of appropriate BMPs. 

21 The proposed alternative site would require the disturbance of undeveloped land to 

22 accommodate the infrastructure necessary for plant operations (i.e., cooling towers, switchyard, 

23 powerblock, roads). Development of the site would also include a rail spur to connect to the 

24 nearest rail line, which is located approximately 1.2 mi northwest of the proposed site. The spur 

25 would require constructing new supports for a rail line across the Saluda River (SCE&G 2009a). 

26 Building activities that include land clearing associated with new infrastructure (roads, site 

27 footprint) and upgrading existing features (railroad lines) would affect approximately 6106 linear 

28 feet out of a total of approximately 28,508 linear feet of onsite streams and approximately 1.3 ac 

29 out of a total of 17.2 ac of open water (SCE&G 2010a). Transmission-line corridors would be 

30 maintained by both SCE&G and Santee Cooper. For SCE&G lines, approximately 26,457 linear 

31 feet of streams and 18 ac of open water are located within the new transmission-line rights-of32 way (Table 9-19) (SCE&G 2009d). The Santee Cooper transmission-line corridors associated 

33 with the Saluda site would include an estimated 54 stream crossings, 11 of which would be 

34 State Navigable Waters crossings (SCE&G 2009d). SCE&G stated that all land clearing 

35 associated with plant and transmission-line site preparation and development would be 

36 conducted according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing 

37 SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-141 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 No past or present actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

2 significantly affect aquatic resources, including important species, in ways similar to those 

3 associated with the building of two new units at the Saluda site. Proposed future actions that 

4 would affect aquatic resources in a similar way to development at the Saluda alternative site 

5 would include transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated 

6 geographic area of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to occur. 

7 Operational Impacts 

8 Aquatic impacts associated with operation of the Saluda alternative site would include intake9 related impingement and entrainment losses of aquatic biota as well as water-quality impacts 

10 near the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures at Lake Murray. There are several 

11 intake/discharge configurations designed to minimize impacts on aquatic biota. Assuming 

12 SCE&G would use a closed-cycle cooling system designed to meet the EPA’s 316(b) Phase I 

13 requirements for new facilities (66 FR 65256), the intake would have a maximum through14 screen velocity at the cooling-water intake of 0.5 fps or less and adverse impacts on aquatic 

15 biota from impingement and entrainment effects would not be anticipated. Operational impacts 

16 associated with water quality and discharge are likely to be minor and discharges would be 

17 NPDES compliant. The diverse fish found within Lake Murray exhibit a range of life-history 

18 characteristics that include a variety of habitat associations during certain life phases. It is 

19 unknown whether the intake and/or discharge areas support important aquatic life-history 

20 events. Impacts would likely be greatest on nonmotile benthic aquatic organisms that occur 

21 within the vicinity of the discharge. However, based on the review team’s experience with other 

22 facilities sited on large reservoirs, the review team concludes that with proper design the 

23 impacts on aquatic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would 

24 likely be minimal. 

25 The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

26 the transmission-line corridor would also be minimal assuming that appropriate BMPs are used.

27 Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the Saluda site 

28 would include intake-related impingement and entrainment losses, and chemical and thermal 

29 discharge of station blowdown. Past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of 

30 interest that would affect aquatic ecological resources include aquatic biota impacts from the 

31 operation of the Saluda Dam, a 206-MW hydroelectric facility 32 mi to the southeast, which 

32 created Lake Murray, and the International Paper Silverstreet Chip Mill, which discharges to the 

33 Saluda River within 2 mi of the Saluda alternative site. The International Paper Silverstreet Chip 

34 Mill is compliant with NPDES permitting for discharges (SCE&G 2009a). Although detailed 

35 information regarding the presence of important aquatic biota in the vicinity of the discharge 

36 effluent is unknown, NPDES permitting requirements are likely to minimize any potential impact 

37 for additional discharge to the Saluda River from the operation of two units at the Saluda site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-142 April 2010

1 Anthropogenic activities such as residential or industrial development near the vicinity of the 

2 nuclear facility may also contribute to cumulative impacts. 

3 Summary Statement 

4 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

5 SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, and the review team’s independent review. There are 

6 past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic ecology 

7 resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the Saluda site. Proper 

8 siting of intake and discharge structures; avoiding critical habitat or habitat for protected 

9 species; proper siting of associated transmission lines; minimizing interactions with waterbodies 

10 and watercourses along the transmission-line corridors; and using appropriate BMPs during 

11 site, vicinity, corridor preparation and tower placement would minimize impacts. Based on the 

12 information provided by SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, and the review team’s 

13 independent evaluation the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts of building and 

14 operating two new reactors on the Saluda site combined with other past, present, and future 

15 activities on most aquatic resources in the Saluda River drainage would be SMALL. 

16 9.3.5.6 Socioeconomics 

17 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is 

18 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the Saluda site with special consideration of 

19 Saluda, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that is where the review team 

20 expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of 

21 building and operations at the Saluda site in Saluda County, South Carolina, the review team 

22 undertook a reconnaissance survey of the region using readily obtainable data from the ER, the 

23 alternative site audit, Federal, State, and local government agencies. The analysis also 

24 considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect the same 

25 environmental resources, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects 

26 listed in Table 9-19. The impacts of building and operating the new units are discussed below. 

27 Physical Impacts 

28 Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

29 Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

30 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

31 roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

32 equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and 

33 disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

34 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

35 visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-143 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

2 and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

3 assumed that same standard noise protection and abatement procedures used for the VCSNS 

4 site would be used to control noise coming from the Saluda site. This practice also would be 

5 expected to apply to all alternative sites. Commuter traffic would be controlled by speed limits. 

6 Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level generated by 

7 the workforce commuting to the alternative site. 

8 The new units at the Saluda site would likely have standby diesel generators and auxiliary 

9 power systems. Permits obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions comply 

10 with applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, short11 term basis. During normal plant operation, new units would not use a significant quantity of 

12 chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads 

13 and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

14 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

15 the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

16 units at the Saluda site would be minimal. 

17 Demography 

18 The Saluda site is located in Saluda County in South Carolina, approximately 34 air mi 

19 southeast of the closest economic center, Columbia, South Carolina (2007 population 124,818). 

20 Due to the Saluda site’s close proximity to the VCSNS site, the review team assumed that the in 

21 migrating workforce would be similarly distributed. Because 95 percent of the VCSNS 

22 workforce lives in one of four counties, and the staff assumes a similar distribution around the 

23 Saluda site – Saluda (2007 population 18,748), Lexington (2007 population 243,270), Newberry 

24 (2007 population 37,633), and Richland (2007 population 357,734) – counties compose the 

25 economic impact area and are the focus of the following analysis (see Table 2-23). 

26 Currently, 36.8 percent of the VCSNS workforce is located in Lexington County, 18.9 percent in 

27 Newberry County, 34.7 percent in Richland County, and 9.5 percent in Fairfield County. The in28 migrating population would be expected to reside within a four-county area in a similar pattern to 

29 the VCSNS workforce, with Saluda County being the host county instead of Fairfield County. At 

30 peak project employment, SCE&G would expect the onsite workforce to be 3600. Based on the 

31 close proximity of the Saluda site to the VCSNS site, the review team used similar labor force 

32 assumptions and estimated that 50 percent of the project workforce (1800) would migrate to the 

33 four-county economic impact area with their families. Using South Carolina’s average 

34 household size of 2.53, this would bring the total in-migrating population to 4554. Considering 

35 that the estimate of the in-migrating population would be less than 1 percent of the population of 

36 the economic impact area in 2007, the regional and local demographic impacts of the project 

37 are expected to be minimal. Once the facility is operational, the workforce would include 800 

38 operations workers and 130 site support personnel for a total of 930 workers for the operation of 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-144 April 2010

1 the facility. The review team expects that as much as 50 percent of these workers would 

2 migrate to the economic impact area. The review team expects the demographic impacts would 

3 be similar to those estimated for the VCSNS site, based on the close proximity of the Saluda 

4 site. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

5 evaluation, the review team concludes that the demographic impacts of building and operating 

6 two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would be minimal. 

7 Taxes and Economy 

8 If the proposed nuclear facility were located at the Saluda site, taxes and fee-in-lieu-of-taxes 

9 agreements would be governed by South Carolina law. Corporate and personal income taxes 

10 along with sales and use taxes would be collected during the project, but property taxes would 

11 not be paid until operations begin. Once operations begin, SCE&G would have likely entered 

12 into a fee-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with the State. Based on the agreement SCE&G has with 

13 the State in regard to VCSNS, which has an assessment ratio of four percent and a special 

14 revenue credit of 20 percent of the fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments during the first 20 years, 

15 SCE&G estimates VCSNS annual payments to be between $13.7 million and $31.6 million over 

16 40 years of the license period. If SCE&G entered into a similar agreement for the Saluda site, 

17 the tax payments would increase Saluda County property tax revenues (currently $10.7 million 

18 [SCBCB 2007]) by 128 to 295 percent. The total fee-in-lieu-of-taxes payments to Saluda 

19 County are expected to be substantial and beneficial during operations. 

20 The four-county economic impact area had 324,230 people in the labor force in 2007 with an 

21 unemployment rate of 5.9 percent, which is under the State average. Saluda and Newberry 

22 Counties have the smallest economies with a predominantly manufacturing base, while 

23 Lexington and Richland Counties have larger service-based economies. The wages and 

24 salaries of the project workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result in increases in 

25 business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. 

26 SCE&G acquired RIMS II economic multiplier values specific to this economic impact area from 

27 the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006), which permit detailed examination of 

28 potential economic impacts with individual multipliers attributable to construction activities and 

29 plant operations activities. Using the RIMS multiplier of 2.02, the 3600 construction jobs would 

30 create 3672 indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 7272 jobs supported by the 

31 project. Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the project workforce would migrate 

32 to the region, the approximate net employment effect of the project would be 3636 new jobs 

33 spread over the four counties. This would have a beneficial but temporary impact on the 

34 business community and could provide (1) opportunities for new businesses to get started and 

35 (2) increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new units are operational, 

36 approximately 930 new operations jobs would be added to the local economy. Using a 

37 multiplier of 3.34, the 930 operations and support jobs would create 2176 indirect jobs in the 

38 economic impact area, for a total of 3106 jobs supported by plant operations. Because the 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-145 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 review team assumes 50 percent of the workforce would migrate to the region, the approximate 

2 net employment effect of operations would be 1553 new jobs spread over the four counties. 

3 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

4 the review team concludes that the economic and tax base impacts of building and operating 

5 two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would be minor in the four-county area, but would be 

6 substantial in Saluda County. 

7 Transportation and Housing 

8 The nuclear facility entrance would be accessed by SC-121, a north-south paved two-lane road 

9 that has a 2005 AADT count of about 4000 vehicles between Saluda and Newberry Counties. 

10 Similar to the VCSNS site, a new access road would be constructed to access the Saluda site 

11 from SC-121. Because access to the Saluda site would be provided using a single two-lane 

12 highway (SC-121), the review team estimates traffic volumes during peak project employment 

13 are likely to represent a 25- to 45-percent increase or more above baseline AADT levels of 

14 affected roadways, based on analysis of the VCSNS site (see Section 4.4.4.1). The review 

15 team concludes that these impacts would be noticeable and would likely be especially acute 

16 during periods of shift change. These impacts would be further exacerbated by truck traffic and 

17 site delivery traffic that have no other route options available. The review team concludes 

18 traffic-related impacts would be locally acute, but of short duration and temporary, and would be 

19 substantially mitigated by traffic management planning by SCE&G. A rail spur, linking the site 

20 with the Norfolk Southern rail line in the Newberry area, would be constructed to deliver the 

21 heaviest components and construction materials to the site. Because of existing impoundments 

22 on the Saluda River, the review team concludes that barge service to the Saluda site would not 

23 be feasible. The review team concludes that the transportation impacts from building the new 

24 units at the Saluda site would be minor in the region, but noticeable in the immediate vicinity 

25 along SC-121 and mitigation may be warranted. Facility operations would likely have a minimal 

26 impact on the transportation network. 

27 Approximately 1800 construction workers could migrate into the region during peak project 

28 employment. Approximately 465 operations workers could migrate into the region by the time 

29 the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, use 

30 mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to buy a 

31 house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were 246,119 housing units in the four-county 

32 economic impact area, of which 7738 in Lexington County, 2779 in Newberry County, 9692 in 

33 Richland County, and 1416 in Saluda County were vacant, for a total of 21,625 vacant units 

34 (SCE&G 2009a). The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be absorbed 

35 fairly easy by the region and the impacts likely would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-146 April 2010

1 Public Services and Education 

2 In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely impact local 

3 municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. These 

4 impacts would likely be in proportion with the demographic impacts experienced in the region, 

5 unless these resources have excess capacity or are particularly strained during building, which 

6 would decrease or increase the impact, respectively. The in-migrating workers represent a 

7 small portion of the total population of Saluda County and likely would not have a noticeable 

8 impact on their public services. During operations the impact on public services would likely be 

9 minimal. 

10 SCE&G reports in its ER (SCE&G 2009a) that during the 2004–2005 school year, Lexington 

11 County had 66 PK-12 schools, Newberry County had 14 schools, Richland County had 93 

12 schools, and Saluda County had 5 schools. Total enrollment for Lexington, Newberry, Richland, 

13 and Saluda Counties for the 2004-2005 school year was 51,276, 5948, 50,159, and 2149, 

14 respectively. A maximum of 938 students are expected to migrate into the four-county 

15 economic impact area, during peak project employment and would decline to 484 during 

16 operations. This would increase the student population during peak project employment in 

17 Lexington County by 0.7 percent, Newberry by 3 percent, Richland by 0.6 percent, and Saluda 

18 by 4.1 percent. During operation, this impact on schools would be significantly less due to the 

19 lower number of in-migrating students. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

20 review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that public services and 

21 education impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the Saluda site would be 

22 minimal. 

23 Aesthetics and Recreation 

24 The four-county economic impact area is a defined tourism region called Capital City/Lake 

25 Murray Country. The region includes Congaree National Monument, parts of Sumter National 

26 Forest, and a couple of State parks. Near the Saluda site are several trails and State heritage 

27 preserves that offer wildlife viewing, hunting, camping, boating, fishing, and other recreational 

28 activities. Based on the review team’s visit to this site, public dispersed recreation activities 

29 such as hunting and fishing occur on the site. Public boating access to the Saluda River 

30 currently exists. These uses would be precluded if the site were to be developed (SCE&G 

31 2009a). 

32 Most development would occur near the center of the property and wouldn’t be visible from afar 

33 except from elevated areas. The intake and discharge structures would be located on the Lake 

34 Murray approximately 9 mi southeast of the site. These and other structures may be visible 

35 from certain angles. During certain weather conditions the cooling tower plumes may also be 

36 visible. The review team concludes that taken together, the visual impact of the project on this 

37 site would have a noticeable impact on the aesthetics and recreational resources in the area. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-147 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

2 the review team concludes that noticeable public aesthetics and recreation impacts would result 

3 from building and operating two new nuclear units at the Saluda site. 

4 Summary of Socioeconomics 

5 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

6 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

7 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

8 on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

9 the review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating a new nuclear plant at the 

10 Saluda site on socioeconomics would be minimal and adverse for most of the region, but could 

11 be noticeable but not destabilizing for Saluda County in terms of transportation during the 

12 building phase and aesthetics and recreation impacts during both the building and operating 

13 phases. The impacts on the Saluda County tax base during operations likely would be 

14 substantial and beneficial; however only minor beneficial impacts would result in the rest of the 

15 region. 

16 Cumulative Impacts 

17 The projects identified in Table 9-19, particularly the future urbanization of the Columbia 

18 metropolitan area, have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, 

19 and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and 

20 industrialization. Because the projects within the review area identified in Table 9-19 would be 

21 consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, the review team considers the 

22 cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be manageable. 

23 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is 

24 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the Saluda site, with special consideration of 

25 Saluda, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland Counties, because that is where the review team 

26 expects socioeconomic impacts to be the greatest. 

27 The Saluda site is located in a rural area of northern Saluda County. The site currently is a 

28 greenfield site surrounded pine forests and wetlands, with primarily agricultural development 

29 and forestry production in the vicinity. The site is about 9 mi southwest of Newberry (2007 

30 population 10,893), the Newberry County Seat and about 12 mi north of Saluda (2007 

31 population 2935), the Saluda County Seat. The 50-mi region includes Columbia and Aiken, 

32 South Carolina, two larger urban areas. The economy of the region has been and continues to 

33 be largely agriculture-based. Newberry County has significant manufacturing employment. The 

34 review team believes development of the Saluda site would have demographic impacts similar 

35 to the original development of the VCSNS site, because Saluda County is somewhat similar to 

36 Fairfield County. The review team expects that the economic impact area for the Saluda site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-148 April 2010

1 would include Saluda, Newberry, Lexington, and Richland Counties. The review team assumes 

2 the project workforce would be distributed within the economic impact area in approximately the 

3 same proportion as the existing VCSNS workforce, with the exception that the workforce 

4 attributed to Fairfield County would be attributed to Saluda County. SCE&G made these 

5 assumptions as part of its alternative sites analysis (SCE&G 2009a), and the review team did 

6 not find them unreasonable. 

7 In addition to assessing the marginal socioeconomic impacts from the building and operations of 

8 two additional nuclear units on the Saluda site, the cumulative impact is also considered. The 

9 cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

10 that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, including other 

11 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-19. The projects identified 

12 in Table 9-19 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic climate, and 

13 community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased urbanization and 

14 industrialization. However, many impacts such as those on housing or public services are able 

15 to adjust over time, particularly with increased tax revenues. Furthermore, State and county 

16 plans along with modeled demographic projections include forecasts of future development and 

17 population increases. Because the other projects described in Table 9-19 do not include any 

18 significant reasonably foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the 

19 Saluda site, the review team determined there would be no significant additional cumulative 

20 socioeconomic impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated 

21 with activities listed in Table 9-19 would have been considered as part of the socioeconomic 

22 baseline. 

23 The review team concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the building and operation of a 

24 new two-unit nuclear plant at the Saluda site would be SMALL and adverse across most of the 

25 region, but could be MODERATE and adverse for Saluda County in terms of transportation 

26 during the building phase and aesthetics and recreation impacts during both the building and 

27 operating phases. The cumulative impacts on the Saluda County tax base during plant building 

28 and operation likely would be beneficial and LARGE. Building and operating a new plant at the 

29 Saluda site would make a significant incremental contribution to these impact levels. 

30 9.3.5.7 Environmental Justice 

31 In addition to environmental justice impacts from building and operations, the cumulative 

32 analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

33 contribute to disproportionate and adverse impacts on minorities and low-income populations, 

34 including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-19. For the 

35 analysis of environmental justice impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is 

36 considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the Saluda site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-149 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The Saluda site is located in a rural area of northern Saluda County. The site currently is a 

2 greenfield site surrounded by pine forests and wetlands, with primarily agricultural development 

3 and forestry production in the vicinity. The site is about 9 mi southwest of Newberry (2007 

4 population 10,893), the Newberry County Seat and about 12 mi north of Saluda (2007 

5 population 2935), the Saluda County Seat. 

6 The review team based its environmental justice determinations on the methodology discussed 

7 in Section 2.6.1, including a closer look at potential areas of interest using a series of health and 

8 physical considerations. The review team determined there is a potential for minority and low9 income populations to be disproportionately and adversely affected by environmental impacts. 

10 Although Richland County and immediately adjacent counties are urban population centers, 

11 there are a number of farms within the region. The review team found low-income, African 

12 American, and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria established 

13 in Section 2.6.1 for environmental justice analyses. However, none of these populations is 

14 clustered in the immediate vicinity of the Saluda site (see Figure 9-10 and Figure 9-11). 

15 Because the other projects described in Table 9-19 do not include any significant reasonably 

16 foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the Saluda site, the review team 

17 concluded there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental justice 

18 impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated with activities 

19 listed in Table 9-19 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline. For 

20 example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, 

21 etc., are part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts 

22 and associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of 

23 reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

24 Because access to the Saluda site would be provided using a single two-lane road in the 

25 vicinity, the review team estimates traffic volumes during building activities are likely to 

26 represent a 50- to 125-percent increase or more above baseline AADT levels of the affected 

27 roadway. The review team concludes that these impacts would be significant and would likely 

28 be especially acute during periods of shift change. The impacts would be further exacerbated 

29 by truck traffic and site delivery traffic that have no other route options available. The review 

30 team expects the impacts would be of short duration and temporary, and could be substantially 

31 mitigated by traffic-management planning by SCE&G. Because the traffic impacts would take 

32 place in areas without an environmental justice population of interest, the review concluded no 

33 pathway exists for disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

34 Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

35 review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that when viewed in the context of 

36 the wider region, locating the proposed action at the Saluda site would not contribute additional 

37 cumulative impacts beyond the impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS site. The 

38 review team did not identify any other environmental pathways by which disproportionate and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-150 April 2010

1 

2 Figure 9-10. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

3 Justice Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-151 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-11. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

3 Selection Criteria at the Saluda Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-152 April 2010

1 adverse impacts could affect minority or low-income populations or communities. Under the 

2 limitations of a reconnaissance-level analysis, the review team found no other health or physical 

3 consideration and no unique characteristics or practices that could lead to a disproportionately 

4 high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income community within the region surrounding 

5 the Saluda site. Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that cumulative 

6 environmental justice impacts associated with building and operating two new nuclear units at 

7 the Saluda site would be SMALL. 

8 9.3.5.8 Historic and Cultural Resources 

9 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

10 generating units at the Saluda site. The analysis also considers the other past, present, and 

11 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other 

12 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-19. For the analysis of 

13 cultural impacts at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the APE 

14 that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the physical APE, defined as 

15 the area directly affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site and 

16 transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi radius 

17 around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a maximum distance from 

18 which the structures can be seen. 

19 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

20 these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

21 cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

22 reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissance23 level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

24 can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

25 cultural resources at the Saluda Site the following information was used: 

26  SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2009a) – including National Park Service National Register Information 

27 system and documents associated with the Saluda Hydro relicensing project. 

28  NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009. 

29 The Saluda site is a greenfield site. Historically, the Saluda site and vicinity was largely 

30 undisturbed by land development and likely contained intact archaeological sites associated 

31 with the past 10,000 years of human settlement. Over time, the Saluda site has been disturbed 

32 by forestry practices (SCE&G 2009j). The physical and visual APEs for a proposed plant at the 

33 Saluda site do not appear to have any historic properties located within the area likely to be 

34 affected by building or operating new plants. No archaeological and/or architectural surveys 

35 have been conducted at the Saluda site. Significant cultural resources have been located in the 

36 Saluda River/Lake Murray watershed located adjacent to the Saluda site (SCE&G 2009a). 

37 SCE&G’s records search identified more than 150 archaeological sites, 8 historic structures, 32 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-153 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 historic home sites, and 5 historic cemeteries, most of which have not been evaluated for their 

2 eligibility for listing in the National Register (SCE&G 2009a) 

3 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the Saluda site, SCE&G would need to 

4 clear approximately 240 ac of undeveloped land for the nuclear facility and associated 

5 structures and infrastructure (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G has stated that as part of the site6 selection process, known cultural resource locations would be considered as avoidance areas 

7 (SCE&G 2009i, j). SCE&G has also stated that if the proposed project was sited at the Saluda 

8 site, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural resource 

9 surveys. The results would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural resource 

10 impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, SCE&G would also 

11 develop protective measures similar to what it has in place for the VCSNS site. In addition, 

12 inadvertent discovery procedures would be developed if cultural resources were discovered 

13 during site-development activities (SCE&G 2009i). 

14 A nuclear facility located at this site would require three 230-kV transmission lines for each unit 

15 with a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. The total length and acreage of new transmission16 line corridor required (collectively) would be approximately 254 mi and 2456 ac. The most direct 

17 route would be used, avoiding populated areas, residences, and natural or manufactured 

18 conflicts when possible ( SCE&G 2009a). If the proposed project was sited at the Saluda site, 

19 the staff assumes SCE&G would conduct its transmission-line-related cultural resource 

20 activities in ways similar to what they have committed to do for the VCSNS site, as described in 

21 Section 4.6. 

22 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected cultural and historic 

23 resources include forestry practices at the Saluda site and any road development and logging 

24 activities associated with those practices. None of the projects listed in Table 9-19 is located 

25 within the geographic area of interest, and therefore they have no potential for cumulative 

26 impact on cultural resources. 

27 Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting facilities that can 

28 potentially directly affect cultural and historic resources include land clearing, excavation and 

29 grading activities. Given SCE&G’s site-planning process, and the lack of significant cultural 

30 resources known to exist at the CGS site based on reconnaissance-level information, and the 

31 land disturbance where the new plant would be located, the impacts on cultural resources due 

32 to site-development activities would be negligible. 

33 In addition, visual impacts from transmission lines may result in significant alterations to the 

34 visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are no known cultural 

35 resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are important, the visual 

36 impacts would be negligible. The staff assumes that SCE&G and Santee Cooper would 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-154 April 2010

1 develop a management agreement in consultation with SHPO similar to the one that would be 

2 developed for VCSNS. 

3 Impacts on cultural and historic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the Saluda 

4 site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of transmission 

5 lines. 

6 The staff assumes that the same procedures currently used by SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

7 would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the incremental 

8 effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operations of the two new units 

9 and associated impacts on cultural resources would be negligible. 

10 Table 9-19 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes the South 

11 Carolina Strategic Corridor System Plan; Sumter National Forest; other parks, forests, and 

12 reserves; and future urbanization that could affect historic and cultural resources in a manner 

13 similar to those associated with the operation of two new units. Cultural resources are 

14 nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources is cumulative. Based 

15 on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 

16 review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building and operating two new nuclear 

17 generating units on the Saluda site would be SMALL. This impact-level determination reflects 

18 no known cultural resources that could be affected; however, if the Saluda site was to be 

19 developed, then cultural resource surveys may reveal important historic properties that could 

20 result in greater cumulative impacts. 

21 9.3.5.9 Air Quality 

22 Because the Saluda site is located in a climate regime similar to the VCSNS site, the air quality 

23 impacts of building and operating a nuclear facility at the Saluda site would be similar to the air 

24 quality impacts at the VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the review team 

25 determined that the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air quality at the 

26 VCSNS site would be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating two new 

27 nuclear units on air quality at the Saluda site would be minimal. 

28 The Saluda site is located in the Greenwood Interstate Air Quality Control Region, which is 

29 designated as being unclassified or in attainment with the NAAQSs (40 CFR 81.341) (SCE&G 

30 2009a). The resource area defined for this evaluation is Saluda County, South Carolina. The 

31 single county was selected because designations of attainment or non-attainment are made on 

32 a county-by-county basis. None of the projects listed in Table 9-19 is within Saluda County. 

33 Given the intermittent operation of the diesel generators at the proposed two new units, and that 

34 Saluda County is currently in attainment, the review team concludes the cumulative impacts, 

35 including the impacts from building and operating two new units on air quality, would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-155 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

2 pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

3 Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

4 two AP1000 reactors located at the Saluda site. The impacts of greenhouse gas emissions at 

5 the Saluda site considered in isolation would be minimal, and the cumulative impact of 

6 greenhouse gas emissions would be MODERATE, primarily due to national and world-wide 

7 impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

8 Saluda site would not be a significant contributor to the MODERATE impact. 

9 9.3.5.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

10 The following impact analysis for the Saluda site includes impacts from building activities and 

11 operations. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

12 actions that affect the nonradiological health resources, including other Federal and non-Federal 

13 projects and the projects listed in Table 9-19. For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts 

14 at the Saluda site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 6-mi area centered on 

15 the Saluda site and the associated transmission-line corridors. This 6-mi radius is expected to 

16 encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

17 Building Impacts 

18 Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

19 members of the public at the Saluda site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 4.8. 

20 They include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. Applicable Federal and 

21 State regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during the site-preparation 

22 and building phase. The Saluda site is located in a rural area and building impacts would likely 

23 be negligible on the surrounding populations that are classified as medium- and low-population 

24 areas. 

25 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected nonradiological health 

26 include the development and operation of the Buzzard’s Roost Combustion Turbine Station, 

27 located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site; the construction of the Buzzard’s Roost 

28 Dam, located approximately 6 mi west of the Saluda site; the Hanson Brick East/Minchew Plant, 

29 approximately 2 mi southwest of the Saluda site; and the International Paper Silverstreet Chip 

30 Mill, approximately 2 mi from the Saluda site. There are no major current projects in the 

31 geographic area of interest that would cumulatively affect nonradiological health in a 

32 similar way. 

33 Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

34 at the Saluda site would include transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the 

35 designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization would also be expected to 

36 occur. The review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-156 April 2010

1 building two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the Saluda site would be 

2 minimal. 

3 Operational Impacts 

4 Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with 

5 plant operation and operation of the associated transmission lines, as are fully described in 

6 Section 5.8. Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the Saluda site (closed7 cycle, wet cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents would not 

8 likely increase the incidence of waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. Impacts on 

9 workers health from occupational injuries, noise, and electric fields would be similar. Noise and 

10 electric fields would be monitored and controlled in accordance with applicable OSHA 

11 regulations. 

12 No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

13 significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

14 of two new units at the Saluda site. The review team therefore concludes that the impacts on 

15 nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated transmission lines 

16 at the Saluda site would be minimal. 

17 Summary Statement 

18 Impacts on nonradiological health from the building and operation of two new units and 

19 associated transmission lines at the Saluda site are estimated based in the information provided 

20 by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation. The review team concludes that 

21 health impacts on construction workers and the public resulting from the building of two new 

22 nuclear units at the Saluda site would be SMALL. The review team expects that the 

23 occupational health impacts on the operations employees of two new nuclear units at the 

24 Saluda site would be SMALL. Similarly, impacts on public health of two new nuclear units 

25 operating at the Saluda site would be expected to be SMALL. 

26 There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect 

27 nonradiological health in ways similar to the building of two units at the Saluda site. The review 

28 team concludes, however, that cumulative impacts from past, present, and future actions on 

29 nonradiological health from building and operating two new units at the Saluda would be 

30 SMALL. 

31 9.3.5.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

32 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

33 building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the Saluda alternative site. The 

34 analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-157 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 affect radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects 

2 listed in Table 9-19. As described in Section 9.3.5, Saluda is a greenfield site; there are 

3 currently no nuclear facilities at this site. The geographic area of interest is the area within a 

4 50-mi radius of the Saluda site. Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this 

5 geographic area of interest are the existing VCSNS Unit 1 nuclear power plant, the Old Steam 

6 Generator Recycle Facility, the proposed ISFSI facility at VCSNS Unit 1, and the Westinghouse 

7 Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina. In addition, there are likely to be 

8 hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the Saluda site that use radioactive materials. 

9 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the 

10 Saluda site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. 

11 These sources would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

12 regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the VSCNS site. 

13 The radiological impacts of existing VCSNS Unit 1 (including the Old Steam Generator Recycle 

14 Facility) include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These 

15 pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that are well below regulatory 

16 limits as demonstrated by the ongoing radiological environmental monitoring program 

17 conducted around the VCSNS site. The proposed ISFSI would produce negligible direct 

18 radiation offsite as discussed in Section 4.9.1. 

19 The Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant is located over 40 mi from the Saluda site. The NRC 

20 staff concludes that this non-reactor facility is located far enough from the Saluda site that there 

21 would be no significant cumulative radiological impact. This conclusion is consistent with the 

22 results of the ongoing radiological environmental monitoring program conducted around the 

23 VCNCS site. In addition, the NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and 

24 effluents from hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material would be an 

25 insignificant contribution to the cumulative impact around the Saluda site. This conclusion is 

26 based on data from the radiological environmental monitoring programs conducted around 

27 currently operating nuclear power plants. 

28 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the 

29 NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the 

30 two proposed AP1000 plants and other existing and planned projects and actions in the 

31 geographic area of interest around the Saluda site would be SMALL. 

32 9.3.5.12 Postulated Accident Impacts 

33 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from the 

34 operation of two nuclear units at the Saluda alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

35 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

36 postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-158 April 2010

1 Table 9-19. As described in Section 9.3.5, Saluda is a greenfield site; there are currently no 

2 nuclear facilities at the site. The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed 

3 nuclear power plants that have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences 

4 (i.e., risks) from a severe accident at any location within 50 mi of the Saluda alternative site. 

5 Facilities potentially affecting radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are 

6 the existing VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3; McGuire Units 1 

7 and 2; Catawba Units 1 and 2; and VEGP Units 1 and 2. Two AP1000 reactors have been 

8 proposed at the Lee site and two AP1000 reactors have been proposed at the Vogtle site as 

9 well. Also the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant outside of Columbia, South Carolina, is 

10 within the geographic area of interest. 

11 As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental consequences 

12 of DBAs at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 reactors. DBAs are addressed 

13 specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust enough to meet NRC safety criteria. 

14 The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and the meteorology of the Saluda 

15 alternative and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 

16 environmental consequences of DBAs at the Saluda alternative site would be minimal. 

17 Because the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the Saluda alternative site 

18 are expected to be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an 

19 AP1000 reactor located at the Saluda alternative site are expected to be similar to those 

20 analyzed for the proposed VCSNS site. The risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented 

21 in Tables 5-17 and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In 

22 addition, as discussed in Section 5.11.1, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent 

23 cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing 

24 plants within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1; H.B. Robinson Unit 1; Oconee 

25 Units 1, 2, and 3; McGuire Units 1 and 2; Catawba Units 1 and 2; and VEGP Units 1 and 2), the 

26 Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents 

27 are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the Lee Nuclear 

28 Station ER (NRC 2007) and the Vogtle ESP (NRC 2008a), the risks from these proposed sites 

29 are also well below current-generation reactors and meet the Commission’s safety goals. There 

30 is no irradiated fuel at the Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant, and the plant is designed to 

31 prevent inadvertent criticalities; therefore, the additional risk is not significant in the evaluation of 

32 the cumulative severe accident risk for a nuclear power plant at the Saluda site. On this basis, 

33 the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from severe accidents at any location within 

34 50 mi of the Saluda alternative site would be SMALL. 

35 9.3.6 The Savannah River Alternative Site 

36 This section covers the review team’s evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of siting 

37 a two-unit nuclear power plant at the Savannah River (SR) alternative site, which would be co-
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-159 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 located at DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties in 

2 South Carolina. The following sections describe a cumulative impact assessment conducted for 

3 each major resource area. The specific resources and components that could be affected by 

4 the incremental effects of the proposed action if it were implemented at the SR site and other 

5 actions in the same geographic area were considered. This assessment includes the impacts of 

6 NRC-authorized construction, operations, and preconstruction activities. Also included in the 

7 assessment are other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, non-Federal, and 

8 private actions that could have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered together with 

9 the proposed action if implemented at the SR site. Other actions and projects considered in this 

10 cumulative analysis are described in Table 9-24. 

The greater SRS itself is quite large at 310 mi2 11 , as part of the current reindustrialization effort at 

12 the site, selected locations have been proposed as potential sites for the development of both 

13 Federal and privately held industrial projects. Accordingly, SCE&G is considering a 500-ac 

14 portion of the site located on the Aiken County-Barnwell County line that would be required to 

15 be cleared for future development of a two-unit nuclear power plant (SCE&G 2009a). 

16 Figure 9-12 shows the SR alternative site region. 

17 The SRS is an industrial complex that has been extensively studied and characterized as the 

18 Federal government has supported nuclear materials based research and development there 

19 since the site opened in the early 1950s. Additionally, the SRS is home to a DOE National 

20 Laboratory and the nation’s first designated National Environmental Research Park. 

21 Table 9-24. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Other Actions 

22 Considered in the Savannah River Alternative Site Cumulative Analysis 

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Energy Projects 

Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant 

(VEGP) 

Nuclear power generating plant 

with 2 units, VEGP 1 

(1109 MW(e)) and VEGP 2 

(1127 MW(e)) 

About 17 mi 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site 

Operational(a)

VEGP Units 3 and 4 Nuclear power generating plant 

with two Westinghouse AP 

1000 pressurized water 

reactors 

About 17 miles 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site 

Proposed(b)

Cope Generating 

Station 

A 430-MW(e) coal-fired 

electrical generating plant 

About 33 mi 

east of the SR 

alternative site 

Operational(c)

VCSNS Unit 1 VCSNS Unit 1 consists of one 

996-MW(e) nuclear power 

generating plant. 

About 70 mi 

north of the 

SR alternative 

site 

Operational(d)

23 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-160 April 2010

Table 9-24. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Hatch Nuclear Plant Nuclear power generating plant 

with 2 units, Hatch 1 (876 

MW(e)) and Hatch 2 (883 

MW(e)) 

About 100 mi 

south of the 

SR alternative 

site 

Operational 

Savannah River Site 

Mixed Oxide (MOX) 

Fuel Fabrication facility 

Nuclear fuel fabrication About 5 mi 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site 

Construction of MOX Facility began 

in August 2007; operation is 

expected to begin in 2016(e)

Mining Projects 

Hibbits Dirt Pit Mine Nonmetallic minerals About 10 mi 

northwest of 

the SR 

alternative site 

Permit expired in May 2009(f)

Threlko Inc/ Holly #1 

Mine 

Nonmetallic minerals About 12.4 mi 

northwest of 

the SR 

alternative site 

Operational(g)

Eagle Construction/ 

Robert Collins Pit 

Nonmetallic minerals About 10 miles 

southwest of 

the SR 

alternative site 

Operational(g)

Transportation Projects 

South Carolina 

Strategic Corridor 

System Plan 

Strategic system of corridors 

forming the backbone of the 

State’s transportation system. 

State-wide Planning document with no explicit 

schedules for projects; however, 

many strategic corridors coincide 

with routes that would/could be used 

for development at the SR 

alternative site(h)

Other Actions/Projects 

Clariant Corporation 

Martin Plant 

Dyes About 21 mi 

southsoutheast of 

the SR site 

Operational(i)

International Paper 

Company 

Logging About 20 mi 

west of the SR 

alternative site 

Operational(j)

Other Actions/Projects 

U.S. Department of 

Energy Savannah River 

Site 

Research and industrial 

complex 

Same general 

location as the 

SR alternative 

site 

Operational(k)

 

Barnwell Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Facility 

Low-level radioactive waste 

disposal 

About 8 mi 

east of the SR 

alternative site 

Operational(l)
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-161 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 9-24. (contd)

Project Name Summary of Project Location Status 

Various hospitals Medical isotopes Within 50 mi Operational in Columbia, Lexington, 

Newberry, Rock Hill, Lancaster, 

Laurens, Greenwood, and Camden 

Future Urbanization Construction of housing units 

and associated commercial 

buildings; roads, bridges, and 

railroad; construction of waterand/or wastewater-treatment 

and distribution facilities and 

associated pipelines, as 

described in local land-use 

planning documents. 

Throughout 

region 

Construction would occur in the 

future, as described in state and 

local land-use planning documents 

(a) Source: NRC 2009e 

(b) Source: NRC 2009f 

(c) Source: SCE&G 2009g 

(d) Source: NRC 2004 

(e) Source: DOE 2009a 

(f) Source: EPA 2009l 

(g) Source: EPA 2009m 

(h) Source: SCDOT 2009 

(i) Source: EPA 2009n 

(j) Source: EPA 2009o 

(k) Source: DOE 2009b 

(l) Source: South Carolina Energy Office 2009 

1 9.3.6.1 Land Use and Transmission-Line Corridors 

2 In addition to land-use impacts from building and operations, the cumulative analysis for the SR 

3 alternative site considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

4 could contribute to the cumulative land-use impacts, including other Federal and non-Federal 

5 projects and the projects listed in Table 9-24. For the analysis of land-use impacts at the SR 

6 alternative site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on 

7 the SR alternative site, plus any transmission-line corridors that extend beyond that range. 

8 Most but not all of the transmission-line corridor length falls within a 50-mi radius of the site. 

9 Land-use planning for transmission-line routing over wide areas must consider land-use plans of 

10 adjoining counties and other land-managing agencies, rather than considering the SR 

11 alternative site in isolation. Furthermore, in predominantly rural settings such as that 

12 surrounding the SR alternative site, land-use changes occurring substantial distances away 

13 from a project site can substantially influence land-use planning decisions close to the site. 

14 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-162 April 2010

1 

2 Figure 9-12. Savannah River Alternative Site Region
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-163 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Roads and other public facilities and services in rural areas tend to serve people who are 

2 spread thinly but broadly over large portions of the landscape. Therefore land-use changes can 

3 affect roads and other facilities at greater distances than similar changes in more densely 

4 populated areas. 

5 The SRS presently is moderately developed, but predominantly forested. The site is a large 

6 tract that houses several existing nuclear facilities as part of its DOE mission. It is located in a 

7 sparsely populated, largely rural area straddling Aiken and Barnwell Counties, with forests and 

8 small farms composing the dominant land use in the vicinity of the site boundary. The site was 

9 acquired by the Federal government for development of nuclear weapons facilities after World 

10 War II, and consequently is quite large with ample room for development. Several electric 

11 transmission lines, State routes, and interstate highways currently traverse the region. As 

12 indicated in Section 9.3.6, the site is being actively marketed for development of nuclear 

13 facilities. 

14 Development of the proposed new units on the SR alternative site would convert existing land 

15 uses on about 400 ac of currently forested land to utility uses for the nuclear facility and 

16 associated structures and infrastructure. Similar to the VCSNS site, each AP1000 unit would 

17 require the addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, each of which would occupy a 100-ft18 wide transmission-line corridor. Based on information provided by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009d) 

19 describing dimensions of conceptual transmission-line corridors for the SR alternative site, 

20 approximately 259 mi covering 2264 ac of land would be affected. The review team concludes 

21 that the land-use impact of the transmission-line installation activities would be similar to those 

22 described for the VCSNS site in Section 4.1.2. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated 

23 with nuclear facility and transmission-line development would be conducted according to 

24 Federal, State, and local regulations, permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper 

25 procedures, good construction practices, and established BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 

26 Because the other projects described in Table 9-24 do not include any significant reasonably 

27 foreseeable changes in land-use types within 50 mi of the SR alternative site, there would not 

28 be any significant additional cumulative impacts on land use from those activities. 

29 As described above, installation of new transmission-line corridors to support the new units has 

30 the potential to affect as much as 2264 ac over 259 mi of length for SCE&G lines. If additional 

31 transmission lines are built under other energy projects, there would be a cumulative land-use 

32 impact from the additional amount of land converted to utility corridor use for transmission lines. 

33 Because transmission lines are often co-located and are relatively narrow, the review team 

34 expects that the cumulative impact would be consistent with the land-use plans and zoning 

35 regulations of the affected counties. However, multiple new transmission-line corridors could 

36 noticeably alter the land-use classification acreage proportions, both within the vicinity of the SR 

37 alternative site and within the 50-mi region. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-164 April 2010

1 Cumulative land-use impacts within the region are expected to be manageable because the 

2 activities would be consistent with existing land-use plans and zoning. However, due to the 

3 potential reclassification of acreage within the region caused by the transmission-line 

4 development, the review team concludes that the cumulative land-use impacts associated with 

5 the proposed project at the SR alternative site, related transmission-line corridor development, 

6 and other projects in the geographic area of interest would be MODERATE. 

7 Building and operating two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would be a significant 

8 contributor to these impacts. 

9 9.3.6.2 Water Use and Quality 

10 SR alternative site hydrology, water use, and water quality are discussed in ER Section 

11 9.3.3.1.3, and this EIS section draws from information presented in the ER (SCE&G 2009a). 

12 The primary source of surface water is the Savannah River, which bounds SRS on it southern 

13 boundary. Additional material for this alternative site is available in the Nuclear Plant Site 

14 Selection Study Report (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009), the NRC staff’s recent testimony to the 

15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 ESP review, the 

16 VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLA ER, and the Vogtle ESP EIS (NUREG 1872). The Vogtle site is in 

17 the vicinity of the SR alternate site and reactors at this site would rely on the same water 

18 resource (Savannah River) as does the existing and proposed Vogtle units. 

19 The Savannah River annual mean and lower annual mean flows measured near Augusta, 

20 Georgia, were reported as 9200 and 4470 cfs, respectively, for the 1952–2005 period. The 

21 review team examined the annual average flow data for the USGS Augusta station (HUC 

22 03060106, Site Number 02197000) and confirmed that the lowest annual flow for the period 

23 reported in the ER was 4470 cfs; however, the review team found that 2008 provided an even 

24 lower annual average of 4194 cfs (USGS 2008c). The annual mean flow for 1952–2008 

25 reported by the USGS is 9047 cfs, which is lower than the value for the 1952–2005 period found 

26 in the ER. Both updated values of flow are used in Table 9-25. 

27 Table 9-25. Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels

Savannah River Flow 

Condition 

River Flow 

Rate (cfs) 

Normal Consumptive 

Use (cfs) 

Percent Flow 

Reduction 

Annual Mean Flow 9047 62 0.7 

Lowest Annual Flow 4194 62 1.5 

28 Consumptive use rates for two AP1000 reactors are estimated to be the same as reported in 

29 Chapter 3 of this EIS (62 cfs). Operation of the two proposed units at the SR alternative site 

30 would require less than 1 percent of the mean annual flow in the Savannah River and would 

31 require approximately 1.5 percent of the lowest average annual flow reported for 1952–2008. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-165 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Therefore, the review team concludes that impacts from surface-water use for building and 

2 operation of the proposed project would be minimal. 

3 SCE&G indicates in the ER that groundwater would be used for potable water during building 

4 and operations. During 2005, 2.1 billion gallons of water were withdrawn from the Crouch 

5 Branch aquifer to support current site operations at the SRS with only localized impacts on 

6 water levels. SCE&G estimates that activities associated with the proposed units would 

7 increase this withdrawal rate by approximately 0.03 percent (SCE&G 2009a). Therefore, the 

8 review team concludes that impacts from groundwater use for building and operation of the 

9 proposed project would be minimal. 

10 A SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required to operate the nuclear project at this site. 

11 Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted outfall would ensure that the discharges 

12 complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are designed to ensure the protection of 

13 water quality and therefore the impact on surface-water quality is assessed to be minimal. 

14 Impacts of the building and operation of the proposed units on groundwater quality may occur 

15 due to leaching of spilled pollutants and effluents into the subsurfaces. However, based on the 

16 review team’s experience with other facilities, the review team concludes that with the 

17 implementation of BMPs the impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating two 

18 new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would likely be minimal. 

19 Cumulative Impacts 

20 In addition to water-use and water-quality impacts from building and operations activities, 

21 cumulative analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

22 affect the same environmental resources. For the cumulative analysis of impacts on surface 

23 water, the geographic area of interest for the SR alternative site is considered to be the 

24 drainage basin of the Savannah River upstream and downstream of the site, because this is the 

25 resource that would be affected by the proposed project. Key actions that have past, present, 

26 and future potential impacts on water supply and water quality in the Savannah River basin 

27 include operating SCE&G’s existing Urquhart Station (a fossil-fueled electrical generating plant) 

28 (SCE&G 2009a, k), operating and decommissioning DOE facilities at the SRS, operating two 

29 existing nuclear power plants at the Vogtle site, building and operating two new power plants 

30 proposed for the Vogtle site, building and operating the proposed SCE&G power plants, and 

31 other municipal and industrial activities in the Savannah River basin. 

32 Water Use

33 The surface-water-use impacts of building and operating two nuclear power plants at the SR 

34 alternative site are dominated by the higher demands that would occur under normal operation. 

35 The projected consumptive water use of proposed units is expected to be about 62 cfs, or less 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-166 April 2010

1 than 1 percent of the average river discharge of 9047 cfs near the site. This average river flow 

2 reflects cumulative consumptive uses of current users upstream of the Augusta gauging station. 

3 In testimony to the Atomic Safety Licensing Board regarding the ESP review for proposed 

4 VEGP Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff estimated the consumptive use of all existing water users 

5 between the Vogtle site and Thurmond Dam to be 79 cfs. Based on streamflow and discharge 

6 records from Thurmond Dam, the NRC staff also concluded at the hearing that the reach 

7 between Thurmond Dam and the proposed site is accumulating streamflow from tributaries that 

8 more than offset the existing consumptive water uses. Based on revised information for the 

9 expected consumptive use of VEGP Units 3 and 4, the estimated combined consumptive use 

10 for Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 is 132 cfs (Southern 2009). The consumptive water use by all of these 

11 users is 211 cfs and the combined consumptive water-use impact, including the proposed new 

12 units at the SR alternative site, would be 273 cfs (Table 9-26). Because the combined 

13 consumptive use is below 5 percent of the mean annual flow, the impact is assessed to be 

14 minimal. Because the combined consumptive use is below 5 percent of the mean annual flow, 

15 the impact is assessed to be minimal. 

16 Table 9-26. Savannah River Reduction in Flow and Combined Water-Use Impact

Savannah River Flow 

Condition 

Flow Rate 

(cfs) 

Normal Combined 

Consumptive Use 

(cfs) 

Percent 

Flow 

Reduction 

Impact 

Level 

Annual Mean Flow 9047 273 3.0 SMALL 

Lower Annual Flow 4194 273 6.5 SMALL 

17 As discussed in Section 7.2, the review team is aware of the potential climate changes that 

18 could affect the water resources available for cooling and the impacts of reactor operations on 

19 water resources for other users. Because all of the alternative sites are in the same region, the 

20 impact of climate change may be similar for all of the alternative sites. 

21 Increases in consumptive use of water in the Savannah River drainage is anticipated in the 

22 future. The impacts of the other operational projects listed in Table 9-24 are considered in the 

23 analysis included above or would have little or no impact on surface-water use. 

24 As indicated above, groundwater would be used as a potable water source during building and 

25 operations. Due to the high yields for the aquifers in this region demonstrated by past use at 

26 the SRS, no significant impact is anticipated on other nearby users of groundwater. Therefore, 

27 the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from surface-water and groundwater use 

28 for building and operation of the proposed project would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-167 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Water Quality 

2 Point and non-point sources have affected the water quality of the Savannah River upstream 

3 and downstream of the SRS. Water-quality information presented above for the impacts of 

4 building and operating two new units at the SR alternative site would also apply to evaluation of 

5 cumulative impacts. As mentioned above, a SCDHEC-issued NPDES permit would be required 

6 to operate the nuclear project at this site. Effluent discharge through an NPDES-permitted 

7 outfall would ensure that the discharges complied with the Clean Water Act. Such permits are 

8 designed to ensure the protection of water quality. The review team also concludes that with 

9 the implementation of BMPs, the impacts on groundwater quality from building and operating 

10 two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would likely be minimal, and therefore 

11 concludes the cumulative impact on surface and ground water quality would be SMALL. 

12 The impacts of other projects listed in Table 9-24 are either considered in the analysis included 

13 above or would have little or no impact on surface-water quality. 

14 9.3.6.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

15 Site Description 

16 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

17 terrestrial ecology resources. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably 

18 foreseeable future actions that affect the terrestrial ecological resources, including other Federal 

19 and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-24. For the analysis of terrestrial 

20 ecological impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be 

21 the 6-mi region centered on the SR alternative site, plus the associated transmission-line 

22 corridors. This 6-mi radius is expected to encompass the ecologically relevant landscape 

23 features and species. 

24 The SR alternative site and associated transmission lines would be located in the Sandhills 

25 ecoregion of South Carolina and lies on the Aiken/Barnwell County line approximately 25 mi 

26 southeast of the city limits of Augusta, Georgia (SCE&G 2009a). The proposed project site 

27 would occupy approximately 1281 ac of Federal land, surrounded by the greater SRS. This 

28 DOE-owned land is approximately 198,000 ac, of which about 181,000 ac are forests and 

29 swampland that are managed by the U.S. Forest Service for the DOE (SCE&G 2009a). 

30 The vegetation communities typical of the Sandhills ecoregion include pine-scrub oak sandhill 

31 (longleaf pine, turkey oak, blackjack oak, bluejack oak, and wiregrass) xeric sandhill scrub 

32 (longleaf pine, turkey oak, wiregrass ), and streamhead pocosins (pond pine, red maple, tulip 

33 poplar, and evergreen shrubs) (Griffith et al. 2002). The primary cover type at the proposed SR 

34 alternative site is planted pine. Since the 1950s, loblolly and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) have 

35 been grown and harvested as part of a designated forest timber unit to remove and sell 

36 harvestable timber (SCE&G 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-168 April 2010

1 Common wildlife species found in the Sandhills ecoregion pine forests that occur on the 

2 forested areas of the SR alternative site are white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, 

3 opossum, and raccoon. A variety of bird species also inhabit the site and include wild turkey, 

4 northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and several species of warblers (SCE&G 2009a). A 

5 high diversity of reptiles and amphibians reside in the various habitats present on the greater 

6 SRS. The Savannah River Ecology Lab (along with the University of Georgia and others) has 

7 documented over a million individuals representing 100 species of reptiles and amphibians on 

8 the SRS – the most that have been captured on public land in the entire United States 

9 (University of Georgia 2009). 

10 Eight Federally listed species are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed SR alternative 

11 site and/or within the associated proposed transmission-line corridors (SCE&G 2009a). 

12 Endangered species include the wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, Canby’s dropwort, 

13 harperella, relict trillium (Trillium reiquum), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), pondberry 

14 (Lindera melissifolia), and American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana). The American alligator 

15 (Alligator mississippiensis) is Federally listed as threatened due to its similarity in appearance to 

16 the endangered American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) (SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008). 

17 In addition to the Federally listed species above, five State-listed species are known to occur in 

18 Barnwell, Aiken, and Allendale Counties. These endangered species include Rafinesque’s big19 eared bat, bald eagle, gopher tortoise, and the gopher frog. The spotted turtle is State-listed as 

20 threatened (SCDNR 2006a). See Table 9-27 for Federally and Stated-listed species that may 

21 occur on the SR alternative site. 

22 SCE&G stated it would perform detailed ecological surveys to protect Federally and State-listed 

23 threatened and endangered species that may occur on the project site as part of the permitting 

24 process prior to commencing any building activity for the nuclear facility or associated 

25 transmission lines (SCE&G 2009a). 

26 Building Impacts 

27 The SR alternative site is mostly planted pine and on the 1280.8-ac project site, there are 

28 37.8 ac of wetlands, of which approximately 14.6 ac would be affected by building the proposed 

29 two nuclear units (SCE&G 2010a). SCE&G stated that although there are over 300 Carolina 

30 bays (elliptical depressions concentrated along the Atlantic seaboard that vary in size from one 

31 to several thousand acres) on the greater SRS, there would be few impacts on streams or 

32 wetlands on the project site (SCE&G 2009c). SCE&G stated that the nuclear facility could be 

33 sited to avoid wetlands whenever possible and potential impacts on wetlands near building 

34 zones would be minimized through the use of BMPs (SCE&G 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-169 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-27. Federally and State-Listed Species that May Occur on the SR Alternative Site, 

2 Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Legal 

Status County 

Mammals 

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SE Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell 

Birds 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle BGEPA/SE Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell 

Mycteria americana Wood stork FE/SE Aiken 

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell 

Reptiles 

Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle ST Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SE Aiken, Allendale 

Amphibians 

Rana capito Gopher frog SE Aiken, Barnwell 

Vascular Plants 

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower FE/SE Aiken, Allendale, Barnwell 

Oxypolis canbyi Canby's dropwort FE/SE Allendale, Barnwell 

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella FE/SE Aiken, Barnwell 

Trillium reliquum Relict trillium FE/SE Aiken 

Sources: SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008, Southeast Region County Lists 

BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as 

threatened; SE = State listed as endangered; ST = State listed as threatened 

3 Each AP1000 unit would require the addition of three 230-kV transmission lines, which would 

4 each occupy a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor. The total length and acreage of 

5 transmission-line corridors required (collectively) that would affect terrestrial ecological 

6 resources would be approximately 259 mi and 2264 ac (SCE&G 2009c, d). SCE&G and Santee 

7 Cooper would both build and maintain a portion of the new transmission lines and details are 

8 provided in Table 9-28 and Table 9-29 (SCE&G 2009c, d). 

9 Table 9-28. SCE&G Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site 

Transmission-Line 

Segment 

Length of 

Corridor 

(mi) 

Acres of 

Corridor 

Acres of 

Forested 

Wetlands 

Acres of 

Nonforested 

Wetlands 

Acres of 

Open 

Water 

Linear 

Feet of 

Streams 

SRS-Cope-Edenwood 93 854 159 8 4 12,101 

SRS-SRP 7 56 -- 6 -- 629 

SRS-Urquhart 22 183 9 -- -- 2864 

Total 122 1093 168 14 4 15,594 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-170 April 2010

1 Table 9-29. Santee Cooper Transmission-Line Information for the SR Alternative Site 

 Wetlands Estimate 

New Corridor 

(1171 ac) 

Existing Corridor 

(0 ac) 

Total Corridor 

(1171 ac) 

Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors Acres 

Percent of 

Corridors 

Hydric Soils 324 28 0 NA 324 28 

NWI Wetlands 65 6 0 NA 65 6 

Source: SCE&G 2009c, d 

NA = Not applicable; NWI = National Wetlands Inventory 

2 The new lines could cause significant wetland impacts through wetland conversion due to forest 

3 clearing. SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with nuclear facility and transmission4 line development would be conducted in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations, 

5 permit requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, and established BMPs 

6 (SCE&G 2009a). 

7 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected terrestrial resources 

8 include the construction of DOE’s SRS, portions of which are located less than 1 mi from the SR 

9 alternative site. The building of the DOE SRS contributed to the loss of terrestrial habitat. The 

10 MOX Fuel Fabrication facility at the DOE SRS, which began construction in 2007 approximately 

11 5 mi west of the SR alternative site (see Table 9-24) is a project in the geographic area of 

12 interest that would cumulatively affect terrestrial ecological resources in a similar way. 

13 Proposed future actions that would affect terrestrial resources in a similar way to development 

14 at the SR alternative site would include the operation of the SRS MOX Fuel Fabrication facility 

15 (located approximately 5 mi from the alternative SR site), transmission-line creation and/or 

16 upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of interest, and future urbanization, 

17 which would also be expected to occur. However, a large portion of land, approximately 

18 14,000 ac, within the geographic region of interest has been set aside for nondestructive 

19 environmental research. This tract of land is managed for the benefit of wildlife and is 

20 designated as a National Environmental Research Park (SCE&G 2009a). It is important to note 

21 that a portion of the 14,000 ac of the wildlife preserve would be cleared and developed as part 

22 of the proposed action (SCE&G 2009a). 

23 Impacts from building two nuclear units and supporting facilities on wildlife habitat would be 

24 unavoidable, and activities that would affect wildlife include land clearing and grading 

25 (temporary and permanent), filling and or draining of wetlands, increased human presence, 

26 heavy equipment operation, traffic, noise, avian collisions, and fugitive dust. These activities 

27 would likely displace or destroy wildlife that inhabits the affected areas. Some wildlife, including 

28 important species, would perish or be displaced during land clearing for any of the above 

29 projects as a consequence of habitat loss, fragmentation, and competition for remaining 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-171 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 resources. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would be 

2 at greater risk of incurring mortality than more mobile animals, such as birds, many of which 

3 would be displaced to adjacent communities. Undisturbed land adjacent to the project could 

4 provide habitat to support displaced wildlife, but increased competition for available space and 

5 resources could affect population levels. Wildlife would also be subjected to impacts from noise 

6 and traffic, and birds could be injured if they collide with tall structures. The impact on wildlife 

7 from noise is expected to be temporary and minor. The creation of new transmission-line 

8 corridors could be beneficial for some species, including those that inhabit early successional 

9 habitat or use edge environments, such as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite quail, eastern 

10 meadowlark, and the gopher tortoise. Birds of prey, such as red-tailed hawks would likely 

11 exploit newly created hunting grounds. Forested wetlands within the corridors would be 

12 converted to and maintained in a herbaceous or scrub-shrub condition that could provide 

13 improved foraging habitat for waterfowl and wading birds. However, fragmentation of forests 

14 could affect species that are dependent on large tracts of continuous forested habitat. 

15 The review team concludes that the impacts on terrestrial resources from building two new 

16 nuclear units and associated transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be noticeable, 

17 but not destabilizing. 

18 Operational Impacts 

19 Impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the operation of two new nuclear units at the 

20 SR alternative site primarily include those associated with cooling towers and transmission 

21 lines. Impacts resulting from the operation of cooling towers and transmission lines are 

22 discussed in detail in Section 9.3.3.3 and would apply to the SR alternative site. 

23 No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

24 significantly affect terrestrial habitat and wildlife, including important species, in ways similar to 

25 those associated with the operation of two new units. 

26 The review team concludes that the impacts of operating two new units and associated 

27 transmission lines at the SR alternative site on terrestrial resources and wetlands would be 

28 minimal. 

29 9.3.6.4 Summary Statement 

30 Impacts on terrestrial ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

31 SCE&G and the review team’s independent review. There are past and future activities in the 

32 geographic area of interest that could affect wildlife and wildlife habitat in ways similar to the 

33 building of two units at the SR alternative site. The SR alternative site and some of the 

34 associated transmission-line corridors are natural habitats that would be altered by development 

35 and maintenance activities, noticeably affecting the level and movement of terrestrial wildlife 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-172 April 2010

1 populations in the area of interest. Other anticipated development projects would further alter 

2 wildlife habitats and migration patterns in the surrounding landscape. The review team 

3 therefore concludes that cumulative impacts on baseline conditions for terrestrial resources 

4 would be MODERATE. Building and operating two new nuclear units and associated 

5 transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be a significant contributor to the 

6 MODERATE impact. 

7 9.3.6.5 Aquatic Resources 

8 The following impact analysis includes impacts from building activities and operations on 

aquatic ecology resources. The SRS encompasses 310 mi2 9 of land that are within the 

10 boundaries of three counties in South Carolina: Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale. The SR 

11 alternative site would occupy 500 ac along the Aiken-Barnwell County line (SCE&G 2009a). 

The Savannah River basin encompasses 10,577 mi2 12 within the states of North Carolina, South 

13 Carolina, and Georgia. In the State of South Carolina, the Savannah River basin includes 35 

14 watersheds and flows through the Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain physiographic 

15 provinces (SCDHEC 2003). The SR alternative site falls within the Lower Savannah River basin 

16 and is encompassed by two watersheds: the Savannah River (HUC 03060106-110) and the 

17 Upper Three Runs (HUC 03060106-100) (SCDHEC 2003). The geographic region of interest 

18 includes both the Upper Three Runs and Savannah River watersheds, based on the most 

19 affected waterbodies of the SR alternative site. 

20 The following information was derived from the SCDHEC report titled Watershed Water Quality 

21 Assessment: Savannah River Basin (SCDHEC 2003). Of the 157,409 ac within the watershed 

22 associated with the proposed plant footprint, aquatic resources include forested wetlands 

23 (9.9 percent), water (0.2 percent), and nonforested wetlands (0.1 percent). There are 223.7 mi 

24 of streams and 198.3 ac of lake waters within the Upper Three Runs watershed. Monitoring 

25 data from three waterbodies (Upper Three Runs, Cedar Creek, and Tims Branch) indicate that 

26 water quality would fully support aquatic life. Upper Three Runs and Tims Branch are 

27 blackwater systems, which are typified by naturally low-pH conditions. Historically, the SR 

28 alternative site is a part of the larger DOE SRS, which is a large industrial complex now involved 

29 in various regulated cleanup activities from nuclear weapon production or nuclear materials 

30 preparation and storage that began in the early 1950s. 

31 Recreationally Important Species 

32 The Savannah River supports diverse fisheries that are ecologically, recreationally, and 

33 commercially important. Recreationally and or commercially important fish within the vicinity of 

34 the SR alternative site include catostomids (i.e., suckers), ictalurids (i.e., catfish, bullheads, 

35 madtoms), moronids (i.e., temperate basses), centrarchids (i.e., sunfishes), and mugilids 

36 (e.g., mullets). Esocids (i.e., pikes and pickerels) are recreationally important fish, and they may 

37 also be considered a keystone species due to their keen predatory capabilities. Some members 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-173 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 of the percid family are recreationally and commercially important (e.g., perches); others 

2 (e.g., darters) are sensitive to disturbance and serve as indicators of ecosystem health (Marcy 

3 et al. 2005). 

4 Industrial contamination within the Savannah River has resulted in fish advisories within the 

5 watershed. Contaminants of concern include mercury, cesium, and strontium (Burger et al. 

6 2001). In the vicinity of the SR alternative site, SCDHEC (2009b) advises avoiding the 

7 consumption of bowfin, restricting the consumption of largemouth bass to one meal per month, 

8 and restricting the consumption of chain pickerel, and spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops) to 

9 one meal per week. 

10 Invasive Species 

11 Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been documented within the vicinity of the SR alternative 

12 site on the Savannah River (The Catena Group 2007). 

13 Critical Habitats 

14 No critical habitat has been designated by the FWS in the vicinity of the SR alternative site. 

15 Federally and State-Listed Species 

16 Federal and State-listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the SR alternative site or 

17 waterbodies associated with transmission-line corridors are listed in Table 9-30. Aquatic 

18 species listed for Burke County, Georgia, are also included because the Savannah River 

19 separates South Carolina and Georgia at the SR alternative site. 

20 Table 9-30. Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species that May Occur on the SR Alternative 

21 Site, Including the Vicinity and Associated Transmission-Line Corridors 

Scientific Name Common Name Status County 

Fish 

Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon FE/SE Aiken, Burke, Hampton, Orangeburg

Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse SE Burke

Mollusks 

Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe SE Burke

Sources: FP&S 2008; MACTEC 2008; FWS 2008; SCDNR 2006a, GDNR 2010 

FE = Federally Endangered, SE = State Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened, ST = State Threatened 

22 Shortnose Sturgeon

23 The shortnose sturgeon, State-endangered in Georgia and South Carolina, is the only Federally 

24 listed species known to occur in Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina (GDNR 2010; 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-174 April 2010

1 SCDNR 2006a; FWS 2008). The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is currently a 

2 Federal candidate species. Listing as a candidate species, according to the National Marine 

3 Fisheries Service (NMFS), “does not confer any procedural or substantive protections of the 

4 [Endangered Species Act (ESA)] on the candidate species” (71 FR 61022); however, the NMFS 

5 is preparing a determination on whether listing the Atlantic sturgeon or the multiple distinct 

6 population segments of the Atlantic sturgeon as threatened or endangered is warranted (NMFS 

7 2010). More is known about the life history of the shortnose sturgeon than that of the Atlantic 

8 sturgeon in the southeastern United States (Collins and Smith 1997). 

9 The shortnose sturgeon was initially listed as a Federally endangered species in 1967 and is 

10 designated as a species of highest conservation priority by SCDNR (McCord 2006; NMFS 

11 1998). This amphidromous species uses freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats to 

12 complete its life cycle (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006; NMFS 1998). In South Carolina, 

13 populations of shortnose sturgeon exist in the Ashepoo, Combahee, and Edisto rivers (flowing 

14 to St. Helena Sound), the Pee Dee, Waccamaw, and Black rivers (flowing to Winyah Bay); and 

15 the Savannah, Cooper, and Santee rivers. There is also a small landlocked population of 

16 shortnose sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Lake system (Collins et al. 2003). In freshwater 

17 habitats, shortnose sturgeon are associated with soft bottom substrates in deep water. 

18 Spawning occurs in fresh waters characterized by low-to-moderate velocities and over 

19 substrates that include clay, sand, gravel and woody debris (Rohde et al. 2009; McCord 2006). 

20 Spawning is known to occur upstream of the SRS facility, and larval shortnose sturgeon were 

21 collected in the vicinity of SRS during ichthyoplankton surveys conducted between 1982 and 

22 1985 (Wike 1998). Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on water having 

23 little turbidity (McCord 2006). The shortnose sturgeon is known to occur in the Savannah River 

24 near the vicinity of the proposed alternative site (Marcy et al. 2005). 

25 Robust Redhorse

26 The robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum) is listed as endangered by the State of Georgia, 

27 which shares the Savannah River watershed with South Carolina (FWS 2008). The robust 

28 redhorse is known to occur in the Savannah River near the vicinity of the proposed SR 

29 alternative site (Marcy et al. 2005). Robust redhorse prefer medium-to-large creeks and rivers 

30 with gravel or rocky substrate. Spawning season lasts from March to May and fry reach sexual 

31 maturity in 4 to 5 years (Rohde and Parnell 1994). 

32 Atlantic Pigtoe 

33 The Atlantic pigtoe is State-listed as endangered for Burke County, Georgia. The Atlantic pigtoe 

34 is found in habitats that consist of coarse sand and gravel at the downstream edge of riffles 

35 associated with fairly pristine, well oxygenated streams (Bogan and Alderman 2004). Although 

36 this species was first described in the Savannah River, there are no records of occurrences in 

37 the Savannah River near the SR alternative site (NRC 2008b). 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-175 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Building Impacts 

2 Because the SRS is a former nuclear power plant site, the vicinity of the SR alternative site 

3 includes some of the infrastructure (e.g., roads, railroad lines, buildings) necessary to support a 

4 new facility. SCE&G has indicated that existing roads and railroad lines on the SRS would be 

5 used where practicable (SCE&G 2009a); however, SCE&G’s (2009f) proposed locations of the 

6 powerblock, switchyard, and cooling towers do not occur within the footprint of existing facilities, 

7 so disturbance of aquatic ecosystems may be required during building activities. 

8 Cooling-system makeup water would be derived from the Savannah River, which is also 

9 proposed to receive station blowdown water (SCE&G 2009f). Installation of new intake and 

10 discharge structures would result in the temporary displacement of aquatic biota within the 

11 affected areas. There would be impacts on water quality stemming from direct (e.g., dredging, 

12 shoreline excavation, removal of riparian vegetation) and indirect sources (e.g., stormwater 

13 runoff, sedimentation). In addition, activities that include land clearing associated with new 

14 infrastructure (roads, site footprint) and upgrading existing features (railroad lines) would affect 

15 approximately 1628 linear feet out of a total of approximately 6911 linear feet of onsite streams 

16 and the entire 0.6 ac of open water present onsite (SCE&G 2010a). 

17 New transmission lines and corridors are a necessary component of the proposed SR 

18 alternative site, because the existing infrastructure cannot support the energy transport needs of 

19 the proposed new units (SCE&G 2009a). According to SCE&G (2009a), the new transmission20 line corridors would be required. The transmission-line corridors would be maintained by both 

21 SCE&G and Santee Cooper. For SCE&G lines, transmission-line corridors would be associated 

22 with approximately 15,594 linear feet of streams and 4 ac of open water are located within the 

23 new transmission-line rights-of-way (Table 9-28) (SCE&G 2009d). The Santee Cooper 

24 transmission-line corridors associated with the SR alternative site would include an estimated 

25 70 stream crossings, 3 of which would be State Navigable Waters crossings (SCE&G 2009d). 

26 SCE&G stated that all land clearing associated with plant and transmission-line site preparation 

27 and development would be conducted according to Federal, State, and local regulations, permit 

28 requirements, existing SCE&G and Santee Cooper procedures, and established BMPs (SCE&G 

29 2009a). Past or present actions in the geographic area of interest that would affect aquatic 

30 ecological resources in ways similar to those associated with the building of the proposed new 

31 units at the SR alternative site include the construction of VEGP Units 1 and 2 across the 

32 Savannah River and approximately 5 river mi downstream from the SR alternative site and the 

33 MOX Fuel Fabrication facility at the DOE SRS, which began construction in 2007 approximately 

34 5 mi west of the SR alternative site (see Table 9-24). Operation of the MOX facility would be a 

35 future action. A proposed future action that would affect aquatic resources in a similar way to 

36 development at the SR alternative site would include building VEGP Units 3 and 4, which, 

37 depending on the timing for building these two new units, may coincide with building the new 

38 units at the SR alternative site. The impacts on the Savannah River for building of the new 

39 VEGP units are expected to be minimal (NRC 2008b). Additional future actions include 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-176 April 2010

1 transmission-line creation and/or upgrading throughout the designated geographic region of 

2 interest and future urbanization that would also be expected to occur. 

3 Operational Impacts 

4 Aquatic impacts associated with the operation of the SR alternative site would include intake5 related impingement and entrainment losses of aquatic biota as well as water-quality impacts 

6 near the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures in the Savannah River. There are 

7 several intake/discharge configurations designed to minimize impacts on aquatic biota. 

8 Assuming SCE&G would use a closed-cycle cooling system designed to meet the EPA’s 316(b) 

9 Phase I requirements for new facilities (66 FR 65256), the intake would have a maximum 

10 through-screen velocity at the cooling-water intake of 0.5 fps or less. Additionally, the cooling 

11 water intake would meet the EPA intake flow-to-source water volume criterion. Adverse impacts 

12 on aquatic biota from impingement and entrainment effects would not be anticipated. 

13 Operational impacts associated with water quality and discharge are likely to be minimal and 

14 NPDES compliant. The diverse fish found within the vicinity of the SR alternative site exhibit a 

15 range of life-history characteristics that include a variety of habitat associations during certain 

16 life phases. Impacts would likely be greatest on nonmotile benthic aquatic organisms that occur 

17 within the vicinity of the discharge area. Based on the review team’s experience with other 

18 facilities, the review team concludes that with proper design the impacts on aquatic resources 

19 from operation of two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would likely be minimal. 

20 The review team also concludes that operational impacts on aquatic biota from maintenance of 

21 the transmission-line corridors would be minimal assuming appropriate BMPs are used. 

22 Cumulative Impacts 

23 Cumulative impacts that could result from the operation of two new units at the SR alternative 

24 site would include intake-related impingement and entrainment losses and chemical and 

25 thermal discharge from station blowdown. Past and present actions in the geographic area of 

26 interest that would affect aquatic ecological resources include the operation of the DOE SRS, 

27 which has current NPDES permits for the D-Area Powerhouse and industrial inorganic 

28 chemicals that are discharged into the Savannah River; the Vogtle nuclear energy facility whose 

29 water withdrawals and discharges to the Savannah River are controlled by a Georgia 

30 Department of Natural Resources NPDES permit; and the SCE&G’s Urquhart Station, a fossil 

31 fuel steam electric generating plant whose withdrawals and discharges to the Savannah River 

32 are controlled by a SCDHEC NPDES permit. 

33 The former Savannah River Plant (SRP) began operation during the 1950s and has been the 

34 focus of many environmental investigations since that time (Marcy et al. 2005). The rates of 

35 impingement of aquatic biota from the formerly operating SRP were reported to be low 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-177 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 (compared to other facilities) during a 1977 study. Bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus 

2 gloriosus), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), channel catfish, and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 

3 were among the most commonly impinged species. Of these common species, no single 

4 species accounted for more than 10 percent of the samples (McFarlane et al. 1978). Thermal 

5 discharge associated with the SRP was correlated with species assemblages and abundance of 

6 fish in the vicinity of the plant (Paller and Saul 1986). Species assemblages in the intake canal 

7 were dominated by bluegill, redbreast sunfish, and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). 

8 Habitats with elevated thermal conditions had larger proportions of channel catfish, white 

9 catfish, largemouth bass, and coastal shiner (Notropis petersoni), and a lower proportion of flat 

10 bullhead. The low impingement rates reported from the SRS, despite higher withdrawal rates 

11 and through-screen velocities than those planned for the SR alternative site, support the 

12 conclusion that impingement rates at the new intake would not result in a detectable impact on 

13 the Savannah River fishery. 

14 Recently, Georgia Power conducted both entrainment (Georgia Power 2008) and impingement 

15 (Georgia Power 2009) assessments to characterize current entrainment and impingement rates 

16 at VEGP Units 1 and 2 and to project impacts for proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4. These data 

17 were also compared with SRS entrainment and impingement studies. The results from these 

18 recent assessments indicate that entrainment and impingement effects on fishery resources of 

19 the Savannah River from VEGP Units 1 and 2 are minimal and that anticipated effects from 

20 proposed Units 3 and 4 would not be significant (Georgia Power 2008, 2009). 

21 Future actions in the geographic area of interest that would affect aquatic ecological resources 

22 in ways similar to those associated with the operation of the proposed new units at the SR 

23 alternative site include the operation of two additional units at the Vogtle site. The operation of 

24 proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 would use the Savannah River for cooling water and discharge of 

25 station blowdown in a manner similar to the operating VEGP Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2008b). 

26 Impingement and entrainment for intake operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4 were determined to 

27 result in minor impacts, as were the potential impacts for thermal and chemical discharges to 

28 the Savannah River (NRC 2008b). Water use from the Savannah River for six reactors is not 

29 likely to result in noticeable impacts as described in Section 9.3.6.2. Anthropogenic activities 

30 such as industrial development near the vicinity of the nuclear facility may also contribute to 

31 future cumulative impacts. 

32 Summary Statement 

33 Impacts on aquatic ecology resources are estimated based on the information provided by 

34 SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, and the review team’s independent review. There are 

35 past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect aquatic ecology 

36 resources in ways similar to the building and operation of two units at the SR alternative site. 

37 Proper siting of facilities; avoiding habitat for protected species and minimizing interactions with 

38 waterbodies and watercourses along the transmission-line corridors; and using appropriate 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-178 April 2010

1 BMPs during intake and discharge installation, corridor preparation, and tower placement would 

2 minimize impacts. Based on the information provided by SCE&G, the State of South Carolina, 

3 and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative 

4 impacts of building and operating two new reactors on the SR alternative site combined with 

5 other past, present, and future activities on most aquatic resources in the Savannah River 

6 drainage would be SMALL. 

7 9.3.6.6 Socioeconomics 

8 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of 

9 interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the SR site with special consideration 

10 of Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia and Aiken and Barnwell Counties in South 

11 Carolina, because that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be the 

12 greatest. In evaluating the socioeconomic impacts of site development and operation at the SR 

13 alternative site, the review team undertook a reconnaissance survey of the region using readily 

14 obtainable data from the ER, the alternative site audit, and Federal, State, and local government 

15 agencies. The analysis also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

16 actions that affect the same environmental resources, including other Federal and non-Federal 

17 projects and the projects listed in Table 9-24. The impacts from both building and station 

18 operation are discussed below. 

19 Physical Impacts 

20 Many of the physical impacts of building and operation would be similar regardless of the site. 

21 Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, odor, 

22 vehicle exhaust, vibration, shock from blasting (if used), and dust emissions. The use of public 

23 roadways, railways, and waterways would be necessary to transport construction materials and 

24 equipment. Offsite areas that would support building activities (e.g., borrow pits, quarries, and 

25 disposal sites) would be expected to be already permitted and operational. 

26 Potential impacts from station operation include noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and 

27 visual intrusions (the latter are discussed under aesthetics and recreation). New units would 

28 produce noise from the operation of pumps, cooling towers, transformers, turbines, generators, 

29 and switchyard equipment. Traffic at the site also would be a source of noise. The review team 

30 assumed that the same standard noise protection and abatement procedures used for the 

31 VCSNS site would be used to control noise coming from the SR alternative site. This practice 

32 also would be expected to apply to all alternative sites. Commuter traffic would be controlled by 

33 speed limits. Good road conditions and appropriate speed limits would minimize the noise level 

34 generated by the workforce commuting to the alternative site. 

35 The new units at the SR alternative site would likely have standby diesel generators and 

36 auxiliary power systems. Permits obtained for these generators would ensure that air emissions 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-179 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 comply with applicable regulations. In addition, the generators would be operated on a limited, 

2 short-term basis. During normal plant operation, new units would not use a significant quantity 

3 of chemicals that could generate odors that exceed odor threshold values. Good access roads 

4 and appropriate speed limits would minimize the dust generated by the commuting workforce. 

5 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

6 the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building and operating two new nuclear 

7 units at the SR alternative site would be minimal. 

8 Demography 

9 The SRS, within which the SR alternative site is situated, is located in Aiken, Barnwell, and 

10 Allendale Counties in southwestern South Carolina, approximately 25 mi southeast of Augusta, 

11 Georgia. The site is bordered by the Savannah River to the southwest for about 35 mi. The 

12 closest economic center is Aiken, South Carolina (2007 population 29,218), approximately 

13 18 mi from the SRS (USCB 2009). The population within the 50-mi radius of the site is 

14 estimated to be 766,127 (SCE&G 2009a). 

15 Currently, 84 percent of the SRS workforce lives in one of four counties, distributed as follows: 

16 Richmond (20.2 percent) and Columbia (11.9 percent) Counties in Georgia and Aiken (60.7 

17 percent) and Barnwell (7.1 percent) Counties in South Carolina (SCE&G 2009a). The in18 migrating population would be expected to reside within this four-county area in the same 

19 pattern as the existing workforce. Therefore, these four counties compose the economic impact 

20 area and are the focus of the following analysis. 

21 At the peak of the plant building activities, SCE&G would expect the workforce onsite to be 

22 3600. Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the SRS also hosts existing 

23 nuclear facilities, development of the proposed new units on the SR alternative site would have 

24 similar socioeconomic impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the VCSNS site. 

25 The review team concludes that because the economic impact area includes portions of two 

26 larger metropolitan areas (Aiken and Augusta), migration patterns would be similar to those 

27 expected at the VCSNS site. About 50 percent or 1800 would migrate to the economic impact 

28 area in rough proportion to the current operating workforce of the SRS. Using South Carolina’s 

29 average household size of 2.53, this would bring the total in-migrating population to 4554. 

30 Considering that the estimate of the in-migrating population represents about 1.1 percent of the 

31 population of the economic impact area in 2000, the review team expects the regional 

32 demographic impacts of the project to be minor. Once the facility is operational, SCE&G 

33 estimates that the workforce would be about 800 employees. SCE&G also estimates that the 

34 additional 130 site support workforce already exists at the SRS, based on nuclear facilities 

35 already operating there, and additional support workers would not be needed (SCE&G 2009a). 

36 The review team assumed 50 percent of these workers would migrate into the four-county 

37 economic impact area, similar to what would be expected at the VCSNS site. The review team 

38 expects the demographic impact during operations to be minimal. Based on the information 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-180 April 2010

1 provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes 

2 that the demographic impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the SR 

3 alternative site would be minimal. 

4 Taxes and Economy 

5 According to SCE&G, in lieu of property taxes, SRS currently pays a fee to the counties whose 

6 land area includes the SRS. The proposed site sits on the Aiken/Barnwell County line, currently 

7 Aiken County receives $800,000 and Barnwell County receives $2 million annually. The 

8 proposed nuclear facility would increase the fee base to the two counties for the life of the 

9 proposed project. The review team finds that increased fees from the proposed project based 

10 on the value of the new facilities would likely be paid to Aiken and Barnwell Counties. These 

11 fee increases are likely to increase the SRS proportion of property tax revenues in Aiken and 

12 Barnwell Counties by some noticeable percentage (SCE&G 2009a). 

13 The wages and salaries of the project workforce would have a multiplier effect that could result 

14 in increases in business activity, particularly in the retail and service sectors. SCE&G acquired 

15 RIMS II economic multiplier values specific to this economic impact area from the U.S. Bureau 

16 of Economic Analysis (BEA 2006), which permit detailed examination of potential economic 

17 impacts with individual multipliers attributable to construction activities and plant operations 

18 activities. Using the RIMS multiplier of 1.75, the 3600 construction jobs would create 2700 

19 indirect jobs in the economic impact area, for a total of 6300 jobs supported by the project. 

20 Because the review team assumes 50 percent of the project workforce would migrate to the 

21 region, the approximate net employment effect of the project would be 3150 new jobs spread 

22 over the four counties. This would have a beneficial but temporary impact on the business 

23 community and could provide (1) opportunities for new businesses to get started and (2) 

24 increased job opportunities for local residents. Once the new units are operational, 

25 approximately 800 new operations jobs would be added to the local economy. Using a 

26 multiplier of 2.64, the 800 operations and support jobs would create 1312 indirect jobs in the 

27 economic impact area, for a total of 2112 jobs supported by plant operations. Because the 

28 review team assumes 50 percent of the workforce would migrate to the region, the approximate 

29 net employment effect of operations would be 1056 new jobs spread over the four counties. 

30 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

31 the review team concludes that the economic and tax base impacts of building and operating 

32 two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would be minor in the four-county area, but 

33 would be noticeable in Aiken and Barnwell Counties. 

34 Transportation and Housing 

35 The proposed site can be accessed by a number of routes. The transportation network includes 

36 one east-west interstate highway (I-20), north-south US-1 and US-25/SC-121, and east-west 

37 US-78 and US-278. There are several other US and State highways in the SRS region. Delays 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-181 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 are currently experienced around the Savannah River bridges on I-20, US-25, and US-1. 

2 Sufficient railroad lines exist near the site. Given the extensive transportation network that 

3 exists in the SRS region and implementation of traffic-control measures such as staggering 

4 shifts, the review team expects transportation impacts from building and operating a nuclear 

5 facility on the SR alternative site to be minor. 

6 Approximately 1800 construction workers would migrate into the region during peak project 

7 employment. Approximately 465 operations workers would migrate into the region by the time 

8 the facility becomes operational. Construction workers may choose to buy housing, rent, use 

9 mobile homes, or stay in a hotel/motel, while operations workers would likely choose to buy a 

10 house. According to the 2000 U.S. Census there were 187,811 housing units in the four-county 

11 economic impact area, of which 6400 in Aiken County 1170 in Barnwell County, 8392 in 

12 Richmond County, and 2201 in Columbia County were vacant, for a total of 18,163 vacant units 

13 (SCE&G 2009a). The review team expects that the in-migrating workforce could be absorbed 

14 by the region and the impacts would likely be minimal, but if a higher than expected number of 

15 workers decided to reside in one of the smaller counties such as Aiken or Barnwell County then 

16 the impact would be more noticeable. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the 

17 review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes that transportation and 

18 housing impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would 

19 be minor across the four-county area, and would be noticeable in Aiken and Barnwell Counties 

20 but not destabilizing. 

21 Public Services and Education 

22 In-migrating construction workers and plant operations workers would likely affect local 

23 municipal water, wastewater treatment facilities, and other public services in the region. These 

24 impacts would likely be in proportion with the demographic impacts experienced in the region, 

25 unless these resources have excess capacity or are particularly strained during building, which 

26 would decrease or increase the impact, respectively. The in-migrating workers represent a 

27 small portion of the total population of Aiken or Barnwell Counties and likely would not have a 

28 noticeable impact on their public services. During operations the impact on public services 

29 would likely be minimal. 

30 SCE&G reports in its ER (SCE&G 2009a) that during the 2004–2005 school year, Aiken County 

31 had 40 PK-12 schools, Barnwell County had 11 schools, Richmond County had 89 schools, and 

32 Columbia County had 29 schools (SCE&G 2009a). Total enrollment for Aiken, Barnwell, 

33 Richmond, and Columbia Counties for the 2004–2005 school year was 25,299, 4721, 34,141, 

34 and 20,570, respectively. A maximum of 938 students are expected to migrate into the four35 county economic impact area, during peak project employment and this number would decline 

36 to 484 during operations. Based on the analysis in the demography section above, it is 

37 expected that approximately 60.7 percent of the students would settle in Aiken County, 

38 7.1 percent in Barnwell County, 20.2 percent in Richmond, and 11.9 percent in Columbia 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-182 April 2010

1 County. This would increase the student population in Aiken County by 2.3 percent, Barnwell 

2 County by 1.4 percent, Richmond County by 0.6 percent, and Columbia County by 0.5 percent. 

3 During facility operations, the increase in student body would be one percent for Aiken County, 

4 0.6 percent for Barnwell County, 0.2 percent for Richmond County, and 0.2 percent for 

5 Columbia County (SCE&G 2009a). During operation, this impact on schools would be 

6 significantly less due to the lower number of in-migrating students. Based on the information 

7 provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, the review team concludes 

8 that public services and education impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at 

9 the SR alternative site would be minor. 

10 Aesthetics and Recreation 

11 The SRS is government-owned and not open to the public, but certain recreational activities 

12 such as guided tours, controlled deer hunts, and environmental studies are allowed on the site. 

13 Other recreational areas within 50 mi of the SRS include Sumter National Forest, Santee 

14 National Wildlife Refuge, Thurmond Lake, Crackerneck Wildlife Management Area, and various 

15 other State, county, and local parks. The intake structures would be visible to people recreating 

16 on the Savannah River in the immediate vicinity. Other facility structures would be similar to 

17 existing structures in the area and mainly hidden by river bends, elevated terrain, and 

18 vegetation (SCE&G 2009a). Project activities would increase the noise level at the site, but 

19 because of its location on an industrial site, this would likely only impact the current industrial 

20 residents. Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent 

21 evaluation, the review team concludes that public aesthetics and recreation impacts of building 

22 and operating two new nuclear units at the SR site would be minimal. 

23 Summary of Socioeconomics 

24 Physical impacts on workers and the general public include impacts on existing buildings, 

25 transportation, aesthetics, noise levels, and air quality. Social and economic impacts span 

26 issues of demographics, economy, taxes, infrastructure, and community services. In summary, 

27 on the basis of information provided by SCE&G and the review team’s independent evaluation, 

28 the review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating a new nuclear plant at the 

29 SR alternative site on socioeconomics would be minimal and adverse for most of the region but 

30 could be noticeable but not destabilizing for Aiken and Barnwell Counties in terms of housing 

31 impacts during the building phase. During operation, these impacts are expected to be minimal. 

32 Impacts on aesthetics are expected to be minor. The impacts on the tax base of Aiken and 

33 Barnwell Counties during operations likely would be noticeable and beneficial; however only 

34 minor beneficial impacts would result in the rest of the region. 

35 Cumulative Impacts 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-183 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The projects identified in Table 9-24, particularly the future urbanization of the metropolitan area 

2 of Augusta, Georgia, have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, economic 

3 climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

4 urbanization and industrialization. Because the projects within the review area identified in 

5 Table 9-24 would be consistent with applicable land-use plans and control policies, the review 

6 team considers the cumulative socioeconomic impacts from the projects to be manageable. 

7 For the analysis of socioeconomic impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of 

8 interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the SR alternative site, with special 

9 consideration of Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia and Aiken and Barnwell Counties 

10 in South Carolina, because that is where the review team expects socioeconomic impacts to be 

11 the greatest. 

12 The SRS is a large site covering parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties in 

13 southwestern South Carolina. The employment in the area surrounding the SR alternative site 

14 is a mixture of State and local government, retail, manufacturing, and construction. The majority 

15 of the region’s workforce resides to the north in Aiken, Lexington, and Orangeburg in South 

16 Carolina, or in Richmond and Columbia Counties in Georgia to the northwest of the site. Since 

17 2001, however, there has been a shift away from the manufacturing sector towards other 

18 sectors. While still the largest single employment sector the in the region, manufacturing’s 

19 decline during the period of 2001 to 2007 was approximately 15 percent. Hardest hit by the 

20 contraction of the manufacturing sector has been Burke County, Georgia, part of the Augusta 

21 metropolitan area, which lost approximately 11,555 manufacturing jobs during this period of time 

22 (BEA 2009). The healthcare and social assistance sector was the fastest growing sector in the 

23 region, having grown approximately 23 percent from 31,368 employees in 2001 to 38,668 

24 employees in 2007 (BEA 2009). The United States Army Base, Fort Gordon, located in 

25 Richmond County and Columbia County, Georgia, also employs approximately 16,000 active 

26 personnel in addition to 3800 civilian employees (Augusta 2006). The facilities located at the 

27 SRS itself, although employing fewer now than it has in the past, continues to employ 

28 approximately 13,373 people combined as of 2003, 7845 (83 percent) of whom live in Aiken, 

29 Barnwell, or Richmond Counties (Augusta 2006). 

30 In addition to assessing the socioeconomic impacts from the building and operations of two 

31 additional nuclear units on the SR alternative site, the cumulative impact is also considered. 

32 The cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

33 actions that could contribute to the cumulative socioeconomic impacts on a given region, 

34 including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-24. The 

35 projects identified in Table 9-24 have contributed or would contribute to the demographics, 

36 economic climate, and community infrastructure of the region and generally result in increased 

37 urbanization and industrialization. However, many impacts such as those on housing or public 

38 services are able to adjust over time, particularly with increased tax revenues. Furthermore, 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-184 April 2010

1 State and county plans along with modeled demographic projections include forecasts of future 

2 development and population increases. 

3 Because most projects described in Table 9-24 do not include any significant reasonably 

4 foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the SR alternative site, the 

5 review team determined there would be no significant additional cumulative socioeconomic 

6 impacts in the region from those activities. Any economic impacts associated with activities 

7 listed in Table 9-24 would have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline. For 

8 example, the construction and operation of the SRS MOX Fuel Fabrication facility is currently in 

9 year 3 of construction. The NRC estimated that at project peak employment a total of 1820 jobs 

10 would be supported by that project including direct and indirect employment (NRC 2003). Also, 

11 the VEGP received an ESP from NRC for two nuclear units to be constructed about 17 mi south 

12 of the SRS in Burke County, Georgia. The NRC staff estimated that project would require 3500 

13 direct construction jobs at peak employment, and the project is underway with an in-service date 

14 expected in 2016 if the NRC issues a COL. Of the 3500 direct jobs at peak employment, the 

15 NRC staff expects 2500 to migrate to the economic impact area, generating an additional 900 

16 indirect jobs, for a total employment impact of 3400 jobs at peak construction (NRC 2008). The 

17 review team concludes that because current employment numbers would reflect jobs created by 

18 these projects in their current state of progress, these projects already have been accounted for 

19 in the socioeconomic baseline of the Augusta and Aiken metropolitan areas, and would not 

20 noticeably increase the current cumulative economic activity. Upon operation of the VEGP 

21 Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff concluded that Burke County, Georgia would experience 

22 substantial beneficial tax revenue impacts, but that these impacts would be minor elsewhere in 

23 the Augusta metropolitan area. 

24 The review team concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of the building and operation of a 

25 new two-unit nuclear plant at the SR alternative site would be SMALL and adverse across most 

26 of the region, but could be MODERATE and adverse for Aiken and Barnwell Counties in terms 

27 of housing impacts during the building phase. The cumulative impacts on the tax base of Aiken 

28 and Barnwell Counties during plant building and operation likely would be MODERATE and 

29 beneficial. Building and operating a new plant at the SR alternative site would make a 

30 noticeable incremental contribution to these impact levels. 

31 9.3.6.7 Environmental Justice 

32 In addition to environmental justice impacts from building and operations, the cumulative 

33 analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could 

34 contribute to disproportionate and adverse impacts on minorities and low-income populations, 

35 including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-24. For the 

36 analysis of environmental justice impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of 

37 interest is considered to be the 50-mi region centered on the SR alternative site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-185 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The SRS is a large site covering parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties in 

2 southwestern South Carolina. The farms and residents in the area were affected by the original 

3 acquisition of the lands in the 1940s and 1950s making up the current site. 

4 From an environmental justice perspective, the review team determined there is a potential for 

5 minority and low-income populations to be disproportionately and adversely affected by 

6 environmental impacts. Bordering the SRS, the review team found low-income, African 

7 American, and aggregated minority populations that exceed the percentage criteria established 

8 in Section 2.6.1 for environmental justice analyses, including the city of Aiken (2007 population 

9 29,218), which is within the vicinity of the SR alternative site (see Figure 9-13 and Figure 9-14). 

10 Because the other projects described in Table 9-24 do not include any significant reasonably 

11 foreseeable changes in socioeconomic impacts within 50 mi of the SR alternative site, the 

12 review team concludes there would not be any significant additional cumulative environmental 

13 justice impacts in the region from those activities. 

14 For example, the review team considered the SRS MOX Fuel Fabrication facility and VEGP 

15 Units 3 and 4 specifically for socioeconomic impacts. In the case of the MOX facility, the NRC 

16 staff concluded that environmental justice impacts would be minor. The NRC staff concluded 

17 that only minor environmental justice impacts would be expected from construction and 

18 operation of Units 3 and 4 at the VEGP. Any economic impacts associated with activities listed 

19 in Table 9-24 already have been considered as part of the socioeconomic baseline. For 

20 example, the economic impacts of existing enterprises such as mining, other electrical utilities, 

21 etc., are part of the base used for establishing the RIMS II multipliers. Regional planning efforts 

22 and associated demographic projections formed the basis for the review team’s assessment of 

23 reasonably foreseeable future impacts. 

24 Because of the rural nature of the two sites and the fact that the SRS also hosts an existing 

25 power plant, development of the proposed new units on the SR alternative site would have 

26 similar environmental justice impacts in most respects to adding two new units to the VCSNS 

27 site. However, as discussed in Section 9.3.3.6, the traffic-related impacts expected at the 

28 VCSNS site and the FA-1 site would not be expected at the SR alternative site because of the 

29 extensive road network providing access to the site from many directions. The review team 

30 expects that other potential environmental justice impacts would be similar to those analyzed for 

31 the VCSNS site, and would not result in disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority or 

32 low-income populations. 

33 Based on the above considerations, information provided by SCE&G, visits to the site, and the 

34 review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that when viewed in the context 

35 of the wider region, locating the proposed action at the SR alternative site would not contribute 

36 additional cumulative impacts beyond the impacts described in Chapters 4 and 5 for the VCSNS 

37 site. The review team did not identify any environmental pathways by which disproportionate 

38 and adverse impacts could affect minority or low-income populations or communities. Under 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-186 April 2010

1 

2 Figure 9-13. Aggregate Minority Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental 

3 Justice Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-187 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 

2 Figure 9-14. Low-Income Populations in Block Groups that Meet the Environmental Justice 

3 Selection Criteria at the Savannah River Alternative Site 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-188 April 2010

1 the limitations of a reconnaissance-level analysis, the review team found no other health or 

2 physical considerations and no unique characteristics or practices that could lead to a 

3 disproportionately high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income community within 

4 region around the SR alternative site. Therefore, the review team concludes that the 

5 environmental justice impacts would be minimal locally and would not create pathways to 

6 increase expected cumulative impacts on minority and low-income populations in the region. 

7 Based on its evaluation, the review team concludes that cumulative environmental justice 

8 impacts associated with building and operating two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site 

9 would be SMALL. 

10 9.3.6.8 Historic and Cultural Resources 

11 The following cumulative impact analysis includes building and operating two new nuclear 

12 generating units at the SR alternative site. The analysis also considers other past, present, and 

13 reasonably foreseeable future actions that could impact cultural resources, including other 

14 Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in Table 9-24. For the analysis of 

15 cultural impacts at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be 

16 the APE that would be defined for this proposed undertaking. This includes the physical APE, 

17 defined as the area directly affected by the site-development and operation activities at the site 

18 and transmission lines, and the visual APE. The visual APE is defined as an additional 1-mi 

19 radius around the physical APE as a reasonable assumption for defining a maximum distance 

20 from which the structures can be seen. 

21 Reconnaissance activities in a cultural resource review have particular meaning. For example, 

22 these activities include preliminary field investigations to confirm the presence or absence of 

23 cultural resources. However, in developing its EISs, the review team relies upon 

24 reconnaissance-level information to perform its alternative site evaluation. Reconnaissance25 level information is data that are readily available from agencies and other public sources. It 

26 can also include information obtained through visits to the site area. To identify the historic and 

27 cultural resources at the SR alternative site the following information was used: 

28  SCE&G ER (SCE&G 2009a) – including the National Park Services National Register 

29 Information and information from the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program 

30  NRC EIS for the MOX facility (NRC 2005) 

31  NRC Alternative Sites Visit, March 2009. 

32 Historically, the SRS and vicinity was largely undisturbed by land development and likely 

33 contained intact archaeological sites associated with the past 10,000 years of human 

34 settlement. Over time, portions of the SRS have been disturbed by forestry practices and 

35 development of the Federal nuclear facility (SCE&G 2009a, j). The Savannah River 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-189 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Archaeological Research Program has extensive knowledge of the cultural resources located on 

2 the greater SRS, because the program has been conducting cultural resources work at DOE’s 

3 Federal facility since the early 1970s. The SRS contains over 1000 prehistoric and historic 

4 American Indian and Euro-American cultural resources, most of which have not been formally 

5 evaluated for listing in the National Register (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G also conducted a search 

6 to identify National Register properties within the five counties around the SR alternative site. 

7 SCE&G found that there are 103 properties listed in the National Register within those counties, 

8 but that none are within 6 mi of the SR alternative site (SCE&G 2009a). Extensive cultural 

9 resources knowledge of the SRS has resulted in the categorization of the SRS based on the 

10 potential for archaeological resources to be present. The proposed alternative site location is 

11 located in an area that is considered to have a low potential to contain archaeological resources 

12 (SCE&G 2009a) due to a general low density of archaeological sites in the area. The physical 

13 and visual APEs for a proposed plant at the SR alternative site do not appear to have any 

14 historic properties located within the area likely to be affected by building or operating new 

15 plants. 

16 To accommodate the building of two nuclear units on the SR alternative site, SCE&G would 

17 need to clear approximately 500 ac of undeveloped land for the nuclear facility and associated 

18 structures and infrastructure (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G has stated that as part of the site19 selection process known cultural resource locations would be considered as avoidance areas 

20 (SCE&G 2009i, j). SCE&G has also stated that if the proposed project was sited at the SR 

21 alternative site, identification of cultural resources would be accomplished through cultural 

22 resource surveys. The results would be used in the site-planning process to avoid cultural 

23 resource impacts. If significant cultural resources were identified by these surveys, SCE&G 

24 would also develop protective measures similar to what it has in place for the VCSNS site. In 

25 addition, inadvertent discovery procedures would be developed if cultural resources were 

26 discovered during site-development activities (SCE&G 2009i). 

27 To accommodate a nuclear power facility at the SR alternative site, SCE&G would need to 

28 construct three 230-kV transmission lines requiring a 100-ft-wide transmission-line corridor for a 

29 total of 2264 ac of transmission-line corridor. The most direct route would be used, avoiding 

30 populated areas, residences, and natural or manufactured conflicts when possible (SCE&G 

31 2009a). If the proposed project was sited at the SR alternative site, the staff assumes SCE&G 

32 would conduct its transmission-line-related cultural resource activities in ways similar to what 

33 they have committed to do for VCSNS site, as described in Section 4.6. 

34 Past actions in the geographic area of interest that have similarly affected cultural and historic 

35 resources include forestry practices at the SRS and any road development and logging activities 

36 associated with those practices. None of the projects listed in Table 9-24 is located within the 

37 geographic area of interest and therefore, they have no potential for cumulative impact on 

38 cultural resources. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-190 April 2010

1 Activities associated with building two nuclear units and supporting facilities that can potentially 

2 directly affect cultural and historic resources include land clearing, excavation, and grading. 

3 Given SCE&G’s site-planning process, and the lack of significant cultural resources known to 

4 exist at the SR alternative site based on reconnaissance-level information and the land 

5 disturbance where the new plant would be located, the impacts on cultural resources due to 

6 site-development activities would be negligible. 

7 In addition, visual impacts from cooling towers and transmission lines could result in significant 

8 alterations to the visual landscape within the geographic area of interest. Given that there are 

9 no known cultural resources where the historic setting and character of the resources are 

10 important, the visual impacts would be negligible. The staff assumes that SCE&G and Santee 

11 Cooper would develop a management agreement in consultation with SHPO similar to the one 

12 that would be developed for the VCSNS site. 

13 Impacts on cultural and historic resources from operation of two new nuclear units at the SR 

14 alternative site include those associated with the operation of new units and maintenance of 

15 transmission lines. The staff assumes that the same procedures currently used by SCE&G and 

16 Santee Cooper would be used for onsite and offsite maintenance activities. Consequently, the 

17 incremental effects of the maintenance of transmission-line corridors and operations of the two 

18 new units and associated impacts on cultural resources would be negligible. 

19 Table 9-24 identifies projects within the geographic area of interest and includes the South 

20 Carolina Strategic Corridor System Plan, DOE’s Savannah River Site, and future urbanization 

21 that could affect historic and cultural resources in a manner similar to those associated with the 

22 operation of two new units. 

23 Cultural resources are nonrenewable; therefore, the impact of destruction of cultural resources 

24 is cumulative. Based on the information provided by the applicant and the review team’s 

25 independent evaluation, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts from building 

26 and operating two new nuclear generating units on the SR alternative site would be SMALL. 

27 This impact-level determination reflects no known cultural resources that could be affected; 

28 however, if the SR alternative site was to be developed, then cultural resource surveys may 

29 reveal important historic properties that could result in greater cumulative impacts. 

30 9.3.6.9 Air Quality 

31 Because the SR alternative site is located in a climate regime similar to the VCSNS site, the air 

32 quality impacts of building and operating a nuclear facility at the SR alternative site would be 

33 similar to the air quality impacts at the VCSNS site. As described in Sections 4.7 and 5.7, the 

34 review team determined that the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units on air 

35 quality at the VCSNS site would be SMALL. Therefore, the impacts of building and operating 

36 two new nuclear units on air quality at the SR alternative site would be minimal. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-191 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The SR alternative site is located in the Augusta-Aiken Interstate Air Quality Control Region, 

2 which is designated as being in attainment with the NAAQSs (40 CFR 81.341) (SCE&G 2009a). 

3 The resource area defined for this evaluation includes Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South 

4 Carolina. Two counties were selected in this case because the SR alternative site could be 

5 located in either county. In general, designations of attainment or non-attainment are made on 

6 a county-by-county basis. As listed in Table 9-24, sources of gaseous emissions in Aiken and 

7 Barnwell Counties include facilities at DOE’s SRS. The DOE SRS is classified as a major 

8 source and includes approximately 22 emission units that have a SCDHEC Air Quality Permit 

9 (TV-0080-0041). Emissions from these sources include, but are not limited to, sulfur dioxide, 

10 particulates, and nitrogen oxides (SRS 2009). Given the intermittent operation of the diesel 

11 generators at two new units, and that both Aiken and Barnwell Counties are currently in 

12 attainment, the review team concludes that the cumulative impacts on air quality from the 

13 operation of two new units would be SMALL. 

14 Greenhouse gas emissions related to nuclear power are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6. As 

15 pointed out in Chapter 7, the impacts of the emissions are independent of emission location. 

16 Consequently, the discussions in the previous chapters and in Section 9.2.5 are applicable to 

17 two AP1000 reactors located at the SR alternative site. The impacts of greenhouse gas 

18 emissions at the SR alternative site considered in isolation would be minimal, and the 

19 cumulative impact of greenhouse gas emissions would be MODERATE, primarily due to 

20 national and world-wide impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Building and operating two 

21 new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would not be a significant contributor to the 

22 MODERATE impact. 

23 9.3.6.10 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

24 The following impact analysis for the SR alternative site includes impacts from building activities 

25 and operations. The analysis also considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

26 actions that affect the nonradiological health resources, including other Federal and non-Federal 

27 projects and the projects listed in Table 9-24. For the analysis of nonradiological health impacts 

28 at the SR alternative site, the geographic area of interest is considered to be the 6-mi area 

29 centered on the SR alternative site and the associated transmission-line corridors. This 6-mi 

30 radius is expected to encompass all nonradiological health impacts. 

31 Building Impacts 

32 Nonradiological health impacts from building two new nuclear units on construction workers and 

33 members of the public at the SR alternative site would be similar to those evaluated in Section 

34 4.8 for the proposed site. They include occupational injuries, noise, vehicle exhaust, and dust. 

35 Applicable Federal and State regulations on air quality and noise would be complied with during 

36 the site-preparation and building phase. The SR alternative site is located in a rural area and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-192 April 2010

1 building impacts would likely be negligible on the surrounding populations. These areas are 

2 classified as medium- and low-population areas. 

3 There is only one past action in the geographic area of interest that has similarly affected 

4 nonradiological health and it is the construction of the DOE SRS, portions of which are located 

5 within less than 1 mi of the SR alternative site. There are no major current projects in the 

6 geographic area of interest that would cumulatively affect nonradiological health in a similar way. 

7 Proposed future actions that would affect nonradiological health in a similar way to development 

8 at the SR alternative site would include the building and operation of the SRS MOX Fuel 

9 Fabrication facility (located approximately 5 mi from the proposed SR alternative site), 

10 transmission-line creation and/or upgrading, and future urbanization that would occur 

11 throughout the designated geographic region of interest. The review team concludes that the 

12 cumulative impacts on nonradiological health from building two new nuclear units and 

13 associated transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be minimal considering the low 

14 population density on and around the SR alternative site and its position within a DOEcontrolled tract of more than 300 mi2 15 of land.geographic 

16 Operational Impacts 

17 Occupational health impacts on operational employees would include those associated with 

18 plant operation and operation of the associated transmission lines, and they are fully described 

19 in Section 5.8. Based on the configuration of the proposed new units at the SR alternative site 

20 (closed-cycle, wet cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers), etiological agents 

21 would not likely increase the incidence of waterborne diseases in the vicinity of the site. 

22 Impacts on workers’ health from occupational injuries, noise, and electric fields would be similar 

23 to the proposed site. Noise and electric fields would be monitored and controlled in accordance 

24 with applicable OSHA regulations. 

25 No past, present, or future actions in the geographic area of interest were identified that would 

26 significantly affect nonradiological health in ways similar to those associated with the operation 

27 of two new units at the SR alternative site. The review team therefore concludes that the 

28 impacts on nonradiological health from operating two new nuclear units and associated 

29 transmission lines at the SR alternative site would be minimal. 

30 Summary Statement 

31 Impacts on nonradiological health from the building and operation of two new units at the SR 

32 alternative site were estimated based in the information provided by SCE&G and the review 

33 team’s independent evaluation. The review team concludes that health impacts on construction 

34 workers and the public resulting from the building of two new nuclear units at the SR alternative 

35 site would be SMALL. The review team expects that the occupational health impacts on the 

36 operations employees of two new nuclear units at the SR alternative site would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-193 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Similarly, impacts on public health of two new nuclear units operating at the SR alternative site 

2 would be SMALL. 

3 There are past and future activities in the geographic area of interest that could affect 

4 nonradiological health in ways similar to the building of two units at the SR alternative site. The 

5 review team concludes, however, that cumulative impacts from past, present, and future actions 

6 on nonradiological health from building and operating two new units at the SR alternative site 

7 would be SMALL. 

8 9.3.6.11 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

9 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts on the public and workers from 

10 building activities and operations for two nuclear units at the SR alternative site. The analysis 

11 also considers other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect 

12 radiological health, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

13 Table 9-24. As described in Section 9.3.6, SRS is a DOE site. There are no reactors currently 

14 operating at the SRS, but there are mothballed reactors and other nuclear facilities on the SRS. 

15 The geographic area of interest is the area within a 50-mi radius of the SR alternative site. 

16 Facilities potentially affecting radiological health within this geographic area of interest are 

17 operating VEGP Units 1 and 2, proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4, the facilities throughout the DOE 

18 SRS containing radioactive material, the MOX Fuel Fabrication facility at the SRS, and the 

19 Energy Solutions (Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. In addition, there 

20 are likely to be hospitals and industrial facilities within 50 mi of the SR alternative site that use 

21 radioactive material. 

22 The radiological impacts of building and operating the proposed two AP1000 plants at the SR 

23 alternative site include doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. 

24 These sources would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be well below 

25 regulatory limits. The impacts are expected to be similar to those estimated for the VSCNS site. 

26 The radiological impacts of existing VEGP Units 1 and 2 include doses from direct radiation and 

27 liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways would result in low doses to people 

28 and biota offsite that are well below regulatory limits as demonstrated by the ongoing 

29 radiological environmental monitoring program conducted around the Vogtle site. The EIS for 

30 proposed VEGP Units 3 and 4 indicates that operation of the proposed reactors would result in 

31 radiological impacts from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The EIS 

32 indicates that these pathways would result in low doses to people and biota offsite that would be 

33 well below regulatory limits (NRC 2008b). 

34 The SRS has active high-level radioactive waste processing facilities, processing and storage 

35 facilities for radioactive materials used in defense applications, mothballed nuclear reactors, and 

36 other nuclear facilities that would potentially have an impact on radiological health. The 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-194 April 2010

1 radiological impacts of the various facilities at SRS and the SRS MOX facility would include 

2 doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. The radiological 

3 impacts from the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility could also include 

4 doses from direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents. These pathways result 

5 in low doses to people and biota offsite that are below applicable DOE and NRC regulatory 

6 limits. SRS conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program that measures radiation 

7 and concentrations of radioactive material from all sources in the environs of the SRS, including 

8 the Barnwell facility and confirms that the doses meet the regulatory limits. 

9 In addition, the NRC staff concludes that the dose from direct radiation and effluents from 

10 hospitals and industrial facilities that use radioactive material would be an insignificant 

11 contribution to the cumulative impact around the SR alternative site. This conclusion is based 

12 on data from the radiological environmental monitoring programs conducted around currently 

13 operating nuclear power plants. 

14 Based on the information provided by SCE&G and the NRC staff's independent analysis, the 

15 NRC staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts from building and operating the 

16 two proposed AP1000 plants and other existing and planned projects and actions in the 

17 geographic area of interest around the SR alternative site would be SMALL 

18 9.3.6.12 Postulated Accident Impacts 

19 The following impact analysis includes radiological impacts from postulated accidents from 

20 operations for two nuclear units at the SR alternative site. The analysis also considers other 

21 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect radiological health from 

22 postulated accidents, including other Federal and non-Federal projects and the projects listed in 

23 Table 9-24. As described in Section 9.3.6, SRS is a DOE site. There are no reactors currently 

24 operating at the SRS, but there are mothballed reactors and other nuclear facilities on the SRS. 

25 The geographic area of interest considers all existing and proposed nuclear power plants that 

26 have the potential to increase the probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risks) from a severe 

27 accident at any location within 50 mi of the SR alternative site. Facilities potentially affecting 

28 radiological accident risk within this geographic area of interest are existing VCSNS Unit 1, 

29 VEGP Units 1 and 2, Hatch Units 1 and 2, facilities throughout the DOE SRS containing 

30 radioactive material, the MOX Fuel Fabrication facility at the SRS, and the Energy Solutions 

31 (Barnwell) Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. Also, two AP1000 reactors have 

32 been proposed at the Vogtle site. As described in Section 5.11.1, the NRC staff concludes that 

33 the environmental consequences of DBAs at the VCSNS site would be minimal for AP1000 

34 reactors. DBAs are addressed specifically to demonstrate that a reactor design is robust 

35 enough to meet NRC safety criteria. The AP1000 design is independent of site conditions, and 

36 the meteorology of the SR alternative and VCSNS sites are similar; therefore, the NRC staff 

37 concludes that the environmental consequences of DBAs at the SR alternative site would be 

38 minimal. Because the meteorology, population distribution, and land use for the SR alternative 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-195 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 site are expected to be similar to the proposed VCSNS site, risks from a severe accident for an 

2 AP1000 reactor located at the SR alternative site are expected to be similar to those analyzed 

3 for the proposed VCSNS site. The risks for the proposed VCSNS site are presented in 

4 Tables 5-17 and 5-19 and are well below the median value for current-generation reactors. In 

5 addition, as discussed in Section 5.11.1, estimates of average individual early fatality and latent 

6 cancer fatality risks are well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028). For existing 

7 plants within the geographic area of interest (VCSNS Unit 1, Hatch Units 1 and 2, and VEGP 

8 Units 1 and 2), the Commission has determined that the probability-weighted consequences of 

9 severe accidents are small (10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B, Table B-1). Finally, according to the 

10 Vogtle ESP (NRC 2008a), the risks from this proposed site are also well below current11 generation reactors and meet the Commission’s safety goals. 

12 There are no reactors currently operating at DOE’s SRS; however, there is some severe 

13 accident risk associated with the spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes that 

14 may be processed or stored at SRS. The severe accident risks associated with stored spent 

15 fuel at operating nuclear power plants are lower than the risks for severe accidents involving the 

16 reactor core. Likewise, the severe accident risks associated any spent reactor fuel or other 

17 high-level radioactive waste processed or stored at SRS would be lower than the risks for 

18 severe accidents involving the reactor core. There is no irradiated fuel at the MOX Fuel 

19 Fabrication Facility at SRS, and this facility is designed to prevent inadvertent criticalities. Other 

20 facilities at SRS and the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility may contain 

21 substantial amounts of radioactive material, but there is no credible severe accident risk like 

22 there is for an operating reactor. Therefore, the additional risk from these facilities is not 

23 significant in the evaluation of the cumulative severe accident risk for a nuclear power plant at 

24 the SR alternative site. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the cumulative risks from 

25 severe accidents at any location within 50 mi of the SR alternative site would be SMALL. 

26 9.3.7 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and the Alternative 

27 Sites 

28 This section summarizes the review team’s characterization of the cumulative impacts related to 

29 locating a two-unit AP1000 nuclear power facility at the proposed VCSNS site and at each 

30 alternative site. The four sites selected for detailed review as part of the alternative sites 

31 environmental analysis included the FA-1 site located in Fairfield County, South Carolina; the 

32 CGS site located in Orangeburg County, South Carolina; the Saluda site located in Saluda 

33 County, South Carolina; and the SR alternative site located in Aiken County, South Carolina. 

34 Comparisons are made between the proposed site and alternatives to evaluate whether one of 

35 the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. The NRC’s 

36 determination is independent of the USACE’s determination under Section 404(b)(1) and its 

37 Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230 of whether this site is the least environmentally damaging 

38 practical alternative (LEDPA). The USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-196 April 2010

1 alternatives in its Record of Decision. The USACE alternatives evaluation is discussed in 

2 Section 9.5. The need to compare the proposed site with alternative sites arises from the 

3 requirement in NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(iii) (42 USC 4332) that EISs include an analysis of 

4 alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC criterion to be used in assessing whether a 

5 proposed site is to be rejected in favor of an alternative site is based on whether the alternative 

6 site is “obviously superior” to the site proposed by the applicant (Public Service Company of 

7 New Hampshire 1977). An alternative site is “obviously superior” to the proposed site if it is 

8 “clearly and substantially” superior to the proposed site (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). 

9 The standard of obviously superior “...is designed to guarantee that a proposed site will not be 

10 rejected in favor of an alternate unless, on the basis of appropriate study, the Commission can 

11 be confident that such action is called for” (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978). 

12 The “obviously superior” test is appropriate for two reasons. First, the analysis performed by 

13 NRC in evaluating alternative sites is necessarily imprecise. Key factors considered in the 

14 alternative site analysis, such as population distribution and density, hydrology, air quality, 

15 aquatic and terrestrial ecological resources, aesthetics, land use, and socioeconomics, are 

16 difficult to quantify in common metrics. Given this difficulty, any evaluation of a particular site 

17 must have a wide range of uncertainty. Second, the applicant’s proposed site has been 

18 analyzed in detail, with the expectation that most of the adverse environmental impacts 

19 associated with the site have been identified. The alternative sites have not undergone a 

20 comparable level of detailed study. For these reasons, a proposed site may not be rejected in 

21 favor of an alternative site when the alternative site is marginally better than the proposed site, 

22 but only when it is obviously superior (Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978). NEPA does not 

23 require that a nuclear plant be constructed on the single best site for environmental purposes. 

24 Rather, “...all that NEPA requires is that alternative sites be considered and that the effects on 

25 the environment of building the plant at the alternative sites be carefully studied and factored 

26 into the ultimate decision” (New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 1978). 

27 Section 9.3.7.1 discusses the process the review team used to compare the alternative sites to 

28 the proposed VCSNS site. Cumulative impact levels from Chapter 7 (for the VCSNS), and the 

29 four alternative sites (from Sections 9.3.3 through 9.3.6) are listed in Table 9-31. Section 

30 9.3.7.2 and Section 9.3.7.3 discuss the cumulative impacts of the proposed project located at 

31 the VCSNS site and at the alternative sites as they relate to a determination of environmental 

32 preference or obvious superiority. 

33 9.3.7.1 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed and Alternative Sites 

34 The following section summarizes the review team’s independent assessment of the proposed 

35 and alternative sites. The team characterized the expected cumulative environmental impacts 

36 of building and operating new units at the VCSNS site and alternative sites; these impacts are 

37 summarized by category in Table 9-31. Full explanations for the specific impact 

38 characterizations are provided cumulatively in Chapter 7 for the proposed site and in Sections 

39 9.3.3, 9.3.4, 9.3.5, and 9.3.6 for each of the alternative sites. The review team’s impact 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-197 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 9-31. Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the VCSNS Site and Alternative Sites 

Resource Category VCSNS(a) FA-1 CGS Saluda SR 

Land Use MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Water-Related 

 Surface-water use SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL 

 Groundwater use SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

 Surface-water quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Groundwater quality SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Ecological 

 Terrestrial ecosystems MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

 Aquatic ecosystems SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL 

Socioeconomic 

 Physical Impacts SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

 Demography SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL SMALL 

 Taxes and Economy SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

SMALL to 

LARGE and 

beneficial 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

and beneficial

 Public Services and 

Education 

SMALL SMALL SMALL to 

MODERATE

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL 

Environmental Justice SMALL to 

MODERATE 

(localized) 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

(localized) 

SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Historic and Cultural MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Air Quality MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE 

Nonradiological Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Radiological Impacts of Normal 

Operations 

SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Postulated Accidents SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL 

(a) From Chapter 7, Cumulative Impacts Analysis for VCSNS 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-198 April 2010

1 category levels are based on professional judgment, experience, and consideration of controls 

2 likely to be imposed under Federal, State or local permits that would not be acquired until after 

3 the review of a COL application is underway. The considerations and assumptions were 

4 similarly applied at each of the alternative sites to provide a common basis for comparison. In 

5 the following discussion, the review team compares the impact levels between the proposed site 

6 and each alternative site. 

7 The cumulative environmental impact areas listed in the table have been evaluated using the 

8 NRC’s three-level standard of significance: SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These levels 

9 were developed using CEQ guidelines and are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR 

10 Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B: 

11 SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

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

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

14 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

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

16 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

17 9.3.7.2 Environmentally Preferable Sites 

18 The cumulative impacts of building and operating a two-unit nuclear power plant at the VCSNS 

19 site and at each alternative site are generally SMALL for many impact categories. The resource 

20 categories for which the impact level at an alternative site would be the same as the proposed 

21 site would not contribute to the determination that the alternative site is environmentally 

22 preferable to the proposed site. Therefore, these categories are not discussed further in 

23 determining whether an alternate site is environmentally preferable to the proposed site. Where 

24 there is a range of impacts for a resource, the upper range of the resource is used for the 

25 comparison. In addition, for those cases in which the cumulative impacts for a resource would 

26 be greater than SMALL, consideration is given to those cases in which the impacts of the 

27 project at the specific site would not make a significant contribution to the cumulative impact 

28 level. As shown in Table 9-31, there would be some differences in impacts among the sites. 

29 Distinguishing cumulative impacts are primarily related to the development of greenfield sites 

30 and the impacts from likely transmission-line routing for the alternative sites on terrestrial and 

31 aquatic ecology, as well as socioeconomic impacts associated with a sudden influx of workers 

32 on existing infrastructure and populations. In addition, distinctions between the VCSNS site and 

33 alternative sites are found in the cumulative impacts associated with the consumptive water use 

34 and the potential impact on the available resources. Specific variations in cumulative impacts 

35 are discussed in the following paragraphs, which compare the VCSNS to each alternative site. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-199 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 VCSNS and FA-1: Due to the proximity of VCSNS to the FA-1 alternative site, most of the 

2 cumulative impacts at the FA-1 site would be expected to be similar to the cumulative impacts 

3 described for the VCSNS site in Chapters 4 and 5. The only resource area for which the impact 

4 level differs between the VCSNS site and the FA-1 site is historic and cultural resources. The 

5 review team evaluated the impact on these resources at the VCSNS site as MODERATE based 

6 on impacts on the General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution 

7 Monument. As discussed in Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has concurred with a finding 

8 of no adverse effect to the above historic sites, based on protective and avoidance measures 

9 being implemented by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). The impacts at the FA-1 site were evaluated 

10 as SMALL based on reconnaissance-level information. The review team also recognizes that 

11 the VCSNS site is a brownfield site with existing infrastructure and ancillary services, and it is 

12 likely that the impacts on ecology of building two new units at the VCSNS site would be 

13 somewhat less than the impacts of building the units at a greenfield site, such as the FA-1 site. 

14 On balance, the review team concludes that there would be little if any difference in the overall 

15 environmental impacts between the two sites. Therefore, the review team determined that the 

16 FA-1 site is not an environmentally preferable site to the VCSNS site. 

17 VCSNS and CGS: The CGS site is a developed brownfield site with an existing coal-fired 

18 power plant. The proposed project would be co-located at the CGS site and would draw on the 

19 same resources as the existing plant. The VCSNS site is characterized more favorably than the 

20 CGS site in Table 9-24 for the following resource areas: groundwater use, aquatic ecosystems, 

21 demography, and public services and education. In all of these resource areas, the differences 

22 in ratings are specifically related to higher impacts at the CGS site from building and operating 

23 the two new units. The most significant difference relates to groundwater use. The new units 

24 would have to withdraw water from both the South Fork Edisto River and from groundwater to 

25 meet their needs and the amount of withdrawals would have a noticeable impact on the 

26 resource. The amount of surface-water withdrawals from the South Fork Edisto River would 

27 also have a noticeable impact on aquatic ecosystems. Impacts on Bamberg County in the area 

28 of demography and education would be noticeable during the building period. 

29 The CGS site is rated more favorably than the VCSNS site for the following resource areas: 

30 transportation, environmental justice, and cultural and historic resources. For transportation and 

31 environmental justice the impacts are related to traffic near the VCSNS site during the building 

32 phase. The transportation and environmental justice issue related to traffic are the result of 

33 economic activity from thousands of relatively high-paying construction jobs being created by 

34 the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The transportation and environmental justice issue 

35 related to traffic would subside once the building phase was completed. The impacts on cultural 

36 and historic resources at the CGS site were evaluated as SMALL based on reconnaissance37 level information. The review team evaluated the impact on these resources at the VCSNS site 

38 as MODERATE based on impacts on the General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the 

39 American Revolution Monument. As discussed in Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-200 April 2010

1 concurred with a finding of no adverse effect on the above historic sites, based on protective 

2 and avoidance measures being implemented by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). 

3 On balance, because of the greater impact on surface water and groundwater at CGS, the 

4 review team concludes that the impacts of building and operating two new nuclear units at the 

5 CGS site would be greater than the impacts of the same project at the VCSNS site. Therefore, 

6 the review team determined that the CGS site is not an environmentally preferable site to the 

7 VCSNS site. 

8 VCSNS and Saluda: The Saluda site is an undeveloped greenfield site located on the Saluda 

9 River arm of Lake Murray. The VCSNS site is characterized more favorably than the Saluda 

10 site for aesthetics and recreation. As a greenfield site along a river, the impacts on aesthetics 

11 and recreation are greater at the Saluda site than at the VCSNS site. 

12 The Saluda site is characterized more favorably than the VCSNS site for environmental justice 

13 and for historic and cultural resources. The environmental justice impacts are related to traffic 

14 near the VCSNS site during the building phase. The transportation and environmental justice 

15 issues related to traffic are the result of economic activity from thousands of relatively high16 paying construction jobs being created by the building of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. The 

17 transportation and environmental justice issues related to traffic would subside once the building 

18 phase was completed. For historic and cultural resources, the review team evaluated the 

19 impact on these resources at the VCSNS site as MODERATE based on impacts on the General 

20 Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution Monument. As discussed in 

21 Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has concurred with a finding of no adverse effect on the 

22 above historic sites, based on protective and avoidance measures being implemented by 

23 SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). 

24 On balance, the review team concludes that the Saluda site and the VCSNS site rank closely 

25 and it would be difficult through a comparison of impacts in different resource categories to 

26 precisely state that one is better than the other from an environmental perspective. In such a 

27 case, the proposed site prevails because the alternative is not clearly environmentally 

28 preferable. Therefore, the review team has determined that the Saluda site is not an 

29 environmentally preferable site to the VCSNS site. 

30 VCSNS and SR: The SR alternative site, situated within the SRS, is a large geographic site 

31 with well-developed existing infrastructure that would be capable of supporting the proposed 

32 project such as roads, railways, and site control. The VCSNS site is characterized more 

33 favorably than the SR site for taxes and the economy. The taxes and the economic impact 

34 would have a greater beneficial impact at the VCSNS site than it would at the SR alternative 

35 site. The SR alternative site is characterized more favorably than the VCSNS site in the areas 

36 of environmental justice and historic and cultural resources. The environmental justice impacts 

37 are related to traffic near the VCSNS site during the building phase. The transportation and 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-201 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 environmental justice issues related to traffic are the result of economic activity from thousands 

2 of relatively high-paying construction jobs being created by the building of VCSNS units 2 and 3. 

3 The transportation and environmental justice issue related to traffic would subside once the 

4 building phase was completed. The environmental justice issues related to traffic would subside 

5 once the building phase was completed. For historic and cultural resources, the review team 

6 evaluated the impact on these resources at the VCSNS site as MODERATE based on impacts 

7 to the General Pearson Cemetery and the Daughters of the American Revolution Monument. 

8 As discussed in Section 4.6, the South Carolina SHPO has concurred with a finding of no 

9 adverse effect to the above historic sites, based on protective and avoidance measures being 

10 implemented by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009k). On balance, the review team concludes that there 

11 would be little if any overall difference in the environmental impacts between the two sites. 

12 Therefore, the review team has determined that the SR historic and cultural resources site is not 

13 an environmentally preferable site to the VCSNS site. 

14 Although there are differences and distinctions between the cumulative environmental impacts 

15 of building and operating two new generating units at the VCSNS site and the alternative sites, 

16 the review team concludes that none of these differences is sufficient to determine that any one 

17 of the alternative sites is environmentally preferable to the VCSNS site. 

18 9.3.7.3 Obviously Superior Sites 

19 None of the alternative sites was determined to be environmentally preferable to the VCSNS 

20 site. Therefore, none of the alternative sites is obviously superior to the VCSNS site. 

21 9.4 System Design Alternatives 

22 The review team considered a variety of heat-dissipation systems and circulating-water system 

23 (CWS) alternatives. While other heat-dissipation systems and water systems exist in a nuclear 

24 power plant, by far the largest and the most likely to dominate the environmental consequences 

25 of operation is the CWS that cools and condenses the steam for the turbine generator. Other 

26 water systems, such as the service-water system, are much smaller than the CWS. As a result, 

27 the review team only considers alternative heat-dissipation and water-treatment systems for the 

28 CWS. The proposed CWS is a closed-cycle system that uses mechanical draft cooling towers 

29 for heat dissipation (SCE&G 2009a). The proposed system is discussed in detail in Chapter 3. 

30 9.4.1 Heat-Dissipation Systems 

31 About two-thirds of the heat from a commercial nuclear reactor is rejected as heat to the 

32 environment. The remaining one-third of the reactor-generated heat is converted into electricity. 

33 Normal heat-sink cooling systems transfer the rejected heat load into the atmosphere and/or 

34 nearby waterbodies, primarily as latent heat exchange (evaporating water) or sensible heat 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-202 April 2010

1 exchange (warmer air or water). Different heat-dissipation systems rely on different exchange 

2 processes. The following sections describe alternative heat-dissipation systems considered by 

3 the review team for proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

4 In its ER, SCE&G considered a range of heat-dissipation systems, including a once-through 

5 cooling system and several closed-cycle cooling systems. In addition to the closed-cycle 

6 mechanical draft cooling towers selected, SCE&G considered natural draft cooling towers, 

7 once-through cooling into Monticello Reservoir, cooling ponds, spray ponds, dry cooling towers, 

8 and a combination wet-dry cooling tower system (SCE&G 2009a). The review team also 

9 considered mechanical draft cooling towers with plume abatement. 

10 9.4.1.1 Wet Natural Draft Cooling Towers 

11 Wet natural draft cooling towers, which use about the same amount of water as the proposed 

12 design, induce airflow up through large (600 ft tall and 400 ft in diameter) towers by cascading 

13 warm water downward in the lower portion of the cooling tower. As heat transfers from the 

14 water to the air in the tower, the air becomes more buoyant and rises. This buoyant circulation 

15 induces more air to enter the tower through its open base. The environmental aspects of wet 

16 natural draft cooling towers and mechanical draft cooling towers are very similar (SCE&G 

17 2009a). Because the water use is similar between natural and mechanical draft cooling towers, 

18 the entrainment and impingement of aquatic biota would be similar. Notable differences include 

19 that the natural draft cooling towers would be able to be seen from a great distance and the 

20 additional height increases the potential for avian collisions. The large size of the natural draft 

21 cooling towers has a greater visual and aesthetic impact than a mechanical draft cooling tower. 

22 The natural draft cooling towers would use slightly less energy than the mechanical draft cooling 

23 towers. The review team concludes that because the impacts of mechanical draft and natural 

24 draft cooling towers are similar; wet natural draft cooling towers would not be an 

25 environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site. 

26 9.4.1.2 Once-Through Cooling 

27 Once-through cooling systems withdraw water from the source waterbody and return virtually 

28 the same volume of water to the receiving waterbody at an elevated temperature. Typically the 

29 source waterbody and the receiving waterbody are the same body, and the intake and 

30 discharge structures are separated to limit recirculation. While there is essentially no 

31 consumptive use of water in a once-through heat-dissipation system, the elevated temperature 

32 of the receiving waterbody would result in some induced evaporative loss that decreases the net 

33 water supply. The large intake and discharge flows associated with once-through cooling 

34 systems require large intake and discharge structures, result in higher levels of impingement 

35 and entrainment, and may result in hydrologic alterations in the source/receiving waterbodies. 

36 Based on recent changes to implementation plans to meet Section 316(b) of the Clean Water 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-203 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Act, the review team has determined that once-through cooling systems for new nuclear 

2 reactors are unlikely to be permitted in the future, except in rare and unique situations. 

3 VCSNS Unit 1 uses a once-through cooling system using Monticello Reservoir as a cooling 

4 pond. If VCSNS Units 2 and 3 were to adopt this design to be used with the AP1000 reactors, 

5 the water-supply needs for these two units would be 1,700,000 gpm (SCE&G 2009a). SCE&G 

6 has determined that this volume of water cannot be practically supplied by the Monticello 

7 Reservoir and Broad River. For this reason, in addition to the Clean Water Act considerations, 

8 the review team determined that once-through designs were not a feasible alternative design 

9 and eliminated it from further consideration as part of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling system. 

10 9.4.1.3 Cooling Pond 

11 Use of a recirculating cooling pond separate from Monticello Reservoir, Parr Reservoir, and the 

12 Broad River was considered as an alternative cooling system design. Previous studies for 

13 VCSNS Unit 1 have shown that a recirculating pond would likely need to cover an area of 900 to 

14 1800 ac (SCE&G 2009a) for each of the two additional units. The dedication of an area of this 

15 size was weighed against the SMALL thermal impact on Monticello and Parr reservoirs from the 

16 current design of the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 cooling system. The other option was to create a 

17 3600-ac cooling pond by isolating part of the Monticello Reservoir and using that as a cooling 

18 pond. This option would avoid taking additional land out of use for a cooling pond, but it would 

19 have the environmental disadvantage of causing significant aquatic impact on 3600 ac of the 

20 reservoirs. The review team determined that due to the impact of the loss of land associated 

21 with development of additional cooling ponds or the increase in aquatic impacts if the cooling 

22 pond used part of the existing reservoirs, a cooling system using a recirculating cooling pond 

23 was not an environmentally preferable alternative to the VCSNS site. 

24 9.4.1.4 Spray Ponds 

25 Spray-pond cooling systems use manufactured ponds to cool water and enhance evaporative 

26 cooling by spraying water into the atmosphere. In addition to evaporation, heat transfer from 

27 the spray ponds to the atmosphere occurs through black-body radiation and conduction. A 

28 spray-pond system alternative was evaluated for cooling VCSNS Units 2 and 3, and it would 

29 require a 150-ac pond. Based on the additional land required to build the spray-pond and the 

30 impact from spray drift, the review team concludes that use of a spray pond would not be an 

31 environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site. 

32 9.4.1.5 Dry Cooling Towers 

33 Dry cooling towers would eliminate virtually all water-related impacts from the cooling system 

34 operation. No makeup water would be needed, and no blowdown water would be generated. 

35 However, dry cooling systems require much larger cooling systems, result in some loss in 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-204 April 2010

1 electrical generation efficiency because the theoretical approach temperature is limited to the 

2 dry-bulb temperature and not the lower wet-bulb temperature, and they result in parasitic energy 

3 losses for the large array of fans involved. This loss in generation efficiency translates into 

4 increased impacts on the fuel cycle. Dry cooling could reduce water-related impacts. However, 

5 the aquatic impacts at the VCSNS site were determined to be SMALL; therefore, the wet cooling 

6 towers have only a minimal impact, and any incremental gain by the dry cooling towers would 

7 be offset by the increased impacts on the fuel cycle The review team determined that building 

8 and operation of dry cooling towers would not be an environmentally preferable alternative for 

9 the VCSNS site because of the availability of cooling water, inefficiencies in energy production 

10 associated with dry cooling resulting in higher fuel cycle impacts, and the lack of sensitive 

11 biological resources that would be affected by water withdrawn for cooling. 

12 9.4.1.6 Combination Wet/Dry Cooling-Tower System 

13 A combination mechanical draft wet/dry cooling tower system uses both wet and dry cooling 

14 cells to limit consumption of cooling water, often with the added benefit of reducing plume 

15 visibility. Water used to cool the turbine generators generally passes first through the dry 

16 portion of the cooling tower where heat is removed by drawing air at ambient temperature over 

17 tubes through which the water is moving. Cooling water leaving the dry portion of the tower 

18 then passes through the wet tower where the water is sprayed into a moving air stream and 

19 additional heat is removed through evaporation and sensible heat transfer. When ambient air 

20 temperatures are low, the dry portion of these cooling towers may be sufficient to meet cooling 

21 needs. The use of the dry portion of the system would result in a loss in generating efficiency 

22 that would translate into increased impacts on the fuel cycle. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, 

23 the impacts of the proposed cooling system (mechanical draft tower) for aquatic ecology, water 

24 use, and water quality for the building and operation are SMALL. While a combination wet/dry 

25 cooling system would reduce these impacts, there would be an increase in fuel cycle impacts 

26 because the increased use of resources to generate electricity. Therefore, the review team 

27 concludes that the building and operation of a combined wet/dry cooling tower system would not 

28 be an environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site. 

29 9.4.1.7 Mechanical Draft with Plume Abatement 

30 Adding additional heat to a saturated cooling tower exhaust, without adding additional water, 

31 would result in subsaturated water vapor. Subsaturated water vapor reduces the potential for a 

32 visible plume. The concept behind a mechanical draft cooling tower with plume abatement is 

33 similar to the wet/dry cooling system described above with the design parameters focused on 

34 reducing the visual plume. Such designs may also result in less consumptive water use. 

35 However, there is sufficient water at VCSNS site for use of a mechanical draft cooling system 

36 without plume abatement. The aesthetic impacts at the VCSNS site with a mechanical draft 

37 cooling tower without plume abatement were determined to be SMALL; therefore a mechanical 

38 draft tower with plume abatement offers no real advantage. These towers often have a larger 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-205 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 footprint and require additional energy to operate, resulting in a net loss of energy available to 

2 meet the demand for power. For these reasons, the review team concludes that the building 

3 and operation of mechanical draft cooling towers with plume abatement would not be an 

4 environmentally preferable alternative for the VCSNS site. 

5 9.4.2 Circulating-Water Systems 

6 The review team evaluated alternatives to the proposed intakes and discharges for the normal 

7 heat-sink cooling system, based on the proposed heat-dissipation system water requirements. 

8 The capacity requirements of the intake and discharge system are defined by the proposed 

9 heat-dissipation system. For proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, the proposed heat-dissipation 

10 system is a closed-loop system that uses mechanical draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. 

11 SCE&G (2009a) indicated that the maximum makeup-water demand for two AP1000 units at the 

12 site is estimated to be 58,800 gpm. SCE&G identified two potential sources of makeup-water 

13 supply for the VCSNS site: Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir. In addition, the review 

14 team considered water reuse and groundwater in its evaluation of alternative water supplies. 

15 9.4.2.1 Intake Alternatives 

16 The proposed intake structures for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are described in detail in Section 

17 3.2.2.2. SCE&G plans to construct an intake-approach channel, intake structure, water pumps, 

18 and biofouling-treatment systems on Monticello Reservoir. The intake structure would be 60 ft 

19 long and 75 ft wide, with six pump bays including a pump, trash rack, and traveling screen 

20 (SCE&G 2009a). The intake structure would be designed to have a through-trash-rack velocity 

21 of less than 0.5 fps. 

22 SCE&G selected the location of the intake structure for the proposed action to avoid the FPSF 

23 and the VCSNS Unit 1 discharge. SCE&G considered two alternatives for the intake system in 

24 addition to the proposed system: (1) offshore intake with offshore pump and active screening, 

25 and (2) onshore pump intake with submerged passive screens. In addition, the review team 

26 considered the use of radial collector wells located on the shore of Monticello Reservoir. 

27 The offshore intake alternative has an advantage, if shoreline structures would conflict with a 

28 shoreline intake or if bathymetry or vegetation considerations make a shoreline intake less 

29 desirable. At the VCSNS site, the conditions that would make a shoreline intake advantageous 

30 do not occur. The shoreline option is preferable to an offshore intake with offshore pumps due 

31 to the ease of its installation. Offshore intakes with submerged passive screens are more 

32 difficult to maintain when ambient currents do not facilitate the removal of debris. For intakes on 

33 reservoirs, ambient currents are not typically strong enough to facilitate the removal of debris. 

34 A radial collector-well system was considered by the review team because in many cases it 

35 reduces the impact on aquatic resources and, when water is being withdrawn from turbid 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-206 April 2010

1 environments, can reduce the water treatment needed prior to its introduction into the cooling 

2 system. A radial collector-well system consists of an excavated central concrete caisson with 

3 well screens projected laterally outward in a radial pattern (Riegert 2006). Radial collector wells 

4 slowly draw surface water through the subsurface layer and, thereby, filter out some sediment 

5 that might have required treatment if the water had been directly withdrawn from the surface 

6 waterbody. In general, collecting surface water in this way eliminates most of the direct 

7 operational impacts on aquatic ecosystems (e.g., entrainment and impingement) associated 

8 with water withdrawal and eliminates some of the construction and preconstruction impacts 

9 (e.g., dredging). The review team determined that radial collector wells, which would induce 

10 flow through the sediments the Monticello Reservoir into lateral subterranean pipes extending 

11 from the shoreline out beneath the reservoir, would require multiple large structures near the 

12 shoreline. SCE&G did not consider this alternative water source, but the review team 

13 independently determined that a radial collector-well system is not environmentally preferable to 

14 the proposed direct withdrawal from the river due to the requirement for multiple new shoreline 

15 structures. 

16 Therefore, the review team concludes that there would be no alternative intake designs that 

17 would be environmentally preferable to proposed intake design for the VCSNS site. 

18 9.4.2.2 Discharge Alternatives 

19 SCE&G proposes to discharge blowdown from VCSNS Units 2 and 3 to Parr Reservoir through 

20 a 36-in. diffuser that extends out into the reservoir. A detailed description of the proposed 

21 discharge system is presented in Section 3.2.2.2. 

22 SCE&G considered shoreline discharge and two alternative locations of the diffuser at the 

23 selected discharge location, and examined a number of diffuser port designs before arriving at 

24 the selected alternative. Shoreline discharge was rejected because of the shallow bathymetry 

25 of Parr Reservoir in the possible outfall locations. Water depth was a key consideration in 

26 evaluating alternative diffuser locations. Increased depth of placement offers better conditions 

27 for mixing prior to the thermal plume rising to the surface. Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System 

28 (CORMIX) modeling performed by SCE&G helped to confirm the advantages of the 

29 offshore/deeper location. CORMIX was also used to evaluate a number of diffuser options. A 

30 20-port diffuser was found to provide better conditions than the originally proposed 4-port 

31 diffuser and was sufficient to meet mixing objectives (SCE&G 2009a). 

32 Alternative paths for the blowdown lines were also considered. The proposed route of these 

33 lines is along the eastern shore of Parr Reservoir. An alternative path would have taken the 

34 blowdown lines along the existing transmission-line corridor. This alternative would have 

35 transected a wetland and therefore was determined to be environmentally less preferable to the 

36 proposed route. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-207 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The review team also considered the option of discharging blowdown from proposed VCSNS 

2 Units 2 and 3 through the Unit 1 discharge canal into Monticello Reservoir. Unit 1 is a once3 through cooling plant that currently discharges 534,000 gpm to the reservoir. The total 

4 discharge under normal conditions from Units 2 and 3 via the blowdown pipeline would be 

5 9383 gpm; maximum discharge would be 30,547 gpm (SCE&G 2009a). Under normal 

6 conditions this would be less than 2 percent of the volume of water discharged from Unit 1 and 

7 the impact of discharging this additional water to the reservoir would likely be insignificant. The 

8 cooling-tower basins for proposed Units 2 and 3 are at an elevation approximately 25 ft below 

9 the elevation of Monticello Reservoir (SCE&G 2009l). As a result, discharge from the cooling10 tower basins would need to be pumped up to the Unit 1 discharge canal. The energy consumed 

11 to operate these pumps would reduce the overall efficiency of the plant without any 

12 compensating environmental benefit and would not be environmentally preferable to the 

13 proposed design. 

14 The review team determined that the impacts of operation of the proposed discharge system 

15 would be SMALL and that there are no alternative discharge designs that would be 

16 environmentally preferable to the proposed discharge design at the VCSNS site. 

17 9.4.2.3 Water Supplies 

18 The review team considered alternative sources for the CWS, including water reuse, 

19 groundwater, and surface water. 

20 Water Reuse 

21 Sources of water for reuse can come either from the plant itself or from other local water users. 

22 Sanitary wastewater-treatment plants are the most ubiquitous sources of water for reuse. 

23 Agricultural processing, industrial processing, and oilfield production can also provide significant 

24 supplies of water for reuse. Additional treatment (e.g., tertiary treatment, chlorination) may be 

25 required to provide water of appropriate quality for the specific plant need. The population is 

26 very low, and there is little industry around the VCSNS site, so adequate reliable wastewater 

27 sources are not currently available. As a result, no sources of water for reuse at the site were 

28 identified. Therefore, the review team determined that water reuse would not be a feasible 

29 alternative to SCE&G’s proposed water supply and was not evaluated further. 

30 Groundwater 

31 Groundwater is not considered a viable source of cooling water for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

32 because the geologic formations in the vicinity of the site generally are not pervious enough to 

33 sustain well yields greater than a few gallons per minute (SCE&G 2009a). Characterization 

34 performed at the proposed site of Units 2 and 3 supports this assertion (SCE&G 2009a), and 

35 the review team finds that the groundwater resource could not meet the cooling water demands 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-208 April 2010

1 of proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Therefore, the review team determined that groundwater 

2 would not be a feasible alternative to SCE&G’s proposed water supply. 

3 Surface Water 

4 The two potential sources of surface water to supply makeup water to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 are 

5 the Monticello Reservoir and Parr Reservoir. Both of these reservoirs obtain most of their water 

6 from the Broad River. SCE&G has chosen to withdraw water from Monticello Reservoir 

7 because it is at a higher elevation and requires less lift to move water from the reservoir to the 

8 cooling tower basins for the proposed units, and because water from Monticello Reservoir does 

9 not experience the variation in turbidity that Parr Reservoir experiences during periods of high 

10 runoff. For these reasons the review team concludes that withdrawing makeup water from Parr 

11 Reservoir would not be an environmentally preferable alternative to SCE&G’s proposal to 

12 withdraw makeup water from Monticello Reservoir. 

13 9.4.2.4 Water Treatment 

14 Both inflow and effluent water may require treatment to ensure that they meet plant water needs 

15 and effluent water standards. SCE&G proposes to add chemicals to plant water to meet 

16 appropriate water-quality process needs. The chemistry of effluent water is regulated by the 

17 EPA through the NPDES permitting process. The largest chemical inputs are required to 

18 maintain the appropriate chemistry in the cooling towers to preclude biofouling. The review 

19 team identified no environmentally preferable alternative to SCE&G’s proposed chemical water 

20 treatment. The effluents from cooling-tower blowdown are specifically regulated in 40 CFR Part 

21 423 by the EPA to protect the environment. 

22 9.4.3 Summary 

23 The review team considered alternative systems designs, including five alternative heat24 dissipation systems and alternative intake, discharge, and water-supply systems. As discussed 

25 in previous sections, the review team identified no alternative that was environmentally 

26 preferable to the proposed VCSNS plant systems design. 

27 9.5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alternatives Evaluation 

28 The 404(b)(1) Guidelines stipulate that no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

29 United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) shall be permitted if there is a practicable 

30 alternative that would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic environment, as long as the 

31 alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. An alternative 

32 is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, 

33 existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-209 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be 

2 obtained, used, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed 

3 activity may be considered. Thus, this analysis is necessary to determine which alternative is 

4 the LEDPA that meets the project purpose and need. Even if an applicant’s proposed 

5 alternative is determined to be the LEDPA, the USACE must still determine whether the LEDPA 

6 is in the public interest. The USACE Public Interest Review, described in 33 CFR 320.4, directs 

7 the USACE to consider a number of factors in a balancing process. A permit would not be 

8 issued for an alternative that is not the LEDPA, nor would a permit be issued for an activity that 

9 is determined to be contrary to the public interest. 

10 9.5.1 Onsite Alternatives 

11 As part of its process for evaluating permits, the USACE reviewed SCE&G’s application and ER 

12 for the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 project, responses to RAIs, data regarding impacts on 

13 alternative sites, and SCE&G information addressing onsite alternatives for the VCSNS site to 

14 minimize impacts on wetlands and other waters of the United States. Within this 

15 documentation, SCE&G provided a detailed description of the steps taken to minimize onsite 

16 impacts, including alternative site layouts. According to information provided by SCE&G, the 

17 site layout with the least impact on waters of the United States for the proposed VCSNS site has 

18 0.26 ac of permanent wetland fill impacts and 774 linear feet of permanent fill impacts on a 

19 single stream (Stream L). 

20 This draft EIS provides environmental information and analyses upon which the LEDPA 

21 judgment will be based. However, the LEDPA evaluation cannot be completed by the USACE 

22 until it receives public feedback in the form of public comments on the draft EIS. The USACE 

23 will address whether the LEDPA criterion is met in the Record of Decision. 

24 9.5.2 SCE&G Alternative Sites 

25 As noted previously, the evaluation and comparison of potential impacts on waters of the United 

26 States among the proposed and four alternative sites is limited by the lack of detailed data for all 

27 but the VCSNS site. SCE&G requested and received a jurisdictional determination from the 

28 USACE (valid through June 29, 2014) that identified 44.3 ac of wetlands and 49,288 linear feet 

29 of streams subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Waters of the United States were estimated 

30 for FA-1, CGS, Saluda, and SR alternative sites using a combination of available data 

31 resources, including FWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping, U.S. Department of 

32 Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service soils mapping, 2006 infrared aerial 

33 imagery, SCDHEC State Navigable Waters mapping, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, and 

34 National Hydrography Dataset. For alternative sites and their associated transmission lines, 

35 data were reported as acres of forested and nonforested wetlands, as well as linear distance for 

36 streams. It is important to note that transmission-line routes are not finalized and therefore may 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-210 April 2010

1 be subject to change. Note also that impacts on alternative sites include those areas that would 

2 be occupied by principal site component footprints such as the powerblock, cooling towers, and 

3 switchyard, as well as impacts resulting from intake and discharge water lines. In the absence 

4 of detailed topographic design data, it is not feasible to include impacts from associated fill 

5 slopes for these components or from other necessary ancillary facilities. Using this information, 

6 Table 9-32 presents the impacts on waters of the United States for each alternative considered, 

7 including each site and its associated transmission lines. Impacts for transmission lines are 

8 calculated based solely on the total area of permanent clearing that would be required for 

9 forested wetlands. 

10 Table 9-32. Comparison of Impacts on Waters of the United States for the Proposed and Four 

11 Alternative Sites 

FA-1 CGS Saluda SR VCSNS 

Sites 

Wetland impacts (fill, ac) 3.1 15.9 7.3 14.6 0.3 

Stream impacts (fill, linear ft) 5344.4 432.2 6106.4 1628.3 774 

Open water impacts (fill, ac) 1.4 0 1.3 0.6 1.0 

Total wetland and open water impacts 

(fill, ac) 

4.5 15.9 8.6 15.2 1.3 

Transmission Lines 

SCE&G T-lines 

Wetland impacts (clearing forest, ac)(a) 238.6 103.5 197.5 168.2 219.2 

Santee Cooper lines 

Wetlands impacts (clearing forest,ac)(a)

 14 138 9 65 0.6 

Total wetland impacts for transmission 

lines (clearing forest, ac) 

252.6 241.5 206.5 233.2 219.8 

Total wetland impacts (fill plus clearing 

forest, ac) 

257.1 257.4 215.1 248.4 221.1 

(a) Wetland impacts for FA-1, CGS, Saluda, and SR alternatives based on published mapping data, including but 

not limited to NWI maps. Wetland impacts for VCSNS alternative (proposed action) based on onsite routine 

wetland delineation.

12 9.6 References 

13 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

14 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

15 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

16 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-211 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

2 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

3 33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

4 Part 320, “General Regulatory Policies.” 

5 40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60, 

6 “Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.” 

7 40 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 63, 

8 “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories.” 

9 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, 

10 “Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

11 40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, 

12 “Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.“ 

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 40 CFR Part 230. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Protection of Environment, Part 230, 

16 “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.” 

17 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 

18 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

19 65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. “Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

20 Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Final Rule.” Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection 

21 Agency. 

22 51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; 

23 Policy Statement Correction and Republication.” Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

24 Commission. 

25 66 FR 65256. December 18, 2001. ‘National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

26 Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities.” Federal Register. 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

28 67 FR 44502. July 02, 2002. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

29 Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.” Federal Register. U.S. Department of the Interior. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-212 April 2010

1 71 FR 61022. October 17, 2006. “Endangered and Threatened Species; Revision of Species 

2 of Concern List, Candidate Species Definition, and Candidate Species List.” Federal Register. 

3 National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

4 Department of Commerce. 

5 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). 

6 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2008a. “Largest Wind Farms in U.S. (all U.S. 

7 wind farms>=200MW) as of end of August 10, 2007.” AWEA Wind Power Projects Database. 

8 Washington D.C. Available at 

9 http://www.awea.org/search_results.html?cx=004088546822029737293%3Asb7dh_c8ex0&cof=

10 FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=largest+wind+farm#1203. 

11 American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2008b. Wind Energy and the Environment. 

12 Accessed January 4, 2010 at http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_environment.html#How. 

13 Angler Guide. 2009. South Carolina Fishing Report, Lake Wylie. Available at 

14 http://www.anglerguide.com/southcarolina/index.cfm?TR%20ID=668. 

15 Augusta - Richmond County Planning Commission (Augusta). 2008. Augusta – Richmond 

16 County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on December 8, 2009 at 

17 http://appweb.augustaga.gov/Planning_and_Zoning/docs/Comprehensive%20Plans/2008%20C

18 omp%20Plan.pdf. 

19 Bogan, A.E. and J. Alderman. 2004. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South 

20 Carolina. U.S. Forest Service, Columbia, South Carolina. 

21 Bogan, A.E. and J. Alderman. 2008. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South 

22 Carolina. Revised Second Edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina. 

23 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2006. RIMS II Multipliers for Savannah River, Cope 

24 Generating Station Site, and Saluda Site. Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), 

25 Regional Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Accession No. 

26 ML090680645. 

27 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 2009. CA25N – Total full-time and part-time employment 

28 by NAICS Industry 1/: Fairfield, Lexington, Newberry, and Richland S.C. Accession No. 

29 ML093280960.

30 Bulak, J. and J. Crane. 2009. Largemouth Bass in South Carolina. South Carolina Department 

31 of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed September 3, 2009 at 

32 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/pdf/LargemouthBassBookletsmall.pdf. Accession No. ML100110235. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-213 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Burger, J., K.F. Gaines, C.S. Boring, W.L. Stephens, Jr. J. Snodgrass, and M. Gochfeld. 2001. 

2 “Mercury and Selenium in Fish from the Savannah River: Species, Trophic Level, and 

3 Locational Differences.” Environmental Research Section A. 87: 108-118. 

4 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1998. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

5 IV July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63, South Carolina 

6 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300704. 

7 Christie, R.W. and R.M. Stroud. 1999. Fisheries Investigations in Lakes and Streams – District 

8 IV July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Annual Progress Report F-63-4-4, South Carolina 

9 Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, South Carolina. Accession No. ML030300706. 

10 Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401 et seq. 

11 Collins, M. R., D. W. Cooke, B. Post, J. Crane, J. Bulak, T. I. J. Smith, T. W. Greig, and J. M. 

12 Quattro. 2003. “Shortnose Sturgeon in the Santee-Cooper Reservoir System, South Carolina.” 

13 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132(6):1244–1250. 

14 Collins, M.R., and T.I.J. Smith. 1997. “Distributions of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeons in 

15 South Carolina.” N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 17:995-1000. 

16 Conner, A.M. and J.E. Francfort. 1997. U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for South 

17 Carolina. DOE/ID-10430(SC), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho 

18 Falls, Idaho. Available at http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/578703-

19 S5RPOE/webviewable/. 

20 Dames and Moore. 1974. “Report on the Baseline Biotic Survey Broad River Study Area Parr, 

21 South Carolina March 1971 to May 1973 for South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.” 

22 Appendix 2A in Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Operating License Environmental Report, 

23 Vol. 2. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Columbia, South Carolina. 

24 Duke Energy (Duke). 2007. Broad River Water Supply Study, Final Report, Analysis of Water 

25 Supply Needs. Prepared by HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas. Charlotte, North Carolina. 

26 Duke Energy (Duke). 2009a. William States Lee III Nuclear Station COL Application Part 3 

27 Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage (Environmental Report) 

28 Revision 1. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new29 reactors/col/lee/documents.html#application. 

30 Duke Energy (Duke). 2009b. Buzzard Roost Station. Accessed November 23, 2009 at 

31 http://www.duke-energy.com/power-plants/oil-gas-fired/buzzard-roost-station.asp. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-214 April 2010

1 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2002. Siting Guide: Site Selection and Evaluation 

2 Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application, Final Report. Product ID: 1006878, EPRI, Palo 

3 Alto, California. 

4 Facilities Planning & Siting, PLLC (FP&S). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 

5 Transmission Line Siting Study SCE&G. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas 

6 (SCE&G). Accession No. ML082680277. 

7 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2007. Obstruction Marking and Lighting. AC 70/7460-

8 1K, Washington D.C. 

9 Gabbard, A. 1993. “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger.” Oak Ridge National 

10 Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed 

11 November 24, 2009 at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html. 

12 Georgia Power. 2008. Entrainment Assessment at the Plant Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, 

13 Waynesboro, Georgia. Prepared for Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., by Georgia 

14 Power. Accession No. ML090650638. 

15 Georgia Power. 2009. Final Report of Fish Impingement at the Plant Vogtle Electric 

16 Generating Plant, Waynesboro, Georgia. Prepared for Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

17 Inc., by Georgia Power. Accession No. ML100490044. 

18 Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S.Saari, and P.N. Cheremisinoff. 1980. Environmental Impact Data 

19 Book. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

20 Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Shafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, 

21 J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. 

22 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, Virginia. 

23 Godfrey, M.A. 1980. Field Guide to the Piedmont: The Natural Habitats of America’s Most 

24 Lived-in Region, from New York City to Montgomery, Alabama. The University of North 

25 Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

26 Greenwood County. 2008. Dam Failure, Buzzard Roost Dam Failure Preparedness. Public 

27 Safety Division, Emergency Management Office. Available at 

28 http://emergency.greenwoodsc.gov/eop-k.html. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-215 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Hayes, W.E. 1999. Parr Shoals Reservoir Fishery Management Plan. South Carolina 

2 Department of Natural Resources. Accession No. ML090630369.Hayes, G. and J. Bettinger. 

3 2006. High Conservation Priority – Piedmont Species: Greenhead Shiner Notropis 

4 chlorocephalus, Santee Chub, Cyprinella zanema, Carolina Darter, Etheostoma collis. 

5 Accessed August 30 at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html#P. 

6 iData Technologies (iData). 2009. Welcome to Lake Murray, Lake Murray History. Available 

7 athttp://www.lakemurray.com/Lake_Murray_History.aspx. Integrated Waste Services 

8 Association (IWSA). 2008. Energy. Accessed October 21, 2008 at http://www.wte.org/energy/. 

9 Accession No. ML100280891.Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native Trees 

10 of the Southeast: An Identification Guide. Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon. 

11 Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2005. Saluda Hydro 

12 Initial Consultation Document. Prepared for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, 

13 Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

14 Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants (Kleinschmidt). 2007. Saluda 

15 Hydroelectric Project Spring Use Addendum Study Report. Pittsfield, Maine. 

16 MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC). 2008. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, 

17 Units 2 and 3, Transmission Line Siting Study Santee Cooper. Prepared for Santee Cooper, 

18 Santee, South Carolina. Accession No. ML082680275. 

19 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2006. The Future of Geothermal Energy: Impact 

20 of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century. Idaho 

21 National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Available at 

22 http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf. 

23 Marcy, B.C., D.E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller, M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the 

24 Middle Savannah River Basin with Emphasis on the Savannah River Site. University of Georgia 

25 Press Athens, Georgia. 

26 McCallum-Turner. 2005a. South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) Nuclear Power Plant Siting 

27 Study, 2005. Denver Colorado. Accession No. ML091060805.

28 McCallum-Turner. 2005b. Nuclear Power Plant Site Selection Study (presentation). Denver, 

29 Colorado. Accession No. ML100331088. 

30 McCord, J.W. 2006. Species Description – Sturgeons. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

31 Strategy Species Description. Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Sturgeon.pdf. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-216 April 2010

1 McFarlane, R.W., R.F. Frietsche, and R.D. Miracle. 1978. Impingement and Entrainment of 

2 Fishes at the Savannah River Plant and NPDES 316b Demonstration. National Technical 

3 Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 

4 National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2007. Cost and Performance Baseline for 

5 Fossil Energy Plants. Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. DOE/NETL6 2007/1281. Accessed at http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy7 analyses/pubs/Bituminous%20Baseline_Final%20Report.pdf. 

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

9 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon

10 (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National 

11 Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 

12 Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/sturgeon_shortnose.pdf. 

13 New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. 1978. New England Coalition on Nuclear 

14 Pollution v. NRC. 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978).

15 North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2008. 2008 Long-Term Reliability 

16 Assessment, 2008-2017. Available at www.nerc.com/files/LTRA2008.pdf. 

17 Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). 2005. “Demand Forecast.” Appendix A of The 

18 Fifth Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Plan. Portland, Oregon. 

19 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007. U.S. Nuclear Industry Capacity Factors (1971-2007),

20 Table. Accessed at 

21 http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsand

22 charts/usnuclearindustrycapacityfactors/. 

23 Paller, M.H. and B.M. Saul. 1986. Effects of Thermal Discharges on the Distribution and 

24 Abundance of Adult Fishes in the Savannah River and Selected Tributaries: Annual Report, 

25 November 1984-August 1985. Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc., Aiken, South 

26 Carolina. 

27 Palomar Energy. 2003. Project Purpose and Description. April 21, 2003. Docket no. 01-AFC28 24, California Energy Commission. Available at 

29 http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/palomar/documents/applicants_files/opening_brief/. 

30 Progress Energy (PE). 2008. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Units 2 and 3 COL 

31 Application Part 3 Applicant’s Environmental Report. Chapter 9 Alternatives to the Proposed 

32 Action. Accession No. ML080600913.
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-217 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Public Service Company of New Hampshire. 1977. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 

2 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 526 (1977), affirmed, New England 

3 Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87 (1st Circuit 1978). 

4 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2007. Generic Proceeding to Explore 

5 a Formal Request for Proposal for Utilities That Are Considering Alternatives for Adding 

6 Generating Capacity. Docket 2005-191-E; Order 2007-626, p. 2. Columbia, South Carolina. 

7 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009a. Amended Order Approving 

8 Combined Application. Docket No. 2008-196-E, Order 2009-104(a). Columbia, South Carolina. 

9 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009b. Application of South Carolina 

10 Electric & Gas Company for the Establishment and Approval of DSM Programs and Rate Rider. 

11 Docket No. 2009-261-E. Columbia, South Carolina. 

12 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. 16 USC Sec. 2601-2645. 

13 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. 42 USC 6901 et seq. 

14 Riegert, D.S. 2006. “Reassessing Ranney Wells.” Public Works Magazine, April 15, 2006. 

15 Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. 1978. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. (Sterling Power Project 

16 Nuclear Unit No. 1). ALAB-502, 8 NRC 383, 39 (1978), affirmed, CLI-80-23, 11 NRC 731 

17 (1980). 

18 Rohde, F.C. and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, 

19 and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 

20 Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South 

21 Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, South Carolina. 

22 Santee Cooper. 2008. South Carolina Public Service Authority Integrated Resource Plan 2008. 

23 Santee Cooper, Moncks Corner, South Carolina. 

24 Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC (SRS). 2009. Savannah River Site Environmental 

25 Report for 2008. SRNS–STI–2009–00190. Available at 

26 http://www.srs.gov/general/pubs/ERsum/er09/er2008.htm. 

27 SC Code Ann. 48-39-10. 1997. “South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1997.” 

28 South Carolina Code Annotated. 

29 SC Code Ann. 58-27-1510. 2009. “Service Shall Be Adequate, Efficient and Reasonable.” 

30 South Carolina Code Annotated. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-218 April 2010

1 SC Code Ann. 58-31-30. 2009. “Powers of Authority.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

2 SC Code Ann. 58-31-200. 2009. “Joint ownership of nuclear electric generating station in 

3 Fairfield County.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

4 SC Code Ann. 58-33-160. 2009. “Decision of Commission.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

5 SC Code Ann. 58-33-220. 2009. “Definitions.” South Carolina Code Annotated. 

6 SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2008. SERC Reliability Corporation Information 

7 Summary. SERC Reliability Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina. Accession No. 

8 ML100481148. 

9 SERC Reliability Corporation (SERC). 2009. Information Summary. SERC Reliability 

10 Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina. Available at 

11 http://www.serc1.org/documents/SERC/SERC%20Publications/Information%20Summary/2009

12 %20SERC%20Information%20Summary_Final%2007-28-09.pdf. 

13 South Carolina Budget and Control Board (SCBCB). 2007. Economics. Office of Research & 

14 Statistics. Accessed January 14, 2010 at http://www.ors.state.sc.us/economics/economics.asp. 

15 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2003. Watershed 

16 Water Quality Assessment: Savannah River Basin. Technical Report No. 002-03, Bureau of 

17 Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

18 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004a. 

19 Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Edisto River Basin. Technical Report No. 005-04, 

20 Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

21 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004b. 

22 Watershed Water Quality Assessment: Saluda River Basin. Technical Report No. 004-04, 

23 Bureau of Water, Columbia, South Carolina. 

24 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2005. Total 

25 Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for Edisto River Basin. SCDHEC Technical Report 

26 Number: 030-05. Available at 

27 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/tmdl/docs/tmdl_sfkedisto_fc.pdf. 

28 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2007. Watershed 

29 Water Quality Assessment: Broad River Basin. Technical Report No.006-07, Bureau of Water, 

30 Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

31 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/bd_doc.pdf. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-219 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009a. South 

2 Carolina Fish Consumption Advisories – South Fork Edisto River – From Aiken State Park to 

3 Edisto River. Available at 

4 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/fish/Advisories/south_fork_edisto.htm. 

5 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009b. Fish 

6 Advisory: Savannah River. Available at 

7 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/fish/Advisories/Savannah.htm. 

8 South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2009c. 

9 [Watershed] 03050106-04 (Broad River). Available at 

10 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/shed/docs/50106-04.pdf. 

11 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2002. South Carolina Boating 

12 Facilities Guide. Available at: http://www.charlestonfishing.com/boatfacilities.pdf. 

13 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2005. Comprehensive Wildlife 

14 Conservation Strategy. Columbia, South Carolina. 

15 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006a. South Carolina Rare, 

16 Threatened, & Endangered Species; Inventory County Selection from List. Accessed 

17 September 8, 2009 at https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/county_species.select_county_map. 

18 Accession No. ML093280967. 

19 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2006b. Species Description -- 

20 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Available at 

21 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/species.html. 

22 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2008. South Carolina Aquatic 

23 Invasive Species Management Plan. Prepared in coordination with the South Carolina Aquatic 

24 Invasive Species Task Force. Available at 

25 www.dnr.sc.gov/invasiveweeds/aisfiles/SC_SMP_Draft.pdf. 

26 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009a. South Carolina 

27 Department of Natural Resources Fish Attractor Maps. Available at 

28 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/fish/fishattract/fishattr.html. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-220 April 2010

1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009b. 2009 South Carolina 

2 Aquatic Plant Management Plan Part 2. Prepared by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program. 

3 Available at http://www.dnr.sc.gov/water/envaff/aquatic/img/2009parttwo.pdf. South Carolina 

4 Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009c. South Carolina Fish Consumption 

5 Advisories 2009. Columbia South Carolina. Available at 

6 http://www.scdhec.gov/administration/library/ML-004042.pdf.

7 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009d. Lake Murray. Wildlife and 

8 Freshwater Fisheries Division. Available at 

9 http://www.dnr.sc.gov/aquaticed/pdf/Lakemurrayfc.pdf. Accession No. ML100110573. 

10 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2009e. Freshwater Fishing 

11 Regulations. SCDNR Couth Carolina Rules & Regulations 2009-2010. Available at 

12 www.dnr.sc.gov/freshwater.html. 

13 South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism (SCDPRT). 2009. Lake 

14 Greenwood State Recreation Area. Columbia, South Carolina. Available at 

15 http://www.southcarolinaparks.com/park-finder/state-park/926.aspx.South Carolina Department 

16 of Transportation (SCDOT). 2009. South Carolina Strategic Corridor System Plan. Columbia, 

17 South Carolina. Available at 

18 http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/StrategicCorridorPlan.pdf. Accession No. 

19 ML093421433. 

20 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 

21 3 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

22 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

23 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. 2009 Integrated Resource Plan. 

24 Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Available at http://dms.psc.sc.gov/pdf/matters/B9AEAF4D-E782-

25 EB82-E79E7E7580306CF4.pdf.South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from 

26 Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear 

27 Regulatory Commission dated July 30, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated 

28 February 13, 2009, and Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer 

29 Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License 

30 Application – Response to NRC Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information 

31 (RAI): USACE-1.” NND-09-0210. Accession No. ML092160218. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-221 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009d. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 August 6, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and 

4 Patricia J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, 

5 Docket Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

6 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): USACE-2, 3, 4, and 5.” 

7 NND-09-0236. Accession No. ML092230165. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009e. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

9 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

10 June 15, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

11 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

12 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

13 Information Needs: ALT-2 Part 2, AQ-1 Part b, GW-11 Parts 2 and 3, and LU-5.” NND-09-

14 0160. 

15 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009f. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

16 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

17 June 8, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

18 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

19 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

20 Information Needs: ACC-5 (Part2), ALT-2 (Part 1), ALT-2 (Part 3), CR-19, and SW-14.” NND21 09-0152. Accession No. ML091620580. 

22 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009g. Cope Station. Available at 

23 http://www.sceg.com/en/about-sceg/power-plants/fossil-fired/cope-station/cope-station.htm. 

24 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009h. Saluda Hydro Project Relicense – 

25 Welcome. Available at http://www.saludahydrorelicense.com. 

26 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009i. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

27 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

28 May 7, 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary 

29 dated February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

30 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit 

31 Information Needs: CR-17, 23, 24, 25, 26, GW-7 (Parts 1 and 5), SW-2, 4, 6, 10, SW-3 (Part 1), 

32 and T-3.” NND-09-0121. Accession No. ML091310563. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-222 April 2010

1 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009j. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, 

2 General Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated 

3 July 13, 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia 

4 J. Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

5 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

6 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): Acc-1, 2, and 3, Alt-1, 2, 

7 and 4, Gen-1, SEcon-2, SW-1 and 3, CR-12.” NND-09-0181. 

8 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009k. Urquhart Station. Available at 

9 http://www.sceg.com/en/my-community/environment/air/Urquhart-Station.htm. 

10 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2009l. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

11 COL Application, Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. 

12 Accession No. ML092170463. 

13 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2010a. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, Vice 

14 President, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated January 

15 19, 2010 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia J. 

16 Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

17 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

18 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): USACE-2 Revision 1.” 

19 NND-10-0022. Accession No. ML100700542. 

20 South Carolina Energy Office. 2007. Biomass Energy Potential in South Carolina: A 

21 Conspectus of Relevant Information – Final Report. Prepared for Southeast Biomass State and 

22 Regional Partnership. Available at 

23 http://www.energy.sc.gov/publications/Biomass%20Conspectus%204-10-07.pdf. 

24 South Carolina Energy Office. 2009. Radioactive Waste Disposal Program. Available at 

25 http://www.energy.sc.gov/index.aspx?m=8. 

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

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

28 Accession No. ML092740400. 

29 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. 30 USC 1234-1328 (30 CFR Part 700 et 

30 seq.) 

31 Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 2009. Nuclear Plant Site Selection Study Report. Prepared for South 

32 Carolina Electric & Gas Company. Accession No. ML090270990. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-223 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The Catena Group. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys, The Savannah River from Augusta to 

2 Savannah: South Carolina & Georgia. Prepared for International Paper & U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

3 Service. Hillsborough, N.C. Accession No. ML090780554. 

4 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2006. Geothermal FAQs. Accessed October 21, 2009 at 

5 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html. Accession No. ML100280701. 

6 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. Wind Energy Resource Potential. Accessed 

7 January 4, 2010 at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html. 

8 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. Hydrogen Fuel Cells. DOE Hydrogen Program, 

9 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML100280723. 

10 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008c. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies 

11 Program - Fuel Cell Technology Challenges. Accessed at February 11, 2009 at 

12 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_challenges.htm. Accession No. 

13 100280888. 

14 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008d. State Energy Alternatives: Biomass Energy. 

15 Accessed November 6, 2008 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/biomass.cfm. 

16 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008e. State Energy Alternatives: Alternative Energy 

17 Resources in South Carolina. Accessed February 11 2009 at 

18 http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/resources_SC.cfm. Accession No. 

19 ML100280898. 

20 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009a. NNSA Marks Two-Year Construction Milestone at 

21 MOX Facility in South Carolina. National Nuclear Security Administration. July 31, 2009.

22 Available at http://nnsa.energy.gov/2471.htm. 

23 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009b. Savannah River Site. U.S. Department of Energy. 

24 Available at http://www.srs.gov/general/srs-home.html. 

25 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009c. Wind Powering America - South Carolina Wind 

26 Resource Map. Accessed January 4, 2010 at 

27 http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/maps_template.asp?stateab=sc. Accession No. 

28 ML100290354. 

29 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. Renewable 

30 Energy 2000: Issues and Trends. Washington, D.C. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-224 April 2010

1 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008. Annual 

2 Energy Outlook 2008 with Projection to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383. Washington, D.C. Available at 

3 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2008).pdf. 

4 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2009. Annual 

5 Energy Outlook 2009 with Projection to 2030. DOE/EIA-0383. Washington, D.C. Available at 

6 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo09/pdf/0383(2009).pdf.U.S. Environmental Protection 

7 Agency (EPA). 1998. “Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion.” Chapter 1 in AP 42. 

8 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at 

9 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s01.pdf. 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. “Stationary Gas Turbines.” Chapter 3 in 

11 AP 42. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at 

12 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s01.pdf. 

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

14 Detail Report – Chemtrade Performance Chemicals LLC. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

15 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110002182138. 

16 Accession No. ML100200469. 

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

18 Detail Report – NCW&SA/Broad RV. WWTF Phase 1A. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

19 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SC0048020&p

20 gm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. Accession No. ML100200549. 

21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

22 Detail Report – Cone Mills Carlisle Finishing Company. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

23 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?p_registry_id=110000587188. 

24 Accession No. ML100200476. 

25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009d. “Non-Hazardous Waste.” Accessed 

26 December 27, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/waste/basic-solid.htm. Accession No. 100280908. 

27 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009e. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – 

28 Envirofacts Report- Rockland-Bamberg Industries. Available at 

29 http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control.tris_print?tris_id=29003RCKLNCALHO. 

30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009f. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) – 

31 Detailed Reports- Norway, Town of. Available at 

32 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0045993&npvalue=1&npvalu

33 e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

34 e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-225 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009g. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) – 

2 Detailed Reports – SCE&G/Parr Hydro Station. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

3 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0001864&npvalue=1&npvalu

4 e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

5 e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. Accession No. ML100200614. 

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009h. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) – 

7 Detailed Reports – NCW&SA/Cannons Creek WWTP. Accessed December 3, 2009 at 

8 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0048313&npvalue=1&npvalu

9 e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

10 e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009i. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

12 Detail Report – Handon Brick East/Minchew Pit. Accessed at 

13 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SCG730503&

14 pgm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. Accession No. ML100200549. 

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009j. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

16 Detail Report – International Paper Silverstreet Chip Mill. Available at 

17 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SC0022730&p

18 gm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. 

19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009k. Water Discharge Permits()PCs) – Query 

20 Results – Newberry County, South Carolina. Available at 

21 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_master.fii_retrieve?county_name=newberry&state_code=SC&al

22 l_programs=YES&program_search=1&report=1&page_no=1&output_sql_switch=TRUE&databa

23 se_type=PCS. 

24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009l. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

25 Detail Report – Hibbitts Dirt Pit Mine. Available at 

26 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SCG730516&

27 pgm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. 

28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009m. Facility Registry System (FRS) – Facility 

29 Detail Report – Threlko Inc./Holly #1 Mine. Available at 

30 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=SCG730997&

31 pgm_sys_acrnm_in=PCS. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-226 April 2010

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009n. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) – 

2 Detailed Reports – Clariant Corp/Martin Plant. Available at 

3 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=SC0042803&npvalue=1&npvalu

4 e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

5 e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. 

6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009o. Water Discharge Permits (PCS) - 

7 Detailed Reports – International Paper Company. Available at 

8 http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/pcs_det_reports.pcs_tst?npdesid=GA0037711&npvalue=1&npvalu

9 e=2&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalu

10 e=10&npvalue=11&npvalue=12. 

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2008. South Carolina Distribution Records of 

12 Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern, July 2008. Accessed on 

13 September 13, 2009 at www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/etcountylist_3_08.pdf. Accession No. 

14 ML093270525. 

15 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land 

16 and Resource Management Plan: Sumter National Forest. U.S. Forest Service, Southern 

17 Region. Atlanta, Georgia. 

18 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008a. Water-Data Report 2008, 02161000 Broad River at 

19 Alston, SC. Available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2008/pdfs/02161000.2008.pdf. U.S. 

20 Geological Survey (USGS). 2008b. Water-Data Report 2008, 0217303 South Fork Edisto River 

21 Near Cope, SC. Available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2008/pdfs/02173030.2008.pdf. 

22 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008c. Water-Data Report 2008, 02197000 Savannah River 

23 at Augusta, GA. Available at http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2008/pdfs/02197000.2008.pdf.. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1981. Final Environmental Statement Related to 

25 the Operation of Fermi, Unit 2. NUREG-0769, Washington, D.C. 

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

27 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

29 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, 

30 Washington, D.C. 

31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan— 

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

33 Vol. 1, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

April 2010 9-227 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

2 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Final 

3 Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Environmental Impact Statement on the 

5 Construction and Operation of a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River 

6 Site, South Carolina. NUREG-1767, Volume 1, Washington, D.C. 

7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. William States Lee III Nuclear Station, 

8 Units 1 and 2 Combined Operating License Application. Available at 

9 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.html. 

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

11 and Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle ESP Electric Generating Plant Site. NUREG-1872, 

12 Volume 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

13 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

14 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 34, Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating 

15 Plant, Units 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 

16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009a. Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2. 

17 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/cat2.html. 

18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009b. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 

19 2. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/rob2.html. 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009c. McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit1. 

21 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/mcg1.html. 

22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009d. Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1. 

23 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/oco1.html. 

24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009e. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1. 

25 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/vog1.html. 

26 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009f. Vogtle,Units 3 and 4 Application. 

27 Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.html.

28 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. Memorandum from Patricia Vokoun, 

29 Project Manager, to Ryan Whited, Branch Chief, dated March 18, 2010, Subject: “Summary of 

30 the Environmental Site Audit and Alternative Site Visit Related to the Review of the Combined 

31 License Application for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3.” Accession No. 

32 ML100480082. 
Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

Draft NUREG-1939 9-228 April 2010

1 University of Georgia. 2009. Herpetological Research at the Savannah River Ecology 

2 Laboratory. Accessed September 24, 2009 at http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/intro.htm. 

3 Accession No. ML100210907. 

4 Vismor & Associates (V&A). 1997. Comprehensive Plan Update, 1997, Fairfield County. 

5 Accession No. ML090630407. 

6 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC. (Westinghouse). 2009. Columbia Site. Accessed 

7 December 3, 2009 at 

8 http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Businesses/nuclear_fuel/columbia_site.shtm. Accession 

9 No. ML100200634. 

10 Wike, L.D. 1998. Potential Effect of Increased SRS River Water Withdrawal on the Savannah 

11 River Shortnose Sturgeon Population. WSRC-TR-98-00424, Westinghouse Savannah River 

12 Company, Aiken, South Carolina. 
April 2010 10-1 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 

2 This chapter provides a discussion of the conclusions reached in earlier parts of this 

3 environmental impact statement (EIS), as well as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

4 (NRC) staff’s recommendations. Section 10.1 summarizes the impacts of the proposed action, 

5 Section 10.2 summarizes the proposed project’s unavoidable adverse impacts with an 

6 accompanying table, and Section 10.3 discusses the relationship between the short-term use of 

7 resources and long-term productivity of the human environment. Section 10.4 summarizes the 

8 irretrievable and irreversible use of resources and Section 10.5 summarizes the alternatives to 

9 the proposed action. Section 10.6 discusses benefits and costs. Section 10.7 includes the 

10 NRC staff’s recommendation. 

11 On March 27, 2008, the NRC received an application from South Carolina Electric and Gas 

12 (SCE&G), acting for itself and for Santee Cooper (the State-owned electric and water utility, 

13 formally called the South Carolina Public Service Authority), for combined construction permits 

14 and operating licenses (COLs) for two new nuclear reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

15 Station (VCSNS) in Fairfield County, South Carolina (SCE&G 2008). The proposed VCSNS 

16 Units 2 and 3 would be jointly owned by SCE&G (55 percent) and Santee Cooper (45 percent), 

17 and operated by SCE&G (SCE&G 2009a). VCSNS Unit 1 is also jointly owned by SCE&G 

18 (66.7 percent) and Santee Cooper (33.3 percent), and operated by SCE&G (NRC 2004). With 

19 the exception of transmission systems needed to route power from the proposed units, all of the 

20 construction and operation related to VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would be completely within the 

21 confines of the VCSNS site (SCE&G 2009b). The reactors specified in the application are 

22 Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) 

23 pressurized water reactors. The application references Revision 17 of the AP1000 certified 

24 design. On March 2, 2010, SCE&G submitted an application to the U.S. Army Corps of 

25 Engineers (USACE) for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to conduct construction activities 

26 that would result in alteration of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The USACE is 

27 participating in preparing this environmental impact statement (EIS) as a cooperating agency. 

28 The proposed actions in the COL and USACE joint permit applications are (1) NRC issuance of 

29 COLs for construction and operation of two new nuclear power reactors at the VCSNS site in 

30 Fairfield County, South Carolina, and (2) USACE issuance of permits pursuant to Section 404 of 

31 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 USC 1251 et. seq. [Clean Water Act]), 

32 and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) to perform 

33 certain construction activities on the site. 

34 SCE&G submitted the Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a 

35 Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a 

36 Base Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-2 April 2010 

1 Jenkinsville, South Carolina, to the Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC) on 

2 May 30, 2008. The final order issued by the PSCSC approving the combined application and 

3 Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) was 

4 issued to SCE&G on March 2, 2009 (PSCSC 2009, p. 123). 

5 Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 

6 4321) directs that an EIS is required for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality 

7 of the human environment. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information 

8 about the following: 

9  the environmental impact of the proposed action 

10  any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be 

11 implemented 

12  alternatives to the proposed action 

13  the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and 

14 enhancement of long-term productivity 

15  any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved if the 

16 proposed action is implemented. 

17 The NRC has implemented NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. 

18 In 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC requires preparation of an EIS for issuance of COLs. Subpart C of 

19 10 CFR Part 52 contains the NRC regulations related to COLs. 

20 Included in this EIS are (1) the results of the review team’s preliminary analyses, which consider 

21 and weigh the environmental effects of the proposed action and of constructing and operating 

22 two new nuclear units at the VCSNS; (2) mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse 

23 effects; (3) the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and (4) the NRC 

24 staff’s recommendation regarding the proposed action based on its environmental review. The 

25 USACE will base its evaluation of the DA Individual Permit application on the requirements of 

26 USACE regulations, the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, and the USACE public 

27 interest review process. The USACE permit decision will be made following issuance of the 

28 final EIS. 

29 The environmental review described in this EIS was conducted by a joint NRC/USACE team. 

30 The review team was composed of NRC staff, its contractor’s staff, and staff from the USACE. 

31 During the course of preparing this EIS, the team reviewed the Environmental Report (ER) 

32 submitted by SCE&G (2009a); consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and 

33 followed the guidance set forth in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2 (NRC 1976), and NUREG34 1555, Environmental Standard Review Plans (NRC 2000). In addition, the NRC considered the 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-3 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 public comments related to the environmental review received during the scoping process. 

2 These comments are provided in Appendix D of this EIS. 

3 As a cooperating agency, the USACE has participated in the environmental review of the 

4 proposed action and has participated in the scoping meetings, public meetings, public-comment 

5 resolution, and EIS preparation. The proposed action includes impacts on waters of the United 

6 States, including wetlands. For action requiring a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit for the 

7 discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States, regulations 

8 promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require the USACE to limit its 

9 authorization to the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The USACE will 

10 document its conclusion of the review process, including the requirement for compensatory 

11 mitigation, in accordance with 33 CFR Part 332, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic 

12 Resources, in its permit-decision document. 

13 Following the practice of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

14 Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) (NRC 1996) and supplemental license renewal EISs, 

15 environmental issues are evaluated using the three-level standard of significance—SMALL, 

16 MODERATE, or LARGE—developed by the NRC using guidelines from the Council on 

17 Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.27). Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, 

18 Appendix B, provides the following definitions of the three significance levels: 

19 SMALL ─ Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither 

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

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

22 important attributes of the resource. 

23 LARGE ─ Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

24 important attributes of the resource. 

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

26 appropriate sections. During its environmental review, the review team considered planned 

27 activities and actions that SCE&G indicates it and others would likely take should SCE&G 

28 receive the COLs. In addition, SCE&G provided estimates of the environmental impacts 

29 resulting from building and operation of two new nuclear units on the VCSNS site. 

30 10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

31 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission limited the definition of 

32 “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority (10 CFR 51.4). Many of 

33 the activities required to construct a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to 

34 license the plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-4 April 2010 

1 the NRC action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include 

2 clearing and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 

3 associated activities. Because the “preconstruction” activities are not part of the NRC action, 

4 their impacts are not reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the 

5 preconstruction activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. Certain 

6 preconstruction activities require permits from the USACE, as well as other Federal, State, and 

7 local agencies. 

8 Chapter 4 of this EIS describes the relative magnitude of impacts related to preconstruction and 

9 construction activities with a summary of impacts in Table 4-17. Impacts associated with 

10 operation of the proposed facilities are discussed in Chapter 5 and are summarized in 

11 Table 5-22. Chapter 6 describes the impacts associated with the fuel cycle, transportation, and 

12 decommissioning. Chapter 7 describes the impacts associated with preconstruction and 

13 construction activities and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 when considered along with the 

14 cumulative impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the 

15 geographical region around the VCSNS site. 

16 10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 

17 Section 102(2)(C)(ii) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any adverse 

18 environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. 

19 Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are those potential impacts of the NRC action and 

20 the USACE action that cannot be avoided and for which no practical means of mitigation are 

21 available. 

22 The unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the granting of the COLs for 

23 VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would include impacts of both construction and operation. 

24 10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Construction and Preconstruction 

25 Activities

26 Chapter 4 discusses in detail the potential impacts from construction and preconstruction of the 

27 proposed Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. Table 10-1 presents the adverse impacts 

28 associated with construction and preconstruction activities to each of the resource areas 

29 evaluated in this EIS and the mitigation measures that would reduce impacts. All building 

30 activities for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, including ground-disturbing activities, would occur within the 

31 existing VCSNS site boundary. Unavoidable adverse impacts are the result of both construction 

32 and preconstruction activities, unless otherwise noted. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-5 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 The impact determinations in Table 10-1 are for the combined impacts of construction and 

2 preconstruction, but the impact determinations for NRC-regulated construction are the same for 

3 water use, water quality, aquatic ecology, socioeconomic and environmental justice, air quality, 

4 and nonradiological and radiological health resource areas. The impact determinations for 

5 building and NRC-related construction are different for land use, terrestrial and wetland 

6 ecosystems, and historic and cultural resources. For the impact determinations that differ for 

7 the NRC-regulated activities, the impacts from the NRC-regulated activities are discussed below 

8 the table. 

9 Table 10-1. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Construction and 

10 Preconstruction Activities

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to 

Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Land Use MODERATE for 

transmission lines 

SMALL for other 

offsite areas; 

SMALL for NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities

Follow best 

management 

practices (BMPs); 

use flexibility in 

transmission-line 

corridor routing 

Use of roughly 500 ac of land 

throughout period of construction and 

preconstruction. New transmission -line 

routing would require narrow tracts of 

land along approximately 174 mi of 

length to be converted from 

undeveloped or forested uses to utility 

corridor use. 

Water-Related Impacts

Water Use SMALL Implement BMPs 

to control erosion; 

use of turbidity 

curtain to control 

sediment from 

dredge operations 

Temporary degradation of surface 

water quality because of sediment 

loading. 

Water Quality SMALL 

Ecology 

(Terrestrial) 

MODERATE; 

SMALL for NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities

Implement 

wetland mitigation 

as required by 

USACE; 

implement BMPs 

during 

construction and 

preconstruction; 

use flexibility in 

transmission-line 

corridor routing to 

avoid adverse 

impacts on 

important species 

and habitats. 

Approximately 0.26 ac of wetlands 

would be filled; vegetation would be 

cleared and up to 220 ac of wetlands 

traversed by new transmission lines; 

permanent loss of terrestrial habitat 

onsite and in proposed new 

transmission-line corridors; increased 

habitat fragmentation from transmission 

lines; and potential impacts on 

important species in proposed 

transmission-line corridors. 

11 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-6 April 2010 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to 

Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Ecology 

(Aquatic) 

SMALL Comply with 

Federal permits 

and State 401 

water quality 

certification. 

Prepare and 

implement 

SWPPP and use 

appropriate BMPs 

to control erosion 

and 

sedimentation. 

Stream L would be filled. Temporary 

benthic habitat disturbance associated 

with the installation of cooling-water 

intake, water-treatment plant intake, 

discharge pipeline and diffuser, and 

temporary sanitary waste-treatment 

plant discharge. 

Loss of river bottom habitat associated 

with the installation of one or two 

transmission-line tower foundations in 

Parr Reservoir for the VCSNS-Varnville 

line. 

Localized, temporary site-preparation 

impacts on onsite streams include the 

widening of an existing rail spur right-ofway adjacent to a seasonal stream and 

the construction of a new bridge at 

Mayo Creek. 

Socioeconomic

s

Infrastructure and 

Community 

Services 

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts, 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community service 

impacts; 

MODERATE for 

traffic impacts 

SMALL for other 

infrastructure and 

community service 

impacts for NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities 

Implement trafficmanagement plan 

during site 

development. 

Temporary highly localized periodic 

traffic impacts. 

Physical Impacts SMALL 

Demography SMALL 

Economic 

Impacts on the 

Community 

SMALL 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-7 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to 

Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Environmental 

Justice

Health and 

Environmental

SMALL 

Socioeconomic MODERATE; 

MODERATE for 

NRC-authorized 

construction 

activities 

Implement traffic 

management plan 

during site 

development.

Temporary highly localized traffic 

impacts would occur in an 

environmental justice community.

Subsistence and 

Special 

Conditions 

SMALL 

Historic and 

Cultural 

MODERATE; 

SMALL for NRCauthorized 

construction 

activities 

Implement 

management 

agreement with 

SHPO. Develop 

resource-specific 

mitigation plans if 

significant cultural 

resources are 

located within 

transmission-line 

corridors. 

Cultural resources would be 

permanently altered by the proposed 

action and from the installation of 

transmission lines. Cultural resource 

attributes that will be impacted include 

the context and landscape of the 

surrounding area, the relationship of 

these resources with regional history, 

settlement patterns, and the historical 

use of the land. Visual impacts 

(alteration of the historic landscape) 

would affect the integrity of the 

resources. 

Air Quality SMALL Development of a 

dust-control plan 

prior to 

construction that 

would include 

specific dustmitigation 

measures. Air 

quality permits 

would be obtained 

from the SCDHEC 

(as required). 

Temporary degradation of local air 

quality due to dust particle emissions 

during ground clearing, grading 

excavation activities, and operation of 

concrete batch plant. 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Train all workers 

in appropriate 

safety 

requirements. 

Occupational injuries to personnel 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-8 April 2010 

Table 10-1. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to 

Mitigate Impacts Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Noise-limiting 

devices on 

vehicles and 

equipment. 

Restrict noiserelated activities to 

daylight hours. 

Noise from construction activities 

Radiological 

Health 

SMALL Doses to 

construction 

workers would be 

maintained below 

NRC public dose 

limits. 

Small doses to construction workers 

that would be less than NRC public 

dose limits. 

SCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office 

SWPPP = Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

1 The NRC staff concludes that the potential unavoidable adverse impacts on land use, terrestrial 

2 and wetland ecosystems, and historic and cultural resources from NRC-authorized construction 

3 activities would be SMALL. Nearly all such unavoidable adverse impacts would be attributable 

4 to preconstruction activities due mainly to the conversion of about 174 mi from undeveloped or 

5 forested uses to utility corridor use. 

6 The NRC staff concludes that the potential unavoidable adverse impacts for infrastructure and 

7 community services from NRC-authorized construction activities would be MODERATE for 

8 traffic impacts and SMALL for other infrastructure and community service impacts. SCDOT 

9 road-capacity standards would not be exceeded, but the increase in traffic would be noticeable 

10 to local residents in the Jenkinsville area for the worker commuting hours during the limited 

11 period of peak building activity. Impacts would be largely temporary and of short duration, 

12 based on the size of the workforce during any one period, and would abate as construction and 

13 preconstruction activities wind down. 

14 Construction and preconstruction traffic-related unavoidable adverse impacts would be 

15 noticeable but not destabilizing to the Jenkinsville community. The Socioeconomic 

16 Environmental Justice impacts from NRC-authorized construction is estimated to be 80 percent 

17 of combined construction and preconstruction. 

18 The primary unavoidable adverse environmental impacts during building activities would be 

19 related to land use and terrestrial habitat loss, as approximately 500 ac would be permanently 

20 disturbed. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-9 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 10.2.2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts During Operation 

2 Chapter 5 provides a detailed discussion of the potential impacts from operation of the proposed 

3 Units 2 and 3 at the VCSNS site. The unavoidable adverse impacts related to operation are 

4 listed in Table 10-2 and are summarized below. 

5 Table 10-2. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operation 

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

Land Use SMALL None Long-term dedication of up to 

300 ac of land. 

Water-Related 

Impacts 

 

Water Use SMALL Comply with Federal and 

State permits 

Increased water use because 

of the addition of Units 2 and 3 

Water Quality SMALL 

Ecology 

(Terrestrial) 

SMALL Implement BMPs during 

vegetation maintenance 

on transmission-line 

rights-of-way 

Vegetation maintenance on 

transmission-line rights-of-way 

Ecology (Aquatic) SMALL Comply with SCDHEC 

NPDES permit. 

Comply with SCDHEC 

NPDES permit 

Cooling-water withdrawal 

results in impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic biota 

from Monticello Reservoir. 

Thermal, chemical, and 

physical effects associated 

with station blowdown into Parr 

Reservoir have the potential to 

affect the distribution and 

abundance of some aquatic 

species. 

 Comply with SWPPP and 

implement BMPs. 

Lack of stormwater 

management could introduce 

sediments and pollutants into 

onsite waterbodies and 

waterways crossed by 

transmission-line corridors and 

injure aquatic biota. 

6 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-10 April 2010 

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

 Use EPA-approved 

herbicides in adjacent 

streams and waterbodies. 

Maintenance and operation 

activities (e.g., application of 

chemicals for vegetation 

management) along 

transmission-line corridor could 

harm aquatic species. 

Socioeconomics SMALL Traffic mitigation would 

have been performed 

during the construction 

phase. 

Increased traffic; increased 

use of services. 

Environmental 

Justice 

SMALL None 

Historic and 

Cultural 

SMALL Finalize and implement 

management agreement 

with SHPO 

Potential for inadvertent 

discoveries during 

maintenance and operational 

activities. 

Air Quality SMALL Cooling towers are 

operated with drift 

eliminators to limit salt 

deposition. Operation of 

generators is regulated by 

SCDHEC. 

Impact on local aesthetic due 

to cooling tower plumes, 

increased salt deposition in 

and near the site due to 

operation of the cooling 

towers. Emissions associated 

with intermittent operation of 

standby and ancillary 

generators. 

Nonradiological 

Health 

SMALL Strict adherence to NRC 

and Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration 

safety standards. 

Occupational injuries such as 

falls, noise and inhalation of air 

contaminants. 

Radiological 

Health 

SMALL Doses to members of the 

public would be 

maintained below NRC 

and EPA standards; 

worker doses would be 

maintained below NRC 

limits and ALARA; and 

doses to biota other than 

humans would be 

maintained below NCRP 

and IAEA guidelines. 

Small radiation doses to 

members of the public, below 

NRC and EPA standards; 

ALARA doses to workers; and 

biota doses less than NCRP 

and IAEA guidelines. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-11 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 10-2. (contd)

Resource Area Impact Level 

Actions to Mitigate 

Impacts

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts

BMPs = best management practices 

EAB = exclusion area boundary 

SCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office 

SWPPP = Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

1 Increased water use is an unavoidable adverse impact due to operation of the proposed plant. 

2 Stormwater would be managed with a site-specific SWPPP and operations-related monitoring 

3 would be performed to ensure compliance with SCDHEC requirements. 

4 Unavoidable adverse impacts to terrestrial resources would include herbicide use, mowing, and 

5 similar activities for vegetation maintenance on transmission-line rights-of-way. Assuming that 

6 BMPs are followed, terrestrial impacts during operation would be minor. Within transmission7 line corridors, low-growing vegetated buffer zones would be maintained adjacent to streams and 

8 waterbodies to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. Only EPA-approved and registered 

9 herbicides would be used. 

10 Unavoidable adverse aquatic impacts would be minimal during operation because the design of 

11 the intake structure on Monticello Reservoir would have minimal effects to aquatic organisms 

12 from impingement and entrainment. Aquatic impacts from station blowdown to Parr Reservoir 

13 would also have minimal effects to aquatic organisms due to design of the diffuser. Operation 

14 of the intake and discharge structures would comply with any NPDES permit. 

15 Adverse socioeconomic impacts likely would be similar in character to those during the building 

16 phase but much smaller due to the smaller project-related population and the fact that much of 

17 the mitigation of housing and infrastructure shortages would have occurred in response to the 

18 larger impacts during the building period. Socioeconomic impacts would primarily be increased 

19 traffic, some damage to roads, an increase in the demand for housing and public services, 

20 along with increased employment opportunities and an increase in tax revenue to support the 

21 increase in service-demand. 

22 Unavoidable adverse air-quality impacts would be negligible and that pollutants emitted during 

23 operations would be insignificant. Nonradiological and radiological health impacts would be 

24 minimal. Nonradiological health impacts to members of the public from operation, including 

25 etiological agents, noise, electromagnetic fields, occupational health and transportation of 

26 materials and personal, would be minimal through controls and measures by SCE&G 

27 associated with compliance to Federal and State regulations. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-12 April 2010 

1 10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

2 Productivity of the Human Environment 

3 Section 102(2)(C)(iv) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on the relationship 

4 between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

5 long-term productivity. 

6 The local use of the human environment by the proposed project can be summarized in terms of 

7 the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of preconstruction, construction, and operation 

8 and the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. With the exception of the 

9 consumption of depletable resources as a result of plant construction and operation, these uses 

10 may be classed as short term. The principal short-term benefit of the plant is represented by 

11 the production of electrical energy; and the economic productivity of the site, when used for this 

12 purpose, would be extremely large compared to the productivity from agriculture or from other 

13 probable uses for the site. 

14 The maximum long-term impact on productivity would result if the plant were not immediately 

15 dismantled at the end of the period of plant operation, and consequently the land occupied by 

16 the plant structures would not be available for any other use. However, the enhancement of 

17 regional productivity resulting from the electrical energy produced by the plant is expected to 

18 result in a correspondingly large increase in regional long-term productivity that would not be 

19 equaled by any other long-term use of the site. In addition, most long-term impacts resulting 

20 from land-use preemption by plant structures can be eliminated by removing these structures or 

21 by converting them to other productive uses. Once the plants are shut down, they would be 

22 decommissioned according to NRC regulations. Once decommissioning is complete and the 

23 NRC license is terminated, the site would be available for other uses. 

24 The review team concludes that the negative aspects of plant construction, preconstruction, and 

25 operation as they affect the human environment are outweighed by the positive long-term 

26 enhancement of regional productivity through the generation of electrical energy. 

27 10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

28 Section 102(2)(C)(v) of NEPA requires that an EIS include information on any irreversible and 

29 irretrievable commitments of resources that would occur if the proposed actions are 

30 implemented. The term “irreversible commitments of resources” refers to environmental 

31 resources that would be irreparably changed by the new units and that could not be restored at 

32 some later time to the resource’s state before the relevant activities. “Irretrievable commitments 

33 of resources” refers to materials that would be used for or consumed by the new units in such a 

34 way that they could not, by practical means, be recycled or restored for other uses. The 

35 irreversible commitment of resources are the environmental resources discussed in Chapters 4, 

36 5, and 6 of this EIS. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-13 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources 

2 Irreversible commitments of environmental resources resulting from Units 2 and 3, in addition to 

3 the materials used for the nuclear fuel, include those described in the following sections. 

4 10.4.1.1 Land Use 

5 Land committed to the disposal of radioactive and nonradioactive wastes is committed to that 

6 use, and cannot be used for other purposes. The land used for Units 2 and 3, with the 

7 exception of any filled wetlands, would not be irreversibly committed because once Units 2 and 

8 3 cease operations and the plant is decommissioned in accordance with NRC requirements, the 

9 land supporting the facilities could be returned to most other industrial or nonindustrial uses. 

10 10.4.1.2 Water Use 

11 Under average conditions, 27,160 gpm of cooling water would be lost through consumptive use 

12 (evaporation) during operation. 

13 10.4.1.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota 

14 Construction and preconstruction would temporarily adversely affect the abundance and 

15 distribution of local flora and fauna on the VCSNS site and transmission-line rights-of-way. 

16 However, the staff expects that only minimal irretrievable commitment of resources affecting 

17 shoreline, stream, reservoir benthic habitat, terrestrial habitat, or individual species is expected 

18 to occur at the VCSNS site. Similar impacts could occur on the new transmission corridors. 

19 Once construction and preconstruction are complete, the staff expects that flora and fauna 

20 would recover in areas that are not directly adjacent to or part of operations. Also, impacts to 

21 biota would cease post operations. The staff considers that the 0.26 ac of wetlands that would 

22 be filled during preconstruction of Units 2 and 3 would be irreversible. 

23 10.4.1.4 Socioeconomic Resources 

24 The staff expects that no irreversible socioeconomic commitments would be made to 

25 socioeconomic resources because they would be relocated for other purposes once the plant is 

26 decommissioned. 

27 10.4.1.5 Historical and Cultural Resources 

28 Cultural resource attributes would be permanently altered by the construction, preconstruction 

29 and operation of the proposed plant and transmission lines. Nearly all impacts would be 

30 attributable to preconstruction activities, particularly transmission lines. Cultural resource 

31 attributes that could be impacted include the context and landscape of the surrounding area, the 

32 relationship of these resources with regional history, settlement patterns, and the historical use 

33 of the land. Visual impacts (alteration of the historic landscape) could affect the integrity of the 

34 resources. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-14 April 2010 

1 10.4.1.6 Air and Water 

2 Air pollutants would be released to the environment during routine operations. Because these 

3 releases would conform to applicable Federal and State regulations, their impact to the public 

4 health and the environment would be limited. 

5 Dust and other emissions such as vehicle exhaust would be released to the air during 

6 construction. During operations, vehicle exhaust emissions would continue and other air 

7 pollutants and chemicals including very low concentrations of radioactive gases and particulates 

8 would be released from the facility to the air and surface water. The staff expects no irreversible 

9 commitment to air or water resources because all Unit 2 and 3 releases would be made in 

10 accordance with duly issued permits. 

11 10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

12 Irretrievable commitments of resources during construction of the proposed new units generally 

13 would be similar to that of any major construction project. A study by the U.S. Department of 

14 Energy (DOE) (DOE 2004) of new reactor construction estimated that the following quantities of 

15 materials would be required for the reactor building of a typical new 1300-MW (e) nuclear power 

plant: 12,239 yd3 16 of concrete, 3107 tons of rebar, and 2,500,000 ft of cable. An estimated 

17 additional 6,500,000 ft of cable and 275,000 ft of piping would be required for each unit. A total 

of approximately 182,900 yd3 18 of concrete and 20,512 tons of structural steel would be required 

19 to construct the reactor building, major auxiliary buildings, the turbine-generator building, and 

20 the turbine-generator pedestal. Therefore, about twice these amounts would be needed for the 

21 construction of two units at the VCSNS site. Hazardous materials such as asbestos would not 

22 be used, if possible. Use of materials such as asbestos would be in accordance with applicable 

23 safety regulations and practices. 

24 The review team expects that the use of construction materials in the quantities associated with 

25 those expected for VCSNS Units 2 and 3, while irretrievable, would be of small consequence 

26 with respect to the availability of such resources. 

27 The main resource that would be irretrievably committed during operation of the new nuclear 

28 units would be uranium. The availability of uranium ore and existing stockpiles of highly 

29 enriched uranium in the United States and Russia that could be processed into fuel is sufficient 

30 (OECD NEA and IAEA 2008) so that the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of this 

31 resource would be negligible. 

32 10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

33 Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Chapter 9 of this EIS. Alternatives 

34 considered are the no-action alternative, energy-production alternative, system-design 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-15 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 alternatives, and alternative sites. For the purposes of the USACE’s evaluation, onsite 

2 alternatives are also addressed. 

3 The no-action alternative, described in Section 9.1, refers to a scenario in which the NRC would 

4 deny the request for COLs. Upon such a denial, the construction and operation of two new 

5 nuclear units at the VCSNS site would not occur and the predicted environmental impacts 

6 associated with the project would not occur. The USACE could deny SCE&G’s permit request. 

7 If the permit were denied, SCE&G’s construction of the two new units would not go forward as 

8 proposed. If no other power plant were built or electrical power supply strategy implemented to 

9 take its place, the electrical capacity to be provided by the project would not become available, 

10 and the benefits (electricity generation) associated with the proposed action would not occur 

11 and the need for power would not be met. Failure to supply the needed electricity would have 

12 significant adverse impacts within the region of interest and the staff expects that the PSCSC 

13 would take steps to confirm that the need for power would be met. 

14 Alternative energy sources are described in Section 9.2 of this EIS. Alternatives not requiring 

15 additional generating capacity are described in Section 9.2.1. Detailed analyses of coal- and 

16 natural-gas-fired alternatives are provided in Section 9.2.2. Other energy sources are 

17 discussed in Section 9.2.3 and a combination of energy alternatives is discussed in 

18 Section 9.2.4. The staff concluded that none of the alternative power production options were 

19 both practical and environmentally preferable to the proposed action. 

20 Alternative sites are discussed in Section 9.3 of this EIS, and the cumulative impacts in the 

21 VCSNS site vicinity, including the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 increment, are compared with 

22 the impacts of the same physical facilities at each of the alternative sites in Chapter 9 of this 

23 EIS. Table 9-31 contains the staff’s characterization of cumulative impacts at the proposed and 

24 alternative sites. Based on this review, the NRC staff concludes that while there are differences 

25 in cumulative impacts at the proposed and alternative sites, none of the alternative sites is 

26 environmentally preferable or obviously superior to the proposed VCSNS site. The NRC’s 

27 determination is independent of the USACE’s determination of a Least Environmentally 

28 Damaging Practicable Alternative pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The USACE will 

29 conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite alternatives in its Record of Decision. 

30 Alternative system designs are discussed in Section 9.4 of this EIS, focusing on alternative 

31 cooling-system designs. The staff determined none of the alternative system designs were 

32 environmentally preferable to the proposed design. 

33 10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance 

34 NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare 

35 detailed EISs on proposed major Federal actions that can significantly affect the quality of the 

36 human environment. A principal objective of NEPA is to require each Federal agency to 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-16 April 2010 

1 consider, in its decisionmaking process, the environmental impacts of each proposed major 

2 action and the available alternative actions. In particular, Section 102 of NEPA requires all 

3 Federal agencies to the fullest extent possible: 

4 (B) identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the 

5 Council on Environmental Quality established by Title II of this Act, which will 

6 insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be 

7 given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and 

8 technical considerations. (42 USC 4321) 

9 However, neither NEPA nor CEQ requires the costs and benefits of a proposed action be 

10 quantified in dollars or any other common metric. 

11 The intent of this section is not to identify and quantify all of the potential societal benefits of the 

12 proposed actions and compare these to the potential costs of the proposed actions. Instead, 

13 this section will focus on only those the benefits and costs of such magnitude or importance that 

14 their inclusion in this analysis can inform the decision-making process. This section compiles 

15 and compares the pertinent analytical conclusions reached in earlier chapters of this EIS. It 

16 gathers all of the expected impacts from building and operations of the proposed VCSNS Units 

17 2 and 3 and aggregates them into two final categories; the expected costs and the expected 

18 benefits. The benefit-cost balancing for the NRC action will be based on a balancing of the 

19 benefits and costs of construction and operation. 

20 Although the analysis in this section is conceptually similar to a purely economic benefit-cost 

21 analysis, which determines the net present dollar value of a given project, the analysis identifies 

22 the important potential societal benefits of the proposed action and compares them to the 

23 potential internal (i.e., private) and external (i.e., societal) costs of the proposed actions. In this 

24 section, the benefits assessment provides the insight to determine if the benefits of the 

25 proposed actions outweigh the aggregate costs. 

26 General issues related to SCE&G’s financial viability and those of its parent organizations are 

27 outside NRC’s mission and authority and, thus, would not be considered in this EIS. Issues 

28 related to the financial qualifications of SCE&G’s will be addressed in the NRC staff’s safety 

29 evaluation report. It is not possible to quantify and assign a value to all benefits and costs 

30 associated with the proposed action. This analysis, however, attempts to identify, quantify, and 

31 provide monetary values for benefits and costs when reasonable estimates are available. 

32 Section 10.6.1 discusses the benefits associated with the proposed action. Section 10.6.2 

33 discusses the costs associated with the proposed action. A summary of benefits are shown in 

34 Table 10-3. Section 10.6.3 provides a summary of the impact assessments by integrating 

35 information from previous sections to frame the relative magnitude of the proposed actions’ 

36 benefits and costs. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-17 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 10-3. Monetary and Nonmonetary Benefits of the Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

Category of Benefit Description of Benefit 

Value of Benefit Over 

License Period 

Net Electrical Generating Benefits 

Net generating capacity ~2200 MW(e) 

Electricity generated (operating at 

85-percent to 93-percent capacity) 

16,400,000 – 17,900,000 MWh per 

year 

Taxes and Other Revenue During Plant Construction and Operation Period (transfer payments – 

not independent benefits)

Annual property taxes from 

operating plant (paid to Fairfield 

County) 

Proposed Unit 2 and Unit 3 could 

pay on average $21.5 million in 

property taxes annually 

$860 Million 

Local direct income generated 

during construction 

$266.4 million annual income 

during peak employment 

$513.1 million total regional 

income impact 

Local direct income generated 

during operation 

$121 million per year during 

40-year life of plant 

$220 million total regional 

income impact 

Effects on Regional Productivity 

Construction workers Direct Impact: Approximately 3600 

workers at project peak. 

7362 regional employment 

supported by peak direct 

employment 

Operational workers Direct Impact: 800 operations 

workers added over 40-year life of 

plant 

2504 total regional 

employment supported by 

the direct employment 

Socioeconomics Increased tax revenue supports 

improvements to public 

infrastructure and social services. 

The increased revenue spurs 

future growth and development 

Technical and other non-monetary 

benefits 

Fuel diversity reduces exposure to 

supply and price risks associated 

with reliance on any single fuel 

source 

Price volatility Dampens potential for fuel price 

volatility. 

Electrical reliability Enhances reliability of the 

electricity supply. 

Source: SCE&G 2008 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-18 April 2010 

1 10.6.1 Benefits 

2 The most apparent benefit from a power plant is that it generates power and provides 

3 thousands of residential, commercial, and industrial consumers with electricity. Maintaining an 

4 adequate supply of electricity in any given region has social and economic importance, because 

5 the resource is the foundation for economic stability and growth and is fundamental to 

6 maintaining the current standard of living. In addition to nuclear power, however, a number of 

7 different power-generation technology options could meet the need for baseload power, 

8 including natural-gas-fired, coal-fired plants, or a combination of alternatives. Because the 

9 focus of this EIS is on the proposed expansion of the VCSNS site generating capacity, this 

10 section focuses primarily on the relative benefits of the VCSNS option rather than the broader, 

11 more generic benefits of electricity supply. 

12 10.6.1.1 Societal Benefits 

13 For the production of electricity to be beneficial to a society, there must be a corresponding 

14 demand, or “need for power,” in the region. Chapter 8 defines and discusses the need for 

15 power in more detail. From a societal perspective, price stability and longevity and energy 

16 security and fuel diversity are the primary benefits associated with nuclear power generation 

17 relative to most other alternative generating options. These benefits are described in this 

18 section. 

19 Price Stability and Longevity 

20 Because of the relatively low and nonvolatile cost of nuclear power (approximately 

21 0.5 cents/kWh) and the reactor’s projected availability rate of 85 to 93 percent, nuclear energy is 

22 a dependable source of electricity that can be provided at relatively stable prices. Nuclear 

23 power plants are generally not subject to fuel-price volatility as are natural-gas-fired and oil-fired 

24 power plants; there is less price volatility with coal than the other fossil fuels. In addition, 

25 uranium fuel constitutes only 3 to 5 percent of the cost of a kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated 

26 electricity. Doubling the price of uranium increases the cost of electricity by about 7 percent, 

27 while doubling the price of natural gas would add about 70 percent to the cost of gas-fired 

28 electricity generation, and doubling the cost of coal would add about 36 percent to the cost of 

29 coal-fired electricity generation (WNA 2010). 

30 Energy Security and Fuel Diversity 

31 Currently, more than 70 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from fossil32 based technologies. Nuclear power contributes to the diverse U.S. energy mix, thereby hedging 

33 the risk of shortages and price fluctuations for any one type of power-generation system. 

34 In Chapter 8 of this EIS the NRC staff analyzed the relevant load forecasts, which revealed a 

35 need for an additional 2214 MW(e) of baseload power capacity in the region of interest by the 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-19 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 year 2020. The proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 would generate approximately 2200 MW(e) 

2 net, which would help meet this baseload need in the region. Assuming a reasonably low 

3 capacity factor of 85 percent, the plant’s average annual electrical energy generation would be 

4 about 16,400,000 MWh. A reasonably high-capacity factor of 93 percent would result in slightly 

5 more than 17,900,000 MWh of electricity. 

6 10.6.1.2 Regional Benefits 

7 The region would benefit from additional VCSNS-related tax revenues, regional productivity, 

8 and community impacts. 

9 Tax Revenue Benefits 

10 In recent years, SCE&G’s property tax payments to Fairfield County for Unit 1 on the VCSNS 

11 site have been between $12.2 million to $14.3 million, annually. On average, 37 to 45 percent 

12 of the Fairfield County property tax revenue comes from real property taxes generated by Unit 1 

13 operations (see Table 2-33). With the completion of VCSNS Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County 

14 would receive additional property tax revenue. 

15 Upon completion and operation of Units 2 and 3, based on information provided by SCE&G 

16 (SCE&G 2009b), the staff expects SCE&G will enter an agreement with Fairfield County to pay 

17 from $13 to $31 million annually in property taxes over the 40-year operating life of the new 

18 units (see Table 5-5). Taxes on the new units would be in addition to existing taxes being 

19 collected by Fairfield County on Unit 1 operations. 

20 In addition to property taxes, the construction-related and preconstruction jobs and salaries 

21 would generate State income tax revenue. The review team assumed that 50 percent of the 

22 skilled crafts workforce would relocate into the region while the plant is being built. However, 

23 impacts in the state would occur only to the degree that construction and operations workers 

24 would be relocating from out of state or when in-state workers significantly upgrading their 

25 disposable income compared to previous in-state employment. The review team concludes, 

26 when viewed in the context of total sales tax revenue to the State of South Carolina, the net 

27 impact on sales tax revenue caused by potential relocations to South Carolina, or from the 

28 effect of upgrading disposable income through better employment, would be minimal. 

29 Once the plant is operational, it would be subject to corporate income tax, which in South 

30 Carolina is 5.533 percent of net taxable income. Sales taxes would be levied on materials 

31 purchased in-state to construct VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Retail sales of tangible personal property 

32 are subject to general State sales or use taxes of 6.0 percent. In addition, the local counties 

33 collect an additional 1.0 percent in sales and use taxes bringing the total rate to 7 percent 

34 (SCE&G 2009b). 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-20 April 2010 

1 Regional Productivity and Community Impacts 

2 The new units would require a peak-level workforce of approximately 3600 workers and an 

3 operating workforce of about 800. The long-term impact would be realized from the operations 

4 employment multiplier effect, which suggests that 1704 additional indirect and induced jobs 

5 would be created to support the 800 jobs during the operation period. In total, approximately 

6 2504 jobs (apart from outage employment impacts) within the economic impact area affected by 

7 the site would be supported by the startup of the new units and would be maintained throughout 

8 the life of the plant. The economic multiplier effect of the increased spending by the direct and 

9 indirect workforce created as a result of two new units would increase the economic activity in 

10 the region. The final demand economic multiplier effect means that every dollar spent by 

11 nuclear plants results in the creation of an additional $0.33 of induced income in the community. 

12 Sections 4.5.4 and 5.5.4 provide additional information about the economic impacts of 

13 constructing and operating Units 2 and 3 on the VCSNS site. 

14 10.6.2 Costs 

15 Internal costs to SCE&G and external costs to the surrounding region and environment would 

16 be incurred during the preconstruction, construction, and operation of proposed VCSNS Units 2 

17 and 3. Internal costs include the costs to physically construct the power plant (capital costs), as 

18 well as operating and maintenance costs, fuel costs, waste disposal costs, and 

19 decommissioning costs. External costs include all costs imposed on the environment and 

20 region surrounding the plant that are not internalized by the company and may include such 

21 things as a loss of regional productivity, environmental degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat. 

22 The external costs listed in Table 10-4 summarize environmental impacts to resources that 

23 could result from preconstruction, construction, and operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 

24 and 3. Because Table 10-4 includes costs from preconstruction activities, it overestimates the 

25 costs for the proposed NRC action 

26 10.6.2.1 Internal Costs 

27 The most substantial monetary cost associated with nuclear energy is the cost of capital. 

28 Nuclear power plants typically have relatively high capital costs for building the plant, but very 

29 low fuel costs relative to alternative power-generation systems. Because of the large capital 

30 costs for nuclear power plants, and the relatively long construction period before return on 

31 capital investment, servicing the capital costs of a nuclear power plant is one of the most 

32 important factors in determining the economic competitiveness of nuclear energy. Construction 

33 delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because no new nuclear plants have been 

34 built in the United States in many years to establish an empirical cost basis, there is some 

35 uncertainty regarding the actual costs of constructing a new unit and how it would relate to 

36 construction costs for similarly large industrial facilities. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-21 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 10-4. Internal and External Costs of Proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3 

Category of Cost Description of Cost Impact Assessment(a)

Internal Costs

Construction (overnight 

cost) for both units 

(including 

preconstruction costs)

$9.8 billion (about $4500 per installed 

kW(e)) 

Transmission, 

distribution, and general 

plant costs 

$925 million (about $420 per installed 

kW(e)) 

Levelized cost of 

operation (includes fuel 

costs, decommissioning, 

and waste disposal)

$66 to $84 per MWh (MIT 2009, p. 6, 

Table 1) 

Fuel costs $2.00 MWh (calculated based on MIT 

2009, p. 6, Table 1) 

Decommissioning (NRC 

minimum)

Approximately $1–$2 per MWh 

External Costs 

Land use Project impacts including site and 

transmission lines would impact about 

2600 acres of land. (See Sections 4.1 and 

5.1.) 

MODERATE for transmission 

lines; SMALL for other offsite 

areas; SMALL for NRCauthorized construction 

activities 

Water use and water 

quality

There are some costs associated with 

providing water for various needs during 

construction and operation. Cooling water 

is taken from Monticello Reservoir. Impact 

on water quality would be regulated by the 

South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and the 

South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources (SCDNR). (See Sections 4.2 

and 5.2.) 

SMALL 

Terrestrial and wetlands 

ecosystems

Some impacts on wildlife due to mortality 

during construction operations are 

anticipated. However, these impacts do 

not affect long-term wildlife populations. 

Wildlife mortality during operations is 

expected to be minimal. (See Sections 4.3 

and 5.3.) 

SMALL 

2 

3 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-22 April 2010 

Table 10-4. (contd) 

Category of Cost Description of Cost Impact Assessment(a)

Aquatic ecosystems Filling in of the headwaters for Stream L, 

which flows into Mayo Creek, would result 

in a noticeable change for that immediate 

area. However, water-quality impacts are 

likely to be negligible with the use of BMPs 

to control sedimentation. (See Sections 

4.3 and 5.3.) 

SMALL 

Radioactive effluents 

and emissions 

Radioactive waste is generated. The plant 

produces radioactive air emissions. 

Relatively small levels of radioactive 

effluents are introduced into the Broad 

River. (See Sections 4.9 and 5.9.) 

SMALL 

Hazardous and 

radioactive waste Storage, treatment, and disposal of highlevel radioactive spent nuclear fuel. 

Commitment of underground geological 

resources for disposal of radioactive spent 

fuel. (See Sections 4.9 and 5.9.) 

SMALL 

Air quality Air emissions from diesel generators, 

auxiliary boilers, equipment, and vehicles 

that have a small impact on workers and 

local residents. Emission sources would 

be operated intermittently and emissions 

would be within Federal, State, and local 

air quality limits. Avoidance of sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, 

carbon dioxide, and particulate emissions 

(relative to other baseload fossil-fired 

generation). (See Sections 4.7 and 5.7.) 

SMALL 

Materials, energy, and 

uranium

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

of materials and energy, including 

depletion of uranium. Construction 

materials include concrete, aggregate, 

rebar, conduit, cable, piping, building 

supplies, tools. Equipment needs include 

cranes, cement trucks, excavation 

equipment, dump trucks, and graders. 

SMALL 

Socioeconomics The external costs of building and 

operating Units 2 and 3 have been 

discussed in detail in Chapters 4 and 5. 

The review team determined all of these 

external costs would be SMALL, with the 

exception of building-related traffic 

impacts, which were identified as 

MODERATE for traffic impacts, 

SMALL for other infrastructure 

and community service impacts; 

MODERATE for traffic impacts, 

SMALL for other infrastructure 

and community service impacts 

for NRC-authorized 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-23 Draft NUREG-1939 

Table 10-4. (contd) 

Category of Cost Description of Cost Impact Assessment(a)

MODERATE for each preconstruction and 

construction. (See Sections 4.4 and 5.4) 

construction activities 

Cultural Resources SCE&G has committed to developing 

procedures for managing cultural 

resources in the event of an inadvertent 

discovery onsite. (See Sections 4.6 and 

5.6.) 

MODERATE; SMALL for NRCauthorized construction 

activities 

Health impacts 

(nonradiological and 

radiological) 

Small estimated temperature increases 

would not significantly increase the 

abundance of thermophilic 

microorganisms. Radiological doses and 

nonradiological health hazards to the 

public and occupational workers would be 

monitored and controlled in accordance 

with regulatory limits. (See Sections 4.8, 

4.9, 5.8, and 5.9.) 

SMALL 

(a) Impact assessments are listed for all impacts evaluated in detail as part of this EIS. The details on impact 

assessments are found in the indicated sections of this EIS. 

1 Construction Costs 

2 In evaluating the monetary costs related to constructing VCSNS Units 2 and 3, SCE&G 

3 reviewed recently published literature and internally generated, site-specific information. 

4 Construction cost estimates are provided below in Table 10-4. These estimates are based on a 

5 number of studies that were conducted by government agencies, universities, and other entities; 

6 the estimates include a significant contingency to account for uncertainty. In its ER, SCE&G 

7 expressed the construction-cost estimate in terms of “overnight capital cost,” which is a 

8 commonly used approach in the construction industry. “Overnight capital cost” is a term used to 

9 describe the monetary cost of constructing large capital projects such as a power plant, where 

10 costs are exclusive of interest and escalation, but include engineering, procurement, and 

11 construction costs, as well as owner's costs and contingencies. The owner’s costs include such 

12 things as site work and preparation, cooling-water intake structures and cooling towers, import 

13 duties on components, insurance, spare parts, transmission interconnection, development 

14 costs, project management costs, owner’s engineering, State and local permitting, legal fees, 

15 and staffing-related training. 

16 SCE&G’s cost analysis was primarily based on the four following studies: 

17  Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An 

18 Interdisciplinary MIT Study. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-24 April 2010 

1  University of Chicago (UC). 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. 

2  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. Study of Construction Technologies and 

3 Schedules, O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for 

4 Advanced Reactor Designs. 

5  Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and International Energy 

6 Agency (OECD/IEA). 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2005 Update. 

7 In addition to the four studies referenced by SCE&G, the NRC staff reviewed two additional 

8 reports, one published by The Keystone Center entitled Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding (The 

9 Keystone Center 2007), which concluded, based upon alternative discount rates and 

10 construction times, overnight construction costs range between $3600 and $4200 per kW(e). 

11 The second study is a 2009 update to the MIT study (2003) that revised capital cost estimates 

12 to $4000 per kW(e). 

13 In its ER, SCE&G concluded $2000 per kW(e) would be applicable to VCSNS Units 2 and 3, 

14 which equates to roughly $4.4 billion to construct both units (SCE&G 2008). However, 

15 considering that these studies were completed from 2003 through 2005 (and expressed in 

16 various dollar-years), and more recent information became available subsequent to the 

17 publication of the ER, SCE&G concluded that the estimate of $2000 per kW(e) would represent 

18 the low range of estimates. The estimate used in this EIS equates to approximately $4400 per 

19 kW(e), which more closely reflects estimates reported in the 2007 Keystone study (The 

20 Keystone Center 2007) and MIT (2009). 

21 Operation Costs 

22 Operation costs are frequently expressed as levelized cost of electricity, which is the price per 

23 kWh of producing electricity, including the amounts needed to cover operating costs and 

24 annualized capital costs. Overnight capital costs account for one-third of the levelized cost, and 

25 interest costs on the overnight costs account for another 25 percent (University of Chicago 

26 2004). SCE&G concluded that, based on the UC study results, the projected cost associated 

27 with operating a new nuclear facility similar in size to the one proposed for the VCSNS site 

28 would be in the range of $31 to $46 per MWh ($0.031 to $0.046 per kWh). Levelized cost 

29 estimates based on the MIT study (2009) range from $66 to $84 per MWh (6.6 to 8.4 cents per 

30 kWh). A number of factors can affect the range, such as the choice of discount rate, 

31 construction duration, plant lifespan, capacity factor, tax rates, and premium for uncertainty. 

32 Estimates include decommissioning, but because of the effect of discounting a cost that would 

33 occur as much as 40 years in the future, decommissioning costs have relatively little effect on 

34 the levelized cost. Based on the more recent information from the MIT study, the review team 

35 determined that levelized cost estimates ranging from $66 to $84 per MWh (6.6 to 8.4 cents 

36 per kWh) (MIT 2009) are more reasonable. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-25 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Fuel Costs 

2 The cost of fuel is included in the calculation of levelized cost. Based on the recent World 

3 Nuclear Association’s study (WNA 2010), the review team estimates nuclear fuel costs to be 

4 $0.449 per kWh. 

5 Waste Disposal 

6 The back-end costs of nuclear power contribute a very small share of total cost, both because of 

7 the long lifetime of a nuclear reactor and the fact that provisions for waste-related costs can be 

8 accumulated over that time. It also should be recognized, however, that radioactive nuclear 

9 waste poses unique disposal challenges for long-term management. While spent fuel and 

10 radioactive nuclear waste are being stored successfully in onsite facilities, the United States and 

11 other countries have yet to implement final disposition of spent fuel or high-level radioactive 

12 waste streams created at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 

13 Decommissioning 

14 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.75, the NRC requires that licensees provide reasonable 

15 assurance that funds will be available for the decommissioning process. Because of the effect 

16 of discounting a cost that would occur as much as 40 years in the future, decommissioning 

17 costs have relatively little effect on the levelized cost of electricity generated by a nuclear power 

18 plant. Decommissioning costs are about 9 to 15 percent of the initial capital cost of a nuclear 

19 power plant. However, when discounted, decommissioning costs contribute only a few percent 

20 to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the United States, they account 

21 for 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kWh, which is no more than 5 percent of the cost of the electricity 

22 produced (WNA 2010). 

23 10.6.2.2 External Costs 

24 External costs are social and/or environmental effects that would be caused by the building of 

25 and generation of power by two new reactors at the VCSNS site. This EIS includes the review 

26 team’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of building and operating 

27 new nuclear units at the VCSNS site or at alternative sites, and mitigation measures available 

28 for reducing or avoiding these adverse impacts. It also includes the NRC staff’s 

29 recommendation to the Commission regarding the proposed action. 

30 Environmental and Social Costs 

31 The impacts of building and operating the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 have been identified and 

32 analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5, and a significance level of potential adverse impacts 

33 (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned. Such impacts cannot be universally 

34 monetized. Chapter 6 similarly addresses the environmental impacts from (1) the uranium fuel 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-26 April 2010 

1 cycle and solid waste management, (2) the transportation of radioactive material, and (3) the 

2 decommissioning of nuclear units at the VCSNS site. A summary of project internal and 

3 external costs is shown in Table 10-4. Because Table 10-4 includes costs from preconstruction 

4 activities, it overestimates the costs for the proposed NRC action. 

5 Unlike generation of electricity from coal and natural gas, normal operation of a nuclear power 

6 plant does not result in significant emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., oxides of nitrogen or 

7 sulfur dioxide), methyl mercury, or greenhouse gases associated with global warming and 

8 climate change. Whereas combustion-based power plants are responsible for at least 70 

9 percent of the sulfur dioxide, at least 21 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 51 percent of the 

10 mercury emissions from industrial sources in the United States (EPA 2009), and 40 percent of 

11 the carbon dioxide (DOE/EIA 2008). Eighty-two percent of the electric power industry’s 

12 emissions are from coal-fired plants (DOE/EIA 2008). Chapter 9 of this EIS analyzes coal- and 

13 natural-gas-fired alternatives to the construction and operation of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. Air 

14 emissions from these alternatives and nuclear power are summarized in Chapters 4, 5, and 9. 

15 As discussed previously, Table 10-4 summarizes the external costs (i.e., environmental 

16 impacts) associated with the building and operation of the proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3. 

17 Impacts to air quality, aquatic ecology, housing, public services, aesthetics and recreation, 

18 cultural resources, and radiological and nonradiological health all would be SMALL. Because 

19 the overall impact to these resources from the proposed project in its entirety would be SMALL, 

20 the impacts from the NRC action (i.e., construction as defined in 10 CFR 51.4, and operation of 

21 the proposed new units) accordingly would also be SMALL. For land use, the impact from the 

22 total project would be MODERATE, the impact from the NRC portion of the project would be 

23 SMALL. For terrestrial ecology the impact from the total project would be MODERATE, the 

24 impact from the NRC portion of the project would be SMALL. For traffic near the VCSNS site, 

25 the review team determined the total impact would be MODERATE and the NRC portion of the 

26 project would be MODERATE. 

27 10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs 

28 SCE&G’s business decision to pursue expansion of VCSNS generating capacity by adding two 

29 additional nuclear reactors is an economic decision, based on private financial factors subject to 

30 regulation by the PSCSC. The internal costs to construct additional units appear to be 

31 substantial; however, SCE&G’s decision to pursue this expansion is an indication that the 

32 company has already concluded that the private, or internal, benefits of the proposed facility 

33 outweigh the internal costs. Although the identified societal benefits are not specifically 

34 monetized, the review team determined that the potential societal benefits of the proposed 

35 expansion of the VCSNS site are substantial. In comparison, the external socio-environmental 

36 costs imposed on the region appear to be relatively small. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-27 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 Table 10-3 and Table 10-4 include summaries of the internal and external costs of the proposed 

2 activities at the VCSNS site, as well as the identified benefits. The tables include references to 

3 other sections of this EIS when impact assessments or more detailed analyses are available for 

4 specific topics. 

5 On the basis of the assessments summarized in this EIS, the construction and operation of the 

6 proposed VCSNS Units 2 and 3, with the mitigation measures identified by the staff, would have 

7 accrued benefits that most likely would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. 

8 For the NRC-proposed action (NRC-authorized construction and operation) the accrued benefits 

9 would also outweigh the costs of construction and operation of Units 2 and 3. 

10 10.7 Staff Recommendation 

11 The NRC staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental 

12 aspects of the proposed action is that the COL should be issued. The staff’s evaluation of the 

13 safety and emergency preparedness aspects of the proposed action will be addressed in the 

14 staff’s safety evaluation report that is anticipated to be published in 2011. 

15 This preliminary recommendation is based on (1) the ER submitted by SCE&G (2009a), 

16 (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, (3) the review team’s 

17 independent review, (4) the NRC staff’s consideration of comments related to the environmental 

18 review that were received during the public scoping process, and (5) the assessments 

19 summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and in 

20 the EIS. 

21 The NRC’s determination is independent of the USACE’s determination of whether the VCSNS 

22 site is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative pursuant to Clean Water Act 

23 Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite 

24 alternatives in its Record of Decision. 

25 10.8 References 

26 10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

27 Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

28 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

29 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

30 10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses, 

31 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-28 April 2010 

1 33 CFR Part 332. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, 

2 Part 332, “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.” 

3 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment, 

4 Part 1508, “Terminology and Index.” 

5 72 FR 57416. October 9, 2007. “Limited Work Authorizations for Nuclear Power Plants” 

6 Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

7 Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251, et seq. (also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control 

8 Act [FWPCA]). 

9 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An 

10 Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Available at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. 

11 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2009. Update of the MIT 2003Future of Nuclear 

12 Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. Available at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. 

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

14 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and International Energy Agency 

15 (OECD/IEA). 2005. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2005 Update. Paris, France. 

16 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency and 

17 International Atomic Energy Agency (OECD NEA and IAEA). 2008. Uranium 2007. 22nd 

18 Edition, Paris, France. 

19 Public Service Commission of South Carolina (PSCSC). 2009. Amended Order Approving 

20 Applied Application − Combined Application of South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for a 

21 Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Convenience and Necessity and for a 

22 Base Load Review Order for the Construction and Operation of a Nuclear Facility in 

23 Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Docket No 2008-196-E; Order 2009-104A. Columbia, South 

24 Carolina. 

25 Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 USC 403, as amended (also referred to as 

26 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899). 

27 South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G). 2008. Letter from Stephen A. Byrne (SCE&G 

28 Senior Vice-President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

29 Commission dated March 27, 2008, “Subject V.C. Summer Nuclear Stations Units 2 and 3; 

30 Project Number 743 Submittal of a Combined License Application for V.C. Summer Nuclear 

31 Stations Units 2 and 3”. Jenkinsville, South Carolina. NND-08-0004. Accession No. 

32 ML081300460. COL Application Accession No. ML081300569. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

April 2010 10-29 Draft NUREG-1939 

1 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2009a. V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 

2 COL Application, Part 3, Applicant’s Environmental Report – Combined License Stage. 

3 Revision 1, Jenkinsville, South Carolina. Accession No. ML090510261. 

4 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2009b. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, General 

5 Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated August 7, 

6 2009 in response to letters from Ronald B. Clary dated February 13, 2009, and Patricia J. 

7 Vokoun dated June 22, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket 

8 Numbers 52-027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Response to NRC 

9 Environmental Report (ER) Requests for Additional Information (RAI): BenCost-1 and 

10 SEcon-4.” NND-09-0237. Accession No. ML092230779. 

11 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G). 2009c. Letter from Ronald B. Clary (SCE&G, General 

12 Manager, New Nuclear Deployment) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated June 9, 

13 2009 in response to letters from S.A. Byrne dated March 27, 2008 and Ronald B. Clary dated 

14 February 13, 2009, “Subject: V.C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Docket Numbers 52-

15 027 and 52-028, Combined License Application – Environmental Report Audit Information 

16 Needs: ACC-5 (Item 1), AQ-9, BC-1, GW-7 (Item 3) and SE-S1.” NND-09-0158. Accession 

17 No. ML091630212. 

18 The Keystone Center. 2007. Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. Keystone, Colorado. 

19 University of Chicago. 2004. The Economic Future of Nuclear Power. Available at 

20 http://www.anl.gov/Special_Reports/NuclEconAug04.pdf. 

21 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. Study of Construction Technologies and Schedules, 

22 O&M Staffing and Cost, Decommissioning Costs and Funding Requirements for Advanced 

23 Reactor Designs. Prepared by Dominion Energy, Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, TLG, Inc., 

24 and MPR Associates under Contract DE-AT01-020NE23476. Available at 

25 http://nuclear.energy.gov/np2010/reports/1DominionStudy52704.pdf. 

26 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004. Annual 

27 Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025 – Issues in Focus. Accessed October 12, 2009 

28 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/issues_6.html. 

29 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008. Figure 3S_1. 

30 U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation, 2007. Accessed March 10, 2009 at 

31 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html 

32 U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2008. Emissions of 

33 Greenhouse Gases in the United States. DOE/EIA-0573(2008). Accessed online February 3, 

34 2010 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/gwp_gases.html. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Draft NUREG-1939 10-30 April 2010 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Report on the Environment. A-Z 

2 Indicators List. Accessed on February 3, 2010 at 

3 http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=list.listByAlpha#E. 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1976 Preparation of Environmental Reports for 

5 Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C. 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

7 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report. NUREG -1437, Volumes 1 & 2. 

8 Washington, D.C. 

9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan 

10 (ESRP) − Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. 

11 NUREG-1555, Vol. 1, NRC, Washington, D.C. Includes 2007 revisions. 

12 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

13 for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15, Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 

14 Station, Final Report. NUREG -1437, Supplement 15. Washington, D.C. 

15 World Nuclear Association (WNA). 2010. The New Economics of Nuclear Power. Accessed 

16 January 27, 2010 at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=410&terns=price. 

17 
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-1939, Vol.1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

April

YEAR

2010

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Virgil C. Summer

Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3

Draft Report for Comment

5. AUTHOR(S)

See Appendix A

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 Site and Environmental Reviews

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Nos. 52-027, 52-028

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by South Carolina

Electric & Gas (SCE&G) to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for combined licenses (COLs) for Units 2 and 3 at

the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) site in Fairfield County, South Carolina. This EIS includes the NRC staff's

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action and mitigation measures for reducing and

avoiding adverse impacts.

The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation to the Commission, considering the environmental aspects of the proposed action,

is that the COLs be issued. This recommenation is based on (1) the COL application, including the Environmental Report

submitted By SCE&G; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the review team's independent review;

(4) the consideration of public scoping comments; and (5) the assessments summarized in this EIS, including the potential

mitgation measures identified in the ER and this EIS.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, (VCSNS)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DEIS, EIS,

National Environmental Poilcy Act, NEPA,

COL, COLA, combined licenses,

environmental review

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Same as above