NUREG-1437

- - Supplement 25

. . . -- I -

. 1, , ?

1. ,  .

Generic Environmenta ... In .... r...

1-- Impact Statement for

-'License Renewal of

-Nuclear Plants'

Supplement 25

Regarding

Bruinswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

1: ' : -'

,' I. - ; .-

I - Final Report

-U.S. Nuclear R ary mmission ..-

Office of Nuclear tor egmulation .7.';

- Washington, DC 20555-0001

.,
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.qov/readina-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and Internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

Inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

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

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer,

Reproduction and Distribution

Services Section

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications In the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/readinp-rm/doc-collectionslnureps

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 atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available In the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 42'n Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only In laws; NRC regulations; licenses, Including

technical specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

In contractor-prepared publications in this series

are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

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

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

resulting from International agreements

(NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures

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

decisions and orders of the Commission and

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of

Directors' decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's

regulations (NUREG-0750).
NUREG-1437

Supplement 25

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 25

Regarding

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: March 2006

Date Published: April 2006

Division of License Renewal

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
NUREG-1437, Supplement 25, has been

reproduced from the best available copy.
Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of

renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 51. In the GEIS (and its Addendum 1), the staff identifies 92 environmental issues and

reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply

to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific

review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included

in a supplement to the GEIS.

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to

an application submitted to the NRC by the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) (now

doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.) to renew the OLs for Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This

SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of

the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and

mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the

staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither CP&L nor the

staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any GEIS generic conclusion

that applies to BSEP. In addition, the staff determined that information provided during the

scoping process did not call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the staff

concludes that the impacts of renewing the BSEP OLs would not be greater than impacts

identified for these issues in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the staff's conclusion in the

GEIS is that the impact is of SMALL(a) significance (except for collective off site radiological

impacts from the fuel cycle and high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a

single significance level).

Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to BSEP are addressed in this SEIS. The

staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental impacts of renewal of the

OLs is SMALL for each applicable issue, with one exception. The magnitude of impact for the

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields is "uncertain". The staff also concludes that additional

mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. The staff

determined that information provided during the scoping process did not identify any new issue

that has a significant environmental impact.

(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

April 2006 iii NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Abstract

I The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse

environmental impacts of license renewal for BSEP are not so great that preserving the option

of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental

Report submitted by CP&L; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the

I staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 iV April 2006
Contents

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

Executive Summary .................................................... xv

Abbreviations/Acronyms ................................................. xx

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

1.1 Report Contents ................................................ 1-1

1.2 Background ................................................... 1-3

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement ...... ................ 1-3

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process ....... .................. 1-5

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action ............ ......................... 1-7

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

1.5 Compliance and Consultations ........... ......................... 1-8

.1.6 References........... .... 1-9

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction

with the Environment .......... 2-1

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the

License Renewal Term ........................................... 2-1

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting ............................ 2-1

2.1.2 Reactor Systems .......................................... 2-6

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems ......................... 2-7

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and

Effluent Control Systems .............. ..................... 2-7

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls ... 2-9

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent

Controls ......................................... 2-11

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing ................... .... 2-12

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems ............. .......... 2-13

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance .................... ... 2-14

2.1.7 Power Transmission System .......... ............. 2-15

April 2006 v NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Contents

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment ......... ...................... 2-18

2.2.1 Land Use ............................................... 2-18

2.2.2 Water Use .............................................. 2-19

2.2.3 Water Quality ............................................. 2-19

2.2.4 Air Quality .............................................. 2-20

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources . ...................................... 2-22

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ............... ...................... 2-31

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts .......... ............................ 2-43

1 2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors .................................... 2-44

I 2.2.8.1 Housing ......................................... 2-45

1 2.2.8.2 Public Services ......... ........................... 2-46

1 2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use .................................. 2-48

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise ......................... 2-50

I 2.2.8.5 Demography ..................................... 2-50

2.2.8.6 Economy and Taxes ............................... 2-53

1 2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................ 2-55

1 2.2.9.1 Cultural Background ............................... 2-55

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at BSEP .......... 2-57

I 2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations ..... ......... 2-58

1 2.3 References .2-59

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment .. 3-1

3.1 References .3-3

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation .. 4-1

4.1 Cooling Systems .4-2

4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages .4-10

4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish .4-13

4.1.3 Heat Shock .4-15

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 vi April 2006
Contents

4.2 Transmission Lines . ............................................. 4-17

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects ...... .................. 4-22

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects ...... ................ 4-22

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations .......................... 4-23

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the

License Renewal Term . ......................................... 4-24

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations ....... ................... 4-26

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations .......... 4-28

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations .......................... 4-28

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations .... .... 4-30

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources ...... .................. 4-30

4.4.6 Environmental Justice ........... .......................... 4-31

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality ........... .......................... 4-33

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species ........ ........................ 4-37

4.6.1 Aquatic Species ................ .......................... 4-37

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species ........................................ 4-39

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of

Operations During the Renewal Term .............. ................. 4-40

4.8 Cumulative Impacts of Operations During the License Renewal Term ...... 4-40

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the

Plant Cooling System ........... .......................... 4-41

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the

Transmission Lines ............ ........................... 4-42

4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts ............................. 4-43

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts .......................... 4-44

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality ..... ........ 4-44

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species .... .... 4-45

4.8.7 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts ..... ............... 4-48

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term ..... ....... 4-48

4.10 References .......... 4-49

April 2006 vii NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Contents

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents ................. 5-1

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents ................ 5-1

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents ................ 5-2

5.1.2 Severe Accidents ................ 5-3

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) ........ ........ 5-4

5.2.1 Introduction ................ 5-4

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk ................ 5-5

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements .5-6

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements . 5-8

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison . 5-8

5.2.6 Conclusions . 5-11

5.3 References . 5-11

6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and

Solid Waste Management . 6-1

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle . 6-2

6.2 References . 6-9

7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning . 7-1

7.1 Decommissioning . 7-2

7.2 References . 7-5

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to Operating License Renewal . . 8-1

8.1 No-Action Alternative . 8-1

8.1.1 Land Use . 8-2

8.1.2 Ecology . 8-3

8.1.3 Water Use and Quality . 8-4

8.1.4 Air Quality . 8-4

8.1.5 Waste . 8-4

8.1.6 Human Health . 8-4

8.1.7 Socioeconomics . 8-5

8.1.8 Aesthetics . 8-5

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 viii April 2006
Contents

8.1.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources ... .................... 8-6

8.1.10 Environmental Justice ........................ ............. 8-6

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources ....................................... 8-6

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation .................. ................... 8-8

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ........................ 8-9

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System ....................... 8-22

8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation ............................... 8-22

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System .8-23

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System .8-23

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation .8-33 1

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System .8-33

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System .8-41

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power ....................... 8-41

8.2.5 Other Aftematives .. 8-41 1

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation .8-42 1

8.2.5.2 Wind Power .8-43 1

8.2.5.3 Solar Power .8-43 1

8.2.5.4 Hydropower .8-44

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy .8-44 1

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste .8-44 I

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste .8-45 1

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels .8-45 I

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells .8-46 1

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement .. 8-46 1

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation .8-47 1

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives .8-48 1

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered ..... ...... 8-51 1

8.4 References .8-52 1

April 2006 ix NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Contents

9.0 Summary and Conclusions ...........................................

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action - License Renewal ........

9.1.1

9.1.2

9.1.3

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................

Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments ..............

Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity .................

9-1

9-4

9-5

9-6

9-6

9-7

9-7

9-9

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License

Renewal and Alternatives ........................................

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations ............................

9.4 References ..................................................

Appendix A - Comments Received on the Environmental Review ................

Appendix B - Contributors to the Supplement ...............................

Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Carolina Power & Light Company's Application for License

Renewal of Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 ...........

Appendix D - Organizations Contacted ....................................

Appendix E - Carolina Power & Light Company's Compliance Status and

Consultation Correspondence ................................

Appendix F - GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 ...

Appendix G - NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 in Support of the

License Renewal Application Review ...........................

A-1

B-1

C-1

D-1

E-i

F-1

G-1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 x April 2006
Figures

2-1 Location of BSEP, 50-mi Region .2-2

2-2 Location of BSEP, 6-mi Region ....................................... 2-3

2-3 BSEP Site Boundary Map ............................................. 2-4

2-4 BSEP General Plant Layout .......................................... 2-5

2-5 BSEP Transmission Line Map ........................................ 2-16

4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas) Within

50 mi of the BSEP Site Based on 2000 Census Block Group Data ..... ....... 4-34

4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-income Populations (shown in shaded areas)

Within 50 mi of the BSEP Site Based on 2000 Census Block Group Data .... ... 4-35

April 2006 xi NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Tables

2-1 BSEP Transmission Lines .2-17

2-2 Federally Listed and State-Listed Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring

I in the Vicinity of BSEP ................... ........................... 2-25

2-3 Federally Listed Terrestrial Species Reported from Counties

I Associated with BSEP and Its Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ..... ......... 2-34

2-4 North Carolina State-Listed Terrestrial Species Reported From Counties

I Associated with BSEP and Its Transmission Line Rights-of-Way ..... ......... 2-35

1 2-5 BSEP Permanent and Contractor Employment . 2-45

1 2-6 Housing Units by County During 1990 and 2000 . 2-46

I 2-7 Water Supply and Demand in the Lower Cape Fear Planning Group . 2-47

2-8 Traffic Counts for Roads in the Vicinity of BSEP . 2-49

1 2-9 Land-Use Classification in the 50 mi Region of BSEP . 2-49

1 2-10 Regional Population Growth .. 2-52

I 2-11 Year 2000 Population Distribution Within 50 mi of the BSEP Site . 2-52

I 2-12 Local Government Revenues and Property Tax Payments for BSEP . . 2-55

3-1 Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation .......................... 3-2

3-2 Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation .......................... 3-3

4-1 Category I Issues Applicable to the Operation of the BSEP Cooling System

During the License Renewal Term ..................................... 4-2

4-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the BSEP Cooling System

During the License Renewal Term . 4-10

4-3 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the BSEP Transmission Lines

During the License Renewal Term . 4-19

4-4 Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the BSEP

Transmission Lines During the License Renewal Term . 4-21

4-5 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

During the License Renewal Term . 4-23

4-6 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the

License Renewal Term . 4-25

4-7 Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable

to Socioeconomics During the License Renewal Term . 4-27

4-8 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality

During the License Renewal Term . 4-36

4-9 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species

in the Vicinity of BSEP During the License Renewal Term . 4-37

4-10 Actions that Would Determine Cumulative Impacts to Sea Turtles in

the Vicinity of BSEP . 4-47

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 Ai April 2006
Contents

5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the

License Renewal Term .............................................. 5-3

5-2 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the

License Renewal Term ....................... 5-4

5-3 BSEP Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events ......................... 5-7

5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Model ..... ......... 5-7

6-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle

and Solid Waste Management During the License Renewal Term .... ......... 6-2

7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning

of BSEP Units 1 and 2 Following the License Renewal Term ..... ............ 7-2

8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ..... ......... 8-3

8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the BSEP Site and an Alternate Site ..... ........... 8-10

8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at the BSEP Site ................................ 8-22

8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas Combined-Cycle

Generation Using Closed-Cycle Cooling at the BSEP Site

and at an Altemative Site ............................................ 8-24

8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas Combined-Cycle

Generation Using Once-Through Cooling at the BSEP Site ..... ............. 8-32

8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the BSEP Site and an Altemate Site ..... ........... 8-35

8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant

Using Once-Through Cooling at the BSEP Site ............................ 8-42

8-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts of an 1460 MW(e) of Natural Gas-Fired

Generation, 300 MW(e) from Purchased Power and 149 MW(e) from

Demand-Side Management Measures .................................. 8-49

9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action

Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation Using Closed-Cycle

Cooling Except as Otherwise Specified ................................. 9-8

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period ..... ....... A-2

A-2 Comments Received on the Draft SEIS ............................... A-9

E-1 Consultation Correspondence Regarding License Renewal

for BSEP Units 1 and 2 ........................... E-1

April 2006 xiii NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Contents

E-2 Federal Permits, Licenses, and Other Entitlements Related to Renewal

I oftheBSEPOLs ................ .................................. E-3

F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to BSEP ....................... F-1

G-1 BSEP Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events ......................... G-3

G-2 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Method ..... ......... G-4

G-3 BSEP PSA Historical Summary ........................................ G-6

G-4 SAMA Cost-Benefit Screening Analysis .G-1 8

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 xiv April 2006
Executive Summary

On October 18, 2004, the Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L), now doing business as

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses (OLs) for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,

Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) for an additional 20-year period. If the OLs are renewed, State regulatory

agencies and CP&L will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate, based on

factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview

of the owners. If the OLs are not renewed, then the plant must be shut down at or before the

expiration dates of the current OLs, which are September 8, 2016, for Unit 1, and December

27, 2014, for Unit 2.

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

an environmental impact statement (EIS) for major Federal actions that significantly affect the

quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section 102 of NEPA in Title 10

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Part 51 identifies licensing and regulatory

actions that require an EIS. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an

EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states

that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2.(a)

Upon acceptance of the CP&L application, the NRC began the environmental review process

described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

scoping. The staff visited the BSEP site in January 2005 and held public scoping meetings on

January 27, 2005, in Southport, North Carolina. In the preparation of this supplemental

environmental impact statement (SEIS) for BSEP, the staff reviewed the CP&L Environmental

Report (ER) and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, conducted an

independent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1, the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, and considered the public comments

received during the scoping process. The public comments received during the scoping

process are provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this SEIS.

The staff held two public meetings in Southport, North Carolina, on October 18, 2005, to

describe the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and to answer questions to

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

SEIS. When the 75-day comment period ended, the staff considered and dispositioned all of

the comments received. These comments are addressed in Appendix A, Part 1I, of this SEIS.

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

references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 xv NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Executive Summary

I This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action,

I and measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's

recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal

from the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current

nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such

needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than

NRC) decisionmakers.

I The evaluation criterion for the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51 .95(c)(4)

and the GEIS, is to determine

... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that would ultimately determine whether the

existing nuclear power plants continue to operate beyond the period of the current OLs.

NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the

proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits

and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative

in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the

supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need

not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action

and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the

scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) ["Temporary storage of spent fuel after

cessation of reactor operation-generic determination of no significant environmental

impact] and in accordance with § 51.23(b).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 xvi April 2006
Executive Summary

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of thi6 consequences of renewing

an OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates

92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance - SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE - developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.

The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS reached the following

conclusions:

(1) The environmental Impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply

either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or

other specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to

the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the

analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are

not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

the GEIS for issues designated as Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B.

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized.

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plantApril 2006 xvii NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Executive Summary

specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields

was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

This SEIS documents the staff's evaluation of all 92 environmental issues considered in the

GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The

alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

renewing the OLs for BSEP) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on

projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration

(DOE/EIA), gas- and coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation

alternatives if the power from BSEP is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming

that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the BSEP site or some other

unspecified alternate location in North Carolina.

CP&L and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither

CP&L nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to

Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither

the scoping process nor the staff review has identified any new issue applicable to BSEP that

has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the

GEIS for all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to BSEP.

CP&L's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues, plus

environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff reviewed the

CP&L analysis for each issue and conducted an independent review of each issue. Six

Category 2 issues are not applicable, because they are related to plant design features or site

characteristics not found at BSEP. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS,

because they are specifically related to refurbishment. CP&L has stated that its evaluation of

structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant

refurbishment activities or modifications as being necessary to support the continued operation

of BSEP for the license renewal term. In addition, any replacement of components or additional

inspection activities that are within the bounds of normal plant operation are not expected to

affect the environment outside the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final

Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Brunswick Nuclear Steam Electric Plant

Units 1 and 2, issued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1974.

Eleven Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

license renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic

fields, are discussed in detail in this SEIS. Four of the Category 2 issues and environmental

justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation during the license renewal term and are

only discussed in this SEIS in relation to operation during the license renewal term. For all 11

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 xviii April 2006
Executive Summary

Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential

environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the

GEIS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not

reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields.

Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to

identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs and of the individual plant

examination of external events report for BSEP and the plant improvements already made,

CP&L identified 12 potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. CP&L has committed to further evaluate

these 12 SAMAs. The staff concludes that three additional SAMAs are potentially costbeneficial. However, none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified relate to

adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore,

they need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were

considered, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person would undertake

such other actions. For purposes of this analysis, where BSEP license renewal impacts were

deemed to be SMALL, the staff concluded that these impacts would not result in significant

cumulative impacts on potentially affected resources.

If the BSEP OLs are not renewed, and the units cease operation on or before the expiration of

the current OLs, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives would not be smaller than those

associated with continued operation of BSEP. The impacts may, in fact, be greater in some

areas.

The recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse

environmental impacts of license renewal for BSEP are not so great that preserving the option

of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This

recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by

CP&L; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own

independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments.

April 2006 xix NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Abbreviations/Acronyms

Pm micrometer(s)

ac

AC

ACC

ADAMS

AEA

AEC

AOC

AOE

AOG

AOSC

I APE

I APE

ATWS

I AQCR

IAQI

I BA

I Bq

BSEP

Btu

BWR

BWROG

I C0

I CAIR

CDF

CEO

CFR

cfs

Ci

I cm

I CO

COE

COPC

CP&L

CRD

CWA

DBA

acre(s)

alternating current

averted cleanup and decontamination costs

Agencywide Document Access and Management System

Atomic Energy Act of 1954

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

averted off sie property damage costs

averted occupational exposure

augmented off-gas

averted onsite costs

(cultural resources) area of potential effect

averted public exposure

anticipated transient without scram

air quality control region

air quality index

biological assessment

becquerel(s)

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

British thermal unit(s)

boiling water reactor

Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group

Degree Celsius

Clean Air Interstate Rule

core damage frequency

Council on Environmental Quality

Code of Federal Regulations

cubic feet per second

curie(s)

centimeter(s)

carbon monoxide

cost of enhancement

chemicals of potential concern

Carolina Power & Light Company

control rod drive

Clean Water Act

design-basis accident(s)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 xx April 2006
Abbreviations/Acronyms

DC direct current

DCH direct containment heating

DHR decay heat removal

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DPR demonstration project reactor

DSM demand-side management

EA environmental assessment

EDG emergency diesel generator

EFH essential fish habitat

EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)

EIS environmental impact statement

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field

EOP Emergency Operating Procedure

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EPU extended power uprate

EQ equipment qualification

ER environmental report

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Operating

License Renewal

OF Degree Fahrenheit

FAA U.S. Federal Aviation Administration

FES final environmental statement

FONSI finding of no significant impact

FR Federal Register

FSAR final safety analysis report

ft foot (feet)

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

1977)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

g/d gallons per day

gal gallon(s)

GDC general design criteria

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

GIS geographic information system

GL generic letter

gpm gallons per minute

April 2006 xxi NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Abbreviations/Acronyms

ha

HCLPF

HCTL

HEP

HHSI

HLW

hr

Hz

HIC

HVAC

In.

IPA

IPE

IPEEE

ISFSI

ISLOCA

J

kg

km

kV

kV/m

kWh

hectare(s)

high confidence of low probability of failure

heat capacity temperature limit

human error probability

high heady safety injection

high-level waste

hour(s)

hertz

high-integrity container

heating, cooling, and air-conditioning

inch(es)

integrated plant assessment

individual plant examination

individual plant examination of external events

independent spent fuel storage installation

interfacing systems loss-of-coolant accident,

joule(s)

kilogram(s)

kilometer(s)

kilovolt(s)

kilovolts per meter

kilowatt hour(s)

L

Us

I lb

I LCFWSA

LERF

LLW

LNG

LOCA

LOOP

LWR

m

mr/s

m3/d

m3/s

liter(s)

liters per second

pound(s)

Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority

large early release frequency

low-level waste

liquefied natural gas

loss-of-coolant accident

loss of offsite power

light-water reactor

meter(s)

meters per second

cubic meters per day

cubic meters per second

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 xxii April 2006
Abbreviations/Acronyms

mA

MAAP

MACCS2

MACR

MCR

MGD

mi

mL

MMACR

MOVs

mph

mrad

mrem

MSA

MSIV

msl

MT

MTHM

MTU

MW

MWd/MTU

MW(e)

MW(t)

MWh

NA

NAS

NCCLT

NCDENR

NCDOT

NCNHP

NCI

NCSDC

NEPA

NESC

ng/J

NHPA

NIEHS

NMFS

NOAA

NO.

milliampere(s)

Modular Accident Analysis Program

MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

maximum averted cost risk

main control room

million gallons per day

mile(s)

milliliter(s)

modified maximum averted cost risk

motor-operated valves

miles per hour

millirad

millirem

Metropolitan Statistical Area

main steam isolation valve

mean sea level

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

metric tonnes heavy metal

metric ton(s)-uranium

megawatt(s)

megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium

megawatt(s) electric

megawatt(s) thermal

megawatt hour(s)

not applicable

National Academy of Sciences

North Carolina Coastal Land Trust

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

North Carolina Department of Transportation

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program

National Cancer Institute

North Carolina Statistical Data Center

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Electric Safety Code

nanogram per joule

National Historic Preservation Act

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

nitrogen oxide(s)

April 2006 xxii NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NPDES

NRC

NWPPC

ODCM

OL

PAME

PM2 .

5

PM10

ppt

PSA

PSD

RAI

RCIC

RCS

REMP

RLE

rms

RPC

RRW

s

I SAMA

I SAR

SBO

SBLOCA

SCR

SEIS

SER

SHPO

I SO2

Sax

I tpy

UAT

UDB

UFSAR

U.S.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Northwest Power Planning Council

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

operating license

primary amoebic meningoencephalitis

particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less in diameter

particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter

parts per thousand

Probabilistic Safety Assessment

prevention of significant deterioration

request for additional information

reactor core isolation cooling

reactor coolant system

radiological environmental monitoring program

review level earthquake

root mean square

replacement-power cost

risk-reduction worth

second(s)

severe accident mitigation alternative(s)

safety analysis report

station blackout

small break loss-of-coolant accident

selective catalytic reduction

supplemental environmental impact statement

Safety Evaluation Report

State Historic Preservation Officer

sulfur dioxide

sulfur oxide(s)

tons per year

unit auxiliary transformer

urban development boundary

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

United States

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 Xxiv April 2006
Abbreviations/Acronyms

USC United States Code

USCB U.S. Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey

US! unresolved safety issue I

V volt(s) I

W watt(s) I

W/m2 watts per meter squared

yr year(s)

April 2006 xav NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
- I
1.0 Introduction

Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) environmental protection regulations in

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which implement the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license

(OL) requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing the EIS,

the NRC staff is required, first, to issue the statement in draft form for public comment, and then

to issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft. To support the

preparation of the EIS, the staff has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,

1999).(a) The GEIS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of

environmental impacts that may occur as a result of license renewal of nuclear power plants

under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) identify and assess the impacts that are expected to be generic to

license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 in defining the number and scope of issues that

need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal proceedings. The GEIS guides

the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the OL renewal process.

The Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), now doing business as Progress Energy

Carolinas, Inc., operates Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) in

southeastern North Carolina under NRC OLs DPR-71 and DPR-62. The OL for Unit 1 will expire

September 8, 2016, and the Unit 2 license will expire December 27, 2014. On October 18,

2004, CP&L submitted an application to the NRC to renew the BSEP OLs for an additional

20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. CP&L is a licensee for the purposes of its current OLs and an

applicant for the renewal of the OLs. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), CP&L submitted

an Environmental Report (ER) (CP&L 2004) in which CP&L analyzed the environmental impacts

associated with the proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed

action, and evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental effects.

This report is the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for the

CP&L license-renewal application. This SEIS is a supplement to the GEIS because it relies, in

part, on the findings of the GEIS. The staff will also prepare a separate safety evaluation report

in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.

1.1 Report Contents

The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for preparation of this

SEIS, including the development of the GEIS and the process used by the staff to assess the

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

references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 1 1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Introduction

environmental impacts associated with license renewal; (2) describe the proposed Federal

action to renew the BSEP OLs; (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action; and

(4) present the status of CP&L's compliance with environmental quality standards and

requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies that are

responsible for environmental protection.

The ensuing chapters of this SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the GEIS.

Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment.

Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant

refurbishment and plant operation during the license renewal term. Chapter 5 is a summary of

the evaluation of potential environmental impacts of plant accidents, including consideration of

severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle

and solid waste management. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses

alternatives to license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding

chapters and draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, the

relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of

resources. Chapter 9 also presents the staff's recommendation with respect to the proposed

license renewal action.

Additional information is included in the appendixes. Appendix A contains public comments

received on the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses to the public

comments. Appendixes B through G, respectively, list the following:

* the preparers of the supplement

* the chronology of the NRC staff's environmental review correspondence related to

this SEIS

* the organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS

* CP&L's compliance status in Table E-1 (this appendix also contains copies of

consultation correspondence prepared and sent during the evaluation process)

* GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to BSEP

* NRC staff evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 1-2 April2006
Introduction

1.2 Background

Use of the GEIS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a

result of renewing individual nuclear power plant OLs under 10 CFR Part 54, and the established

license renewal evaluation process, supports the thorough evaluation of the impacts of renewal

of OLs.

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the

license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting

the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This

assessment is provided in the GEIS, which serves as the principal reference for all nuclear

power plant license renewal ElSs.

The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the

environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and

operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the GEIS

(1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or resource

that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population

or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse

effects, (5) determines whether the results of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers

whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the

same significance level for all plants.

The NRC's standard of significance of impacts was established using the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires

consideration of both ucontext" and "intensity"). Using the CEO terminology, the NRC

established three significance levels - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The definitions of the

three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,Subpart A,

Appendix B, as follows:

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

April 2006 1-3 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Introduction

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

important attributes of the resource.

The GElS assigns a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that ongoing

mitigation measures would continue.

The GElS also includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental Issue could

be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues

are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1

issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the Issue has been considered in the analysis,

and It has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to

be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

In the GElS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as

Category I issues and 21 qualified as Category 2 issues. Two Issues, environmental justice and

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized and are addressed in plantspecific analyses. Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis in the GElS, and

information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the time the

GElS was prepared. Of the 92 issues, I11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are related only to

decommissioning, 67 apply only to operation during the license renewal term, and 8 apply to

both refurbishment and operation during the license renewal term. A summary of the findings

for all 92 issues in the GElS is codified in Table B-i of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 14Arl20 1-4 April 2006
Introduction

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process

An applicant seeking to renew its OL(s) is required to submit an ER as part of its application.

The license-renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant's ER as well as

assurance that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in or

available during the GEIS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the

environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51 .53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must

* provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues identified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

* discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action and

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to

* consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the

proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for

making a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of

alternatives considered or (2) relevant to mitigation

* consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of

the proposed action and the alternatives

* discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic

determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b)

* contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is significant new information on

a specific issue - this is pursuant to 10 CFR 51 .53(c)(3)(iii) and (iv).

New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental issue

not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, or

(2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS and that leads

to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and codified in

10 CFR Part 51.

In preparing to submit its application to renew the BSEP OLs, CP&L developed a process to

ensure that (1) information not addressed in or available during the GEIS evaluation regarding

the environmental impacts of license renewal for BSEP would be properly reviewed before

April 2006 1-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Introduction

submitting the ER and (2) that such new and potentially significant information related to renewal

of the licenses for Units 1 and 2 would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the period of

NRC review. CP&L reviewed the Category 1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid with respect to

BSEP. This review was performed by personnel from CP&L and its support organization who

were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the preparation of a

license renewal ER.

The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process

is described in detail in Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP), NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1

(NRC 2000). The search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant's ER and the

process for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of

records of public comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations;

(4) coordination with Federal, State, and local environmental protection and resource agencies;

and (5) review of the technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is evaluated

for significance using the criteria set forth in the GEIS. For Category 1 issues for which new and

significant information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those issues is limited

in scope to the assessment of the relevant new and significant information. The scope of the

assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the new

information.

Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GEIS that are

applicable to BSEP. At the beginning of the discussion of each set of issues, a table identifies

the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS in which the issue is discussed.

Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1 issues for which

there is no new and significant information, the table is followed by a set of short paragraphs that

state the GEIS conclusion codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

followed by the staff's analysis and conclusion. For Category 2 issues, in addition to the list of

GEIS sections where the issue is discussed, the tables list the subparagraph of 10 CFR

51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and the SEIS sections in which the analysis is

presented. The SEIS sections that include discussions of the Category 2 issues immediately

follow the table.

The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal and

compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of altematives. The evaluation of the

CP&L license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for docketing

and opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register (69 FR 70471) on December 6, 2004. The

staff published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (70 FR 2188) on

January 12, 2005. Two public scoping meetings were held on January 27, 2005, in Southport,

North Carolina. Comments received during the scoping period were summarized in the

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 1 -6 April 2006
Introduction

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report - Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Units I and2, Southport, North Carolina (NRC 2005). These comments are also

presented in Part 1 of Appendix A.

The staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, in the

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1:

Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff and contractors retained to assist the staff

visited the BSEP site on January 25 and 26, 2005, to gather information and to become familiar

with the site and its environs. The staff also reviewed the comments received during scoping

and consulted with Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. A list of the organizations

consulted is provided in Appendix D. Other documents related to BSEP were reviewed and are

referenced in this report.

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

of the NRC staff's review began on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Notice of Filing of the draft SEIS. During this comment period, two public meetings were

held in Southport, North Carolina, on October 18, 2005. During these meetings, the staff

described the preliminary results of the NRC environmental review and answered questions

related to it to provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their

comments.

This SEIS presents the staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of

the proposed renewal of the OL for BSEP, the environmental impacts of alternatives to license

renewal, and mitigation measures available for avoiding adverse environmental effects.

Chapter 9, "Summary and Conclusions," provides the NRC staff's recommendation to the

Commission on whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so

great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OLs for BSEP Units 1 and 2. BSEP is located in

Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

Wilmington, North Carolina, is approximately 15 miles north of the BSEP site, and Myrtle Beach,

South Carolina, is approximately 50 miles to the southwest. BSEP uses boiling water reactors

and steam-driven turbine generators manufactured by General Electric. Upon completion of the

extended power uprate in the spring of 2005, each reactor will have a licensed core thermal level

of approximately 2923 megawatts-thermal, and Units 1 and 2 will be capable of generating 958

and 951 megawatts-electrical, respectively. Plant cooling is provided by withdrawing water from

the Cape Fear River. The current OL for Unit 1 expires on September 8, 2016, and the OL for

April2006 1-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Introduction

Unit 2 expires on December 27, 2014. By letter dated October 18, 2004, CP&L submitted an

application to the NRC (CP&L 2004) to renew these OLs for an additional 20 years of operation

(i.e., until September 2036, for Unit 1 and December 2034, for Unit 2).

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the

existing OL, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be met

for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once an OL

is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide whether

the plant will continue to operate, based on factors such as the need for power or other matters

within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.

Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and

need (GEIS Section 1.3):

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current

nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such

needs may be determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than

NRC) decisionmakers.

This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or findings in the NEPA

environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC

does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as to

whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. From the perspective of

the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an OL is to maintain the

availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements beyond the current term of

the plant's OL.

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

CP&L is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as to

meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements, in order to operate BSEP. In its ER,

CP&L provided a list of the authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current

operations, as well as environmental approvals and consultations associated with the BSEP

license renewal. Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed OLs renewal action

are included in Appendix E of this SEIS.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 1 -8 April 2006
Introduction

The staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of

concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any new and significant

environmental issues. The ER states that BSEP is in compliance with applicable environmental

standards and requirements for BSEP. The staff has not identified any environmental issues

that are both new and significant.

1.6 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

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

"Terminology and Index."

69 FR 70471. December 6, 2004. "Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and

Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for

an Additional 20-year Period." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

70 FR 2188. January 12, 2005. "Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units No. 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-

325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes I and 2, Washington, D.C.

April 2006 1-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Introduction

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report. "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report."

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

Process: Summary Report - Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. I and 2, Southport, North

Carolina. Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 1-10 April 2006
2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site

and Plant Interaction with the Environment

The Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), is owned by Carolina Power & Light

Company (CP&L), currently operating as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. The facility is located

in Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

BSEP is a two-unit plant using boiling water reactors (BWRs) and steam-driven turbine

generators manufactured by General Electric. The plants have been operating since 1974

(Unit 2) and 1976 (Unit 1). BSEP obtains its cooling water from the Cape Fear River and

discharges into the Atlantic Ocean about 2000 ft offshore. The station and its environs are

described in Section 2.1, and its interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2.

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation

During the License Renewal Term

The BSEP site is 15 miles (mi) south of Wilmington, North Carolina, in Brunswick County, and

is 50 mi northeast of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The area within a 6-mi radius of the site

includes the town of Southport, the community of Boiling Spring Lakes, and the resort

communities of Caswell Beach, Oak Island, and Bald Head Island. The Military Ocean

Terminal Sunny Point is situated immediately to the north of the BSEP site. Figures 2-1

and 2-2 show the site location and features within 50 and 6 mi, respectively.

Cooling water for BSEP is a once-through heat dissipation system in which water is drawn from

the Cape Fear River and is transported to BSEP by way of a 3-mi-long intake canal from the

river through Snows Marsh to the plant. After passing through the plant's condensers, the

heated water travels through a 6-mi-long discharge canal to Caswell Beach, where it is pumped

2000 ft offshore through underwater discharge pipes into the Atlantic Ocean.

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

BSEP is situated on approximately 1200 ac of land near the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

The site boundary is approximately 962 acres (Figure 2-3). The protected area is surrounded

by a perimeter fence. It contains the two reactor buildings and the turbine, control, radwaste,

and diesel generator buildings. The major administrative and support facilities

cover about 130 acres. Figure 2-4 shows the general plant layout.

The intake canal runs from the Cape Fear River, through a fish diversion structure, and through

Snows Marsh to the plant. A fish return system diverts many of the fish and other organisms

that were impinged on the traveling screens back to the Cape Fear Estuary. Cooling water

April 2006 2-1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Jor Roads Inbrabt

Puimary road

5I L Ikw. and Rivera

Federtal L1A~

M Couaty Boundaris _ UtEa UAreas

Figure 2-1. Location of BSEP, 50-Mile Region

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-2 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Federal Lwd

L -s Wd Rbes

Figure 2-2. Location of BSEP, 6-Mile Region

April 2006 2-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

0. w

D20. co

m

03

awIL

A_0) ii:

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-4 April 2006
_ CONTRACrOR PARKING

Z A"~r TMainngECeter -

a) /J~tt 7iM h 7 ffSw~tchyard . rD b 3 ~~~~EMPLOYEE PARKING r 1-,'{;

gAp meTurbine Land ene FIIIArea

_ _ _ _ _ Bulln__ 

Raddwe 0-

ng9 /Bu_ tldl d t @

- Fe(nfcesr~) ~ o ll g 3 ~co 3 v_ _ CD 

Z Fu 2-4. BSEP Ge Pa Layout

unfinLEOEND I

coa RalroadG

Tinn Center_

CA Figum2-d BSPeeaClnLyu = tD

Cn FneC
Plant and the Environment

from the canal passes through the plant's condensers, and the heated water travels 6 mi

through a discharge canal to Caswell Beach, before being pumped 2000 ft offshore through

underwater pipes into the Atlantic Ocean (CP&L 2004a).

The plant is located in the eastern-most part of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, near

the southeastern border of North Carolina. It is in a region of low relief, with elevations ranging

from sea level to about 30 ft above mean sea level. Extensive areas of marshes and swamps

occur in the region (AEC 1974). The area immediately surrounding the BSEP site is a mix of

agricultural lands, woodlands, swamps, and marshes. Except for Southport and the few small

local communities, the area is rural in nature, with privately-owned forestland, forested wetland,

and crop land (CP&L 2004a). The Cape Fear Estuary is an important waterway in the region,

and the lower Cape Fear area is important for recreation in the area (AEC 1974).

2.1.2 Reactor Systems

BSEP is a two-unit plant, each with a BWR and a steam-driven turbine generator manufactured

by General Electric. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. was the architect/engineer for the

project, and Brown and Root, Inc. was the construction contractor. As originally built and

operated, each of the BSEP units had a design rating of 2436 megawatts-thermal [MW(t)], with

a corresponding net electrical output of approximately 821 megawatts-electric [MW(e)]. In

1996, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved an increase in the licensed

maximum core power levels for the BSEP units to 2558 MW(t) per unit. In May 2002, the NRC

approved a second uprate. Plant modifications needed to support the extended power uprate

(EPU) were completed during the outage in the spring of 2005; each reactor currently has a

licensed core power level of approximately 2923 MW(t). Unit 1 is capable of generating 958

MW(e), and Unit 2 is capable of generating 951 MW(e). Fuel enrichment at BSEP will increase

to approximately 4.4 percent as a result of the EPU, with bumup remaining at approximately

45,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium.

Each reactors primary containment is a pressure suppression system consisting of a drywell, a

pressure-suppression chamber storing a large volume of water, a connecting vent system

between the drywell and the suppression pool, a vacuum relief system, isolation valves,

containment cooling systems, and other service equipment.

Spent fuel is currently stored onsite in a storage pool. Certain spent fuel elements meeting

burnup and cooling criteria are shipped offsite for storage. CP&L is considering building a dry

cask storage facility for BSEP (CP&L 2004a).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-6 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

Cooling water for BSEP is obtained from the lower Cape Fear River Estuary and discharged to

the Atlantic Ocean. Water passes from the lower Cape Fear Estuary through screens used to

limit the entrainment of biota into the intake canal. The 3-mi-long intake canal flows via gravity

from the screens at the Cape Fear River to the plant. At the plant, cooling water is drawn

through a combination of eight bays (four for each unit). Each bay has a trash rack, traveling

screens, and an intake pump. For each unit, two bays have fine mesh (1-mm) screens, and the

other two bays have half fine mesh and half coarse (3/8-in.; 9.4-mm) mesh screens. Typically,

each unit operates with two of the fine mesh bays and one of the half fine bays. Biota impinged

on the traveling screens are flushed through a trough to a holding basin before being released

to Walden Creek, which flows into the Cape Fear River.

After passing through the plant, the discharge water is released to a 6-mi-long canal that flows

by gravity to a stilling basin at Caswell Beach. From there, the effluent is pumped through a

2000-ft submerged pipe and discharged offshore into the Atlantic Ocean. Chlorine is injected

into the circulating water intake system to prevent biofouling. Total residual chlorine is

monitored under terms of the plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit before the effluent Is pumped into the ocean.

BSEP receives potable and process water from the Brunswick County Public Utilities.

CP&L reports that from 1996 through 2001, BSEP's water imports averaged

0.23 million gallons per day (MGD). Most of the water treated by Brunswick County

Public Utilities is surface water from the lower Cape Fear River. BSEP operates one

groundwater well onsite to supply water to the biological laboratory. The well has a rated

capacity of 30 gpm, but the actual use is far less than this rated capacity.

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent Control Systems

Radioactive wastes resulting from plant operations are classified as liquid, gaseous, and solid

wastes. BSEP uses radioactive waste management systems to collect and process these

wastes before they are released to the environment or shipped to offsite disposal facilities. The

waste disposal systems meet the design objectives and release limits as set forth in Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I ('Numerical

Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As

Low As Is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear

Power Reactor Effluents"), and control the processing, disposal, and release of radioactive

wastes. Unless otherwise noted, the descriptions of the radioactive waste management

systems and effluent control systems for liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes presented here

April 2006 2-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

(Sections 2.1.4.1, 2.1.4.2, and 2.1.4.3, respectively) are based on information provided in the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (CP&L 2001).

The liquid and gaseous radioactive waste systems are designed to reduce the activity in the

wastes so the concentrations in routine discharges are below the applicable regulatory limits.

Liquid waste releases to the discharge canal occur in batches, which are monitored during

discharge and diluted by the circulating water flow. Gaseous wastes are processed and routed

to a common tall stack for release to the atmosphere, or filtered and released through the

turbine and reactor building vents. The liquid and gaseous effluents are continuously

monitored, and discharge is stopped if the effluent concentrations exceed predetermined levels.

Radioactive fission products build up within the fuel as a consequence of the fission process.

These fission products are contained in the sealed fuel rods, but as a result of fuel cladding

failure and corrosion, small quantities escape from the fuel rods and contaminate the reactor

coolant. Neutron activation of the primary coolant system Is also responsible for coolant

contamination. Nonfuel solid wastes result from treating and separating radionuclides from

gases and liquids, and from removing contaminated material from various reactor areas. Solid

wastes also consist of reactor components, equipment, and tools removed from service, as well

as contaminated protective clothing, paper, rags, and other trash generated from plant

operations, during design modification, and during routine maintenance activities. The solid

waste disposal system is designed to package solid wastes for removal to disposal facilities.

Some solid waste is temporarily stored onsite.

Fuel assemblies that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and that are removed

from the reactor core for disposal are called spent fuel. BSEP Units 1 and 2 currently operate

on 24-month refueling cycles, with one unit refueled each year. Spent fuel is temporarily stored

in spent fuel pools, with each unit having its own pool, or is shipped offsite for storage in spent

fuel pools at CP&L's Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. In April 2003, CP&L announced that

it was considering construction of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) for

storage of spent fuel in dry storage casks at BSEP (CP&L 2004a).

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for BSEP describes the methods used for

calculating radioactivity concentrations in the environment and the estimated potential offsite

doses associated with liquid and gaseous effluents from BSEP (CP&L 2004b). The ODCM also

specifies controls for release of liquid and gaseous effluents to ensure compliance with NRC

regulations.

In the fall of 2001, CP&L submitted a request to NRC to amend the BSEP facility operating

licenses to allow for a EPU of 15 percent, from 2558 MW(t) to 2923 MW(t) (CP&L 2004a). The

NRC prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI)

for this action, concluding that the issuance of the amendment would not have a significant

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-8 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

effect on the quality of the human environment (67 FR 36040). In the EA and FONSI, NRC

concluded that the uprate could result in up to a 15-percent increase in the amount of

radioactive material in gaseous effluents, no significant increase in the amount of radioactive

material in liquid effluents, and up to a 15-percent increase in solid radioactive wastes

(67 FR 36040). Concentrations in effluents and the resulting offsite doses would continue to be

well within applicable regulatory limits (67 FR 36040). The EPU was completed in the spring of

2005 (CP&L 2004a).

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

The liquid radioactive waste system receives and processes all radioactive or potentially

radioactive liquid wastes from multiple sources in both units. The wastes received are of

different purities and chemical compositions. The liquid radioactive waste system is used to

process these wastes, to make them suitable for either reuse within the plant or for release to

the discharge canal where dilution occurs with the circulating water.

The principal sources of liquid waste are equipment drains (high purity), floor drains (medium to

low purity), chemical wastes (very low purity), detergents, and oily liquid drains. The larger

volumes of liquid radioactive waste are contained within completely closed tanks that are

vented to the radioactive waste building ventilation system. The salt water release tank is also

connected to the liquid radioactive waste system. The salt water release tank, an open top tank

in the turbine building pipe tunnel, is used to collect, monitor, and release salt water leakage

and low-activity, low-purity liquids.

High-purity liquid waste is liquid effluent having a low conductivity, thus making it generally

reclaimable for reuse within the nuclear facility. High purity wastes are recycled, except shortly

after refueling operations, when a portion or all of the processed refueling water is discharged

(after proper treatment and monitoring) to maintain plant operational liquid inventory balance.

These wastes are collected in the waste collector tank from a variety of sources, including the

equipment drain sumps in the drywell, reactor building, radioactive waste building, and turbine

building. The high-purity wastes are processed by filtration and ion exchange and sampled. If

the analysis of the sample reveals water of a conductivity greater than administrative controls

allow, it is returned to the system for additional processing or is temporarily stored in the waste

surge tank. If the water is satisfactory for reuse, it is transferred to the condensate storage tank

and used as makeup water.

Medium- to low-purity waste is normally processed for recycle or release, depending on the

level of impurity. This waste typically comes from floor drain sumps in the drywell, reactor

building, radioactive waste building, and turbine building. This waste normally has low

concentrations of radioactive impurities and is processed by filtration.

April 2006 2-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Chemical or very low-purity waste is collected in the waste neutralizer tank or in other suitable

containers. This waste typically comes from a variety of sources, including the condensate

demineralizer area, decontamination drains and solutions, and laboratory drains. This waste

has variable radioactivities and high conductivity. The waste can be treated in the waste

neutralizer tank and subsequently processed through the waste filter and demineralizer or can

be discharged, evaporated, or processed by vendor skids.

Detergent waste, which typically comes from laundry drains, cask or area cleaning fluids, and

personnel decontamination stations, is normally of low specific activity. Connections to an

optional vendor processing skid have been provided to facilitate treatment of the detergent

drain tank water. The detergent drains are released routinely after proper sampling and

monitoring. Detergent wastes are filtered prior to release. The shop drains and the turbine

building oily drains are taken to an oil separator skid where the water and oil are separated.

Liquid waste releases occur in a batch mode and are released with the circulating water to the

discharge canal. All batches scheduled for release are sampled and analyzed and then

monitored during the discharge process. Batch releases occur only when the plant water

inventory demands it and the following conditions are met: (1) the liquids have purity levels and

chemical compositions suitable for release, (2) laboratory analysis indicate that activity levels

are sufficiently low, and (3) circulating water dilution flow exists to the extent necessary to meet

predetermined release parameters so that compliance with 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I of

10 CFR Part 50 will always be maintained.

Protection against accidental discharge is provided by redundancy in design, instrumentation

for detection and warning of abnormal conditions, and administrative controls. The actual

mechanics of a discharge require the opening of at least two separate valves, actuation of

pumps, and opening of the valves on the pump discharge. These operations are required to

occur in series, so failure of any one will prevent a discharge. Radioactivity is monitored during

the discharge, which automatically terminates if the activity exceeds preset levels.

Annual liquid effluents reported in the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Annual Radioactive

Effluent Release Reports for the years 1999 through 2003 (PEC 2000a, 2001 a, 2002a, 2003b,

2004a) were reviewed to evaluate yearly releases. Liquid effluent releases are reported for

both BSEP units combined. Over this period, an annual average of 45 batch discharges of

liquid effluents containing fission and activation products occurred. The annual average activity

released in liquid effluents was 5.6 x 1i0 CVyr of fission and activation products and 83.1 CVyr

of tritium (including releases from the storm water collection system, discussed below in

Section 2.1.5). All liquid discharges were well within the NRC regulatory limits. The

radioactivity contained in liquid discharges is not expected to increase as a result of the EPU

completed in 2005 (67 FR 36040). CP&L does not anticipate any significant annual increases

in liquid waste effluents during the license renewal term.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-10 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

See Section 2.2.7 for a discussion of the theoretical doses to the maximally exposed individual

as a result of liquid effluent releases.

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

At BSEP, gaseous releases may occur from the 1 00-m plant stack, the turbine building vents,

and the reactor building vents. Sources of releases to the stack are the main condenser steam

jet air ejectors, the radioactive waste building and off-gas charcoal absorber building ventilation

system exhausts, mechanical vacuum pump exhausts during startup, and gland seal off-gases.

Releases from the turbine and reactor building vents result from steam leakage through valve

stems, pump seals, and flanged connections. BSEP ventilation systems are designed to

maintain gaseous effluents at levels as low as reasonably achievable. This is accomplished by

a combination of holdups for decay of short-lived radioactive material, filtration, and monitoring.

The gaseous radioactive waste system processes and disposes of non-condensible gases from

the main condenser air ejectors, the startup vacuum pumps, and the gland seal condensers.

During normal operation, noncondensible gases are produced in the reactor coolant and must

be continuously removed to maintain turbine efficiency. These gases include hydrogen and

oxygen from radiolysis of water, mixed fission products, activation products, and air from

condenser In-leakage. Off-gas is discharged from the condenser via steam-jet air ejectors and

diluted with steam to keep hydrogen levels below explosive concentrations. The off-gas is then

passed through a system where hydrogen and oxygen are catalytically recombined into water.

After recombination, the off-gas is routed to a condenser to remove moisture, and then through

a 30-minute delay pipe before entering the augmented off-gas (AOG) charcoal adsorber

system. The AOG charcoal adsorber system provides a long delay period for radioisotope

decay as the off-gas passes through. Off-gas exiting the AOG charcoal adsorber system is

routed to the 1 00-m plant stack for release to the environment. A separate AOG charcoal

adsorber system is provided for each unit.

Off-gases from the gland seal condenser, startup vacuum pumps, and the radioactive waste

building ventilation exhausts bypass the AOG charcoal adsorber system; they are routed to the

plant stack to minimize release points to the environment, provide for continuous monitoring of

effluent, and take advantage of additional atmospheric dispersion. The exhaust from each

turbine building is filtered using high-efficiency particulate air and charcoal adsorption filters.

Continuous radiation monitoring is provided at various points in each system.

Gaseous effluents were reported in the Annual Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Radioactive

Effluent Release Reports for the years 1999 through 2003 (PEC 2000a, 2001 a, 2002a, 2003b,

2004a). Gaseous effluents are reported for both units combined. During this 5-yr period, the

average annual releases of radioactive effluents were as follows:

April 2006 2-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

* 674 CVyr of noble gases

* 1.99 x 10.2 CL/yr of radioiodine

* 4.64 x 10'3 CL/yr of beta and gamma emitters as particulates

* 118 CVyr of tritium.

All gaseous effluents were well within the NRC regulatory limits. As noted above, the EPU

completed in 2005 could result in up to a 15-percent increase in the amount of radioactive

material in gaseous effluents (67 FR 36040). However, such an increase would not result in

gaseous effluents exceeding applicable regulatory limits. CP&L does not anticipate any

significant annual increases in gaseous waste effluents during the license renewal term, beyond

the increase from the EPU.

See Section 2.2.7 for a discussion of the theoretical doses to the maximally exposed individual

as a result of gaseous releases.

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing

The solid waste management system at BSEP is designed to collect, process, store, package,

and prepare solid radioactive waste materials for offsite shipment. Some solid waste is

temporarily stored onsite. Solid wastes consist of spent (dewatered) resin, filters, filter sludge,

evaporator bottoms, concentrated wastes, dry compressible waste, air filters from radioactive

ventilation systems, irradiated components (control rods, etc.), contaminated clothing and tools,

paper and rags from contaminated areas, and used reactor equipment. The solid waste system

is used to process dry and wet solid radioactive wastes, and is common to Units 1 and 2.

Dry solid waste is low activity level waste consisting of contaminated air filters, miscellaneous

paper, rags, solid laboratory wastes, clothing, tools, and equipment parts. The dry solid waste

is normally stored temporarily in various work areas and then moved to the process area. Most

waste of this type has relatively low radioactive content and may be handled manually. This

waste is compressed into authorized containers for offsite shipment or interim onsite storage.

Irradiated reactor components consist primarily of spent control blades, fuel channels, in-core

ion chambers, and large pieces of equipment. Because of the high activation and

contamination levels, these components are stored in the spent fuel storage pool before

removal to onsite or offsite storage and final disposal in shielded containers.

Wet solid waste includes spent demineralizer resins, beaded charcoal, and filter and tank

sludges. The spent resins and accumulated sludges are de-watered in a vendor-supplied

dewatering system and placed in shipping containers constructed in accordance with

U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. If warranted by the radioactive content, these

containers can be shipped in a cask licensed by the NRC. The processing of wet solid waste is

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-12 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

accomplished remotely under manual control of an operator behind shield walls. Suitable

containers are brought into the processing area, where they are transferred to the filling station

where de-watered solid waste is added. Demineralizer resins, beaded charcoals, filter sludges,

and evaporator concentrates are handled separately because of their differing de-watering

requirements.

Transportation and disposal of solid radioactive wastes are performed in accordance with the

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 71 and 61, respectively. There are no releases to the

environment from solid radioactive wastes created at BSEP. During the period 1999 through

2003, the annual average amount of solid radioactive waste shipped from BSEP was 382 m3/yr

containing 14,900 Cil/yr of activity from both units combined (PEC 2000a, 2001a, 2002a, 2003b,

2004a).

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

The principal nonradioactive wastes from BSEP include various solid wastes, chemical wastes,

and sanitary wastes, as well as storm water runoff.

Uncontaminated waste is collected in designated containers located throughout the plant.

Once filled, the containers are surveyed for the presence of loose surface contamination and

then transported to the clean material processing facility. The chemical storage building is used

as a central collection facility to process uncontaminated chemicals, paint, oil, fluorescent bulbs,

and other items that have either been used or have exceeded their useful shelf life. The

materials are received in various forms and are processed to meet all regulatory requirements

prior to final disposition. Most items are packaged and shipped to vendors for processing

offsite. An open area of approximately 10 ac at BSEP was used as a landfill for office wastes

(primarily paper), but was closed in 1997.

Two sewage treatment plants are operated at BSEP. Both are permitted under the NPDES

permit, with effluent limits that prescribe discharges below State and Federal regulatory limits.

Discharge of both treatment plants is to the discharge canal.

The storm drain collection system has been recognized as a potential effluent pathway because

of contaminated liquids entering the storm drains. The drainage collection system consists of

an underground network of storm sewer piping, noncontaminated building floor drains, and

building roof drainage piping. Surface drainage, runoff after rains, cooling tower blowdown

discharge, and the makeup water treatment system discharge feed into the storm water

drainage basin.

April 2006 2-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

The storm water drainage basin is a concrete structure with a total capacity of 102,000 gal. An

oil skimmer removes surface oils that may be present in the drainage water. The water is

directed through a weir into the storm drainage basin pump bay, from which it is pumped into a

stabilization pond. The stabilization pond covers approximately 64 ac; however, a standpipe

located at 30 ft above mean sea level only allows water to collect in 39 ac. The stabilization

pond is constructed from a spoils pond used during the dredging of the intake canal. When the

pond is full, the mean depth of the pond is 3.5 ft. The underflow-overflow discharge structure

that leads to the intake canal prevents discharge of oil, grease, and floating debris to the

environment.

The stabilization pond discharge is a permitted release point and discharges to the intake canal.

In addition, during periods of heavy rains, the storm water drain collector drainage basin can be

discharged to the discharge canal. The collector basin is a permitted release point during

periods of inclement weather to protect plant personnel and equipment. Releases from the

stabilization pond and collector basin are monitored, and the estimated amounts of radioactivity

(primarily tritium) released by these pathways are included in the BSEP radioactive liquid

effluents summarized in Section 2.1.4.1.

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance

Routine maintenance performed on plant systems and components is necessary for safe and

reliable operation. Maintenance activities conducted at BSEP include inspection, testing, and

surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the plant and to ensure compliance with

environmental and safety requirements. Certain activities can be performed while the reactor is

operating, but others require that the plant be shut down. Long-term outages are scheduled for

refueling and for certain types of repairs or maintenance, such as replacement of major

components. CP&L refuels each BSEP reactor unit about every 24 months. Each outage is

typically scheduled to last approximately 35 days, and about one-third of the core is replaced at

each refueling. Approximately 1000 additional workers are onsite during a typical reactor

outage.

CP&L performed an aging management review and developed an integrated plant assessment

(IPA) for managing the effects of aging on systems, structures, and components in accordance

with 10 CFR Part 54. The aging management program is described in Appendix B of CP&L's

application for renewal of the BSEP operating licenses (OLs) (CP&L 2004a). The IPA identified

the programs and inspections that are managing the effects of aging at BSEP. CP&L expects

to conduct activities related to the management of aging effects during plant operation or during

normal refueling and other outages. CP&L has no plans to add additional full-time staff (nonoutage workers) at the plant during the license renewal term.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-14 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

2.1.7 Power Transmission System

Eight 230-kV transmission lines constructed to connect the BSEP to the electrical power

transmission system were described in the final environmental statement for operation of BSEP

Units 1 and 2 (AEC 1974). These lines included two lines to the Delco and Barnard Creek

substations and lines to the Fayetteville, Wallace, and Jacksonville substations. In addition,

31 mi of new transmission line were constructed to connect BSEP to the Weatherspoon

substation. Potential effects of these lines associated with electromagnetic fields were not

considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Brunswick OLs (AEC 1974).

CP&L's Environmental Report (ER) (CP&L 2004a) describes changes to the way in which

BSEP is connected to the transmission grid that have occurred since publication of the Final

Environmental Statement. The two lines to Barnard Creek substation have been extended to

the Castle Hayne substation and Wilmington Corning switching station, located about 12 mi to

the north of the Barnard Creek substation. Both the Castle Hayne and the Wilmington Corning

lines are considered in their entirety in this supplemental environmental impact statement

(SEIS). The original Fayetteville line now connects to the grid at the Whiteville Substation.

However, because the Fayetteville line, which was built to connect BSEP to the grid, remains in

existence, the full extent of the original line is considered in this SEIS.

The transmission lines are shown in Figure 2-5. To the extent practical, the lines are grouped

in common rights-of-way, with the first 1.3 mi of the right-of-way containing all eight lines. At

that point, the lines separate into two rights-of-way with four lines each. One right-of-way

contains lines connecting BSEP to the transmission system to the northwest of the site, and the

other contains lines connecting BSEP to the transmission system to the north. In general, the

rights-of-way widths are determined by the number of lines. Typically, rights-of-way widths are

100 ft wide for the first line, and increase by 70 ft for each additional line.

In total, about 390 mi of transmission lines in about 260 mi of rights-of-way are considered in

this SEIS. The rights-of-way cover approximately 4690 ac. The lengths of the lines and the

areas covered by the associated rights-of-way are listed in Table 2-1. In estimating the rightsof-way area for each line, the total area in shared rights-of-way was distributed equally among

the lines within the rights-of-way.

The rights-of-way pass through low population areas that are primarily forest, farm, and swamp

lands. The lines cross numerous state and U.S. highways, the Cape Fear River, and Interstate

Highway 40 (CP&L 2004a).

April 2006 2-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

LteND

A 230 Kv Stffd

N Tnranwaason liSw

atO Cfto~

InCmx~ mtyiowm

Figure 2-5. BSEP Transmission Line Map

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-16 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-1. BSEP Transmission Lines

Approximate Line Length Estimated Right-of-Way Area

Substation miles acres

Fayetteville 103 900

Weatherspoon 31 460

Delco East 31 320

Delco West 31 300

Wallace 55 720

Jacksonville 75 940

Castle Hayne East 35 650

Wilmington Coming 27 400

Switching Station

Total 388 4690

Ongoing right-of-way surveillance and maintenance activities along BSEP transmission lines

include routine aerial and ground inspections as well as activities associated with vegetation

management. Routine aerial inspections are conducted every 6 months to ensure the integrity

of the system and to ensure that any abnormalities are promptly identified and corrective

actions or preventive maintenance actions are planned and scheduled (BSEP 2002a). Biennial

ground inspections include examinations of structural integrity, clearance of vegetation at

questionable locations, and surveillance for dead or dying trees that might fall on the

conductors or towers (CP&L 2004a). Maintenance activities may include re-clearing vegetation

(mowing, hand cutting, and herbicide application), tree trimming, and danger-tree removal

(BSEP 2002b). For a specified right-of-way, mowing and hand cutting is conducted on a 3-yr

cycle, tree trimming is conducted on a 2-yr cycle, and danger-tree cutting is conducted every

5 to 9 yrs, depending on the transmission line (BSEP 2002c).

CP&L uses several different methods to control vegetation in its transmission line rights-of-way.

CP&L employs an integrated vegetation management approach that includes both mechanical

and chemical control methods. This approach allows the maintenance practices to be designed

to fit the different kinds of terrain and soils that are crossed by the transmission lines.

Mechanical methods include pruning, felling, mowing, and hand trimming. Chemical methods

include the use of tree growth regulators to slow the growth of fast-growing trees, and the use

of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved herbicides to control undesirable

woody vegetation that regrows after mowing. Over time, the combination of mowing and

herbicides results in a community dominated by low-growing, non-woody plants, such as

grasses and herbaceous plants that require less maintenance but still provide food and cover

for wildlife (PEC 2005a).

April 2006 2-17 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

CP&L and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)

signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 1993 to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and

endangered species and sensitive natural areas occurring on transmission line rights-of-way

(CP&L and NCDENR 1993). The company protects rare plant species on its rights-of-way

through several best management practices (PEC 2005a). CP&L and contractor personnel that

are involved in transmission line maintenance activities must complete environmental training

regarding endangered species (BSEP 2003). These personnel are responsible for familiarizing

themselves with any identified rare plants in their work area. They must comply with rare plant

signs posted within or along the right-of-way. CP&L personnel also install, maintain, and

monitor stakes and signs that are posted at the known rare plant locations (BSEP 2005b). The

use of herbicides, heavy equipment and mowing is prohibited at known rare plant locations

during the active, "above-ground" period of the plants' growing cycle. Therefore, maintenance

activities are normally conducted in the fall and winter, after frost, in those segments of

transmission line rights-of-way that contain rare plants (BSEP 2003).

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general descriptions of the environment near BSEP as

background information, as well as detailed descriptions, where needed, to support the analysis

of potential environmental impacts of refurbishment andoperation during the renewal ter as

discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological

resources in the area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts associated with other

Federal project activities.

2.2.1 Land Use

BSEP is located in unincorporated Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina. The plant

is located in the southeastern portion of the county, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

The BSEP site is zoned Industrial by Brunswick County (Brunswick County 1997), and

comprises approximately 1200 ac.

Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act [16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)] requires

applicants for Federal licenses to conduct an activity in a coastal zone to provide to the

licensing agency a certification that the proposed activity is consistent with the enforceable

policies of the State's coastal zone program. A copy of the certification is also to be provided to

the State. The State is to notify the Federal agency whether the state concurs with or objects to

the applicant's certification. This notification is to occur within 6 months of the State's receipt of

the certification. BSEP is within North Carolina's coastal zone for purposes of the Coastal Zone

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-18 Apil 2006
Plant and the Environment

Management Act. Progress Energy's certification that renewal of the BSEP OLs would be

consistent with the North Carolina coastal management program is in Appendix E of its ER

(CP&L 2004a). Correspondence among North Carolina agencies related to the certification is

in Appendix E of this SEIS. By letter dated December 7,2004, the Carolina Division of Coastal

Management concurred with the applicant's consistency certification.

2.2.2 Water Use

With the exception of the small evaporative water loss that occurs in the discharge canal, the

operation of the once-through cooling system does not result In the consumptive use of surface

water at BSEP. Water withdrawn from the lower Cape Fear River Estuary for cooling is

returned to the Atlantic Ocean. Except during extremely high flow conditions in the Cape Fear

River, a significant portion of the water entering the BSEP intake is brackish water that

originated in the Atlantic Ocean. During the months of January through April, the average

monthly discharge of freshwater from the Cape Fear River exceeds 8000 cubic feet per second

(cfs). During the months of June through November, the average monthly discharge of fresh

water from the Cape Fear River is less than 4000 cfs. The daily maximum intake by BSEP is

limited to 2210 cfs and 1844 cfs during April through November and December through March,

respectively. BSEP discharges to the Atlantic Ocean 2000 ft offshore of Caswell Beach.

BSEP receives'potable'End process water from the Brunswick County Public Utilities. CP&L

reports that from 1996 through 2001, BSEP's water imports averaged 0.23 MGD. The source

of the majority of water imported from Brunswick County Public Utilities is surface water from

the lower Cape Fear River.

2.2.3 Water Quality

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act),

discharges from operation of BSEP are regulated by an NPDES permit. The EPA has

delegated the administration of the NPDES permit process in North Carolina to the NCDENR's

Division of Water Quality. NCDENR issued NPDES permit NC0007064 on June 30, 2003, for

BSEP. The permit requires periodic renewal, and the current permit will expire

November 30, 2006.

The BSEP NPDES permit limits the discharge from the plant of chlorine, copper, biological

oxygen demand, suspended solids, and oil and grease. Monitoring is required to ensure that

the standards prescribed by the NPDES permit are not exceeded. Additionally, the NPDES

permit regulates the flow and thermal impacts of the discharge.

April 2006 2-19 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Two mixing zones are prescribed for the offshore discharge to ensure that any thermal impacts

are limited to a relatively insignificant area. A 120-ac mixing zone limits the extent of the water

in excess of 70F greater than the ambient water temperature. A 2000-ac mixing zone limits the

extent of the water in excess of 3.960F greater than the ambient water temperature during June

through August and 1.440F greater than the ambient water temperature during September

through May. At no time should the temperature outside this mixing zone exceed 89.60F. To

ensure that these mixing zone criteria are met, semiannual monitoring is performed.

2.2.4 Air Quality

BSEP is located in the tidewater region of southeastern North Carolina, near the Atlantic

Ocean. It is about 16 mi south of Wilmington and 2 mi west of the Cape Fear River. The

maritime location of the site makes the climate unusually mild for its latitude.

Climatological records for Wilmington, North Carolina, should be generally representative of the

BSEP site (NCDC 2004a). Normal daily maximum temperatures range from about 56.30F in

January to about 89.80F in July; and normal daily minimum temperatures range from about

35.80F in January to about 72.30F in July. Precipitation averages about 57.0 in. per year, with

an average of about 2 in. of snow per year.

The-area has an-average of about 48 thunderstorm days per year, with more than half

occurring In the months of June, July, and August. During late summer and fall, the area may

be affected by passing tropical storms and hurricanes. In the 12 years from 1993 through

2004, Brunswick county has been hit by six hurricanes and three tropical storms, including two

events in 2004 (NCDC 2005). Based on tornado statistics for the period from 1950 through

August 2003 compiled by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC 2004b), the staff estimates

the probability of a tornado striking the site to be approximately 2.5 x 104 per year.

The primary wind resource in North Carolina is found along the Atlantic Coast and in the

mountains in the western part of the state. Wind power densities along the coast in the vicinity

of BSEP are estimated to be in the 400 to 500 W/m2 range at 50 m above ground. North of

Cape Lookout along the barrier islands, wind power densities are estimated to be in the 500 to

600 W/m2 range, and near Cape Lookout and Cape Hatteras, densities are estimated to be as

high 600 to 800 W/m2 (DOE 2004).

On an annual basis, the area receives about 63 percent of the total possible solar radiation,

with monthly average percentages ranging from 56 percent in January to 70 percent in April.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that the annual average solar radiation

on a horizontal flat plate collector is between 4 and 5 kWh/n-2 per day (RReDC 2005).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-20 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Estimates of monthly average daily solar radiation range from a low of 2 to 3 kWh/M2

November through January to a high of 6 to 7 kWh/m2 in May and June.

BSEP is in Brunswick County, which is part of the Southern Coastal Plain Intrastate Air Quality

Control Region (AQCR) (40 CFR 81.152). Air quality for the counties in this AQCR near BSEP

(Columbus, New Hanover, and Pender Counties) is designated as better than national

standards, in attainment, or unclassifiable for all primary pollutants (40 CFR 81.334), as is the

air quality in Horry County, South Carolina, which is in the Georgetown Intrastate AQCR

(40 CFR 81.341).

The Air Quality Index (AQI) (40 CFR Part 58, Appendix G) is a national standard method for

reporting air-pollution levels for the general public. The AQI is based on comparison of the

concentrations of six pollutants with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The six pollutants

are ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter smaller than

10 micrometers (PM10), and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM2 ,). The

air-pollution level for each day is placed in one of six categories based on the AQI. In order of

decreasing air quality, the categories are Good, Moderate, Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups,

Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, and Hazardous.

The Wilmington, North Carolina, metropolitan statistical area includes Brunswick County and

the BSEP-ite. Air quality data (1993 through 2002) indicate that there has been a statistically

significant decease in annual average sulfur dioxide and the second highest daily maximum

ozone concentrations in the Wilmington metropolitan statistical area (EPA 2004). For the five

years from 2000 through 2004, almost 82.2 percent of the daily AQIs were in the Good

category, and about 17.5 percent of the days had AQIs of Moderate. The AQls on the

remaining 0.3 percent of days (i.e., 6 days) were in the Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups category

(EPA 2005a).

Emissions from diesel generators and auxiliary boilers at BSEP are covered by an air permit

issued by NCDENR. The current permit was issued in December 2003 and expires in

December 2008 (CP&L 2004a). Emissions from other sources are sufficiently small that they

are below regulatory concern.

No national parks or wilderness areas designated in 40 CFR Part 81 as mandatory Class I

Federal areas in which visibility is an important value are within 50 mi of BSEP. The closest

mandatory Class I Federal areas are the Swanquarter Wilderness Area about 120 mu northeast

of BSEP and the Cape Romain Wilderness Area about 100 mu southwest of BSEP.

April 2006 2-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

BSEP is surrounded by a diverse and complex aquatic ecosystem. Aquatic habitat types

surrounding the plant include salt marshes, the river channeVestuary, and offshore regions

(CP&L 1980). BSEP is situated approximately 5.7 mi upstream from the mouth of the Cape

Fear River (CP&L 1985). The plant's cooling systems draw water predominantly from the

surface layer of the Cape Fear River ship channel, through a 3-mi long intake channel. Water

is discharged to the Atlantic Ocean after flowing through a 6-mi discharge canal. The water is

pumped approximately 2000 ft offshore through a pipe embedded within the sediments to the

point of discharge (CP&L 1979).

The Cape Fear River, at the point where water is drawn into the intake canal, is part of the

Cape Fear Estuary. Estuaries are partially enclosed coastal areas where freshwater and

saltwater mix. These areas are under tidal influence, but are protected from the full force of the

ocean, often by barrier islands, salt marshes, or other land forms. The species found in

estuaries are specially adapted for life in this transitional area. Estuaries are considered to be

among the most productive areas on earth (EPA 2005b).

The region surrounding the BSEP intake canal entrance, just downstream of Sunny Point, is in

an area that experiences a large tidal exchange (CP&L 1985). A salinity gradient exists where

runoff from-the Cape Fear River mixes with water from the Atlantic Ocean. From Sunny Point

upstream to Wilmington, the water is often two-layered, with the less dense freshwater moving

downstream over the more dense seawater (CP&L 1980). Downstream from Sunny Point, the

water is more uniformly mixed because of complex water circulation patterns, vigorous tidal

action, and high exchange ratios with the ocean. This portion of the estuary is shallow and

irregular in shape, with many islands and channels that enhance mixing (CP&L 1980, 1985).

Salinity is influenced primarily by tidal conditions and the rate of freshwater inflow. Because the

freshwater inflow from the Cape Fear River and its tributaries is highly variable, salinities at the

intake may range from nearly 0 to 32 parts per thousand (ppt) (AEC 1974). During periods of

average freshwater inflow, salinities near Sunny Point are generally in the range of 8 to 15 ppt

(CP&L 1980). Minimum salinities are generally recorded in winter and maximum salinities in

late summer (CP&L 1985). Water temperatures in the estuary are influenced largely by

changes in season, with the warmest temperatures (as high as 1030F) observed during late

summer (CP&L 1985).

The Cape Fear Estuary serves as a unursery" area for larval and post-larval stages of fish and

shellfish. Some species, such as anchovy (Anchoa spp.) and gobies (Gobionellus spp.,

Gobiosoma spp.) are spawned in the estuary, while others, such as Atlantic menhaden

(Brevoortia tyrannus), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), and

pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides) are spawned in the ocean (PEC 2003a). Salinity and

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-22 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

temperature influence the spatial and seasonal distribution of these estuarine species

(CP&L 1985). The ebb and flow of water in the estuary also contributes to the transport and/or

retention of larvae and other organisms throughout the estuary (CP&L 1980).

Many species that inhabit waters in the vicinity of the BSEP have commercial or recreational

value. Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (F. duorarum), and white shrimp

(Litopenaeus setiferus) inhabit salt marshes, including Snows Marsh, which borders the intake

canal (CP&L 1980). The shrimp spawn in offshore waters, and the post-larvae are recruited

into the estuary where they find food and protection. As the shrimp mature, they migrate to

deeper waters where commercial fishermen harvest them (AEC 1974). Croaker, an important

food fish and sport fish, is another inhabitant of the salt marsh, including Snow's Creek (AEC

1974). Croaker spawn in the ocean during fall and winter. The young spend their first year in

the low-salinity regions of the estuary and then move to the ocean. Examples of other species

found in salt marshes near BSEP include blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus plagiusa), striped

anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus), Atlantic menhaden, and pinfish (AEC 1974).

In the river channel and estuary, developing larvae of brown, pink, and white shrimp, as well as

blue crab (Callinectes spp.) can be found (AEC 1974). This portion of the estuary also supports

the larvae of anchovy (Anchoa spp.), croaker, gobies, spot, blackcheek tonguefish, Atlantic

menhaden-,-and striped mullet (Mugil cephalus) (AEC 1974). The estuary supports larval fish

year-round, although the species composition varies by season. Important adult fish using the

estuary include gray sea trout (Cynoscion regales), spot, croaker, bay anchovy (Anchoa

mitchilhl), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus),

American shad (Alosa sapidissima), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blue backed herring

(Alosa aestivalis) (AEC 1974).

The heated effluent is discharged into the Atlantic Ocean offshore region, 2000 ft offshore at

Caswell Beach. Important larval species that have been recorded in this region include shrimp,

anchovies, gobies, spot, croaker, gray seatrout, pinfish, and menhaden (AEC 1974). Adults

with some commercial value captured in this area include brown, pink, and white shrimp, blue

crab, anchovy, spot, Southern kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus), croaker, thread herring

(Opistonema oglinum), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), drum (Stellifer lanceolatus), and

blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus plagiusa). Benthic organisms found in the mud and sand of

this offshore area include the snail (Retusa canaliculata), brittle star (Ophiophragumus spp.),

and polychaete worms (AEC 1974).

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has identified essential fish habitat (EFH) for

federally-managed estuarine and marine species for which adequate data exists. EFH is

defined as those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or growth to

maturity. Operation of the BSEP during the 20-year renewal term could affect marine and

estuarine habitats associated with the plant's intake and discharge system.

April 2006 2-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Habitat potentially affected by operation of the BSEP intake consists of the estuarine waters of

the Lower Cape Fear River, which is characterized by a mud-sand substrate with salinities

ranging from 18-32 ppt, depending upon the tide and freshwater discharge.

Habitat potentially affected by operation of the BSEP discharge consists of the water column

above the discharge pipe outlet off of Caswell Beach. The bottom in this area is very sandy at

a depth of 10 ft and approximately 2000 ft offshore. The nearest live hard bottom is

approximately 4 mi away to the southeast. Effects of the heated discharge are confined to the

mixing zone, a small area (approximately 2 ac) where temperatures may be 5 0F greater than

ambient.

Aquatic species that are listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) or the State of North Carolina and have potential to occur in the vicinity of the

BSEP site are presented in Table 2-2.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-24 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-2. Federally Listed and State-Listed Aquatic Species

Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of BSEP

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Countliess')

REPTILES

Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle Threatened Threatened Brunswick,

New Hanover,

Onslow, Pender, and

Horry (South

Carolina)

Chelonla mydas green turtle Threatened Threatened Brunswick,

New Hanover,

Onslow

Dermochelys coriacea leatherback turtle Endangered Endangered Brunswick

Eretmochelys imbricata hawksbill turtle Endangered Endangered (North Carolina)

Lepidochelys kempli Kemp's [Atlantic] Endangered Endangered Brunswick

ridley turtle

MAMMALS

Balaenoptera borealis sei whale Endangered - (North Carolina)

Balaenopteramusculus blue whale Endangered - (North Carolina)

Balaenopteraphysalus fin whale Endangered - (North Carolina)--

Eubalaena glacialis right whale Endangered - (North Carolina)

Megaptera humpback whale Endangered - (North Carolina)

novaeangliae

Physeter sperm whale Endangered - (North Carolina)

macrocephalus

Trichechus manatus West Indian Endangered Endangered Brunswick,

manatee New Hanover,

Onslow, Pender

FISH

Acipenserbrevirostrum shortnose sturgeon Endangered Endangered Bladen, Brunswick,

Columbus,

New Hanover, Pender

I

April 2006 2-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-2. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Counties

I

Acipenseroxyrhynchus Atlantic sturgeon

Carcharhinus obscurus dusky shark

Carcharhinus signatus

Elassoma boehikel

Eleotris pisonis

Epinephelus

drummondhayi

Epinephelus nigritus

Etheostoma perlongum

Evorthodus lyricus

Fundulus ludae

Fundulus waccamensis

Gobionellus

stigmaticus

Heterandria formosa

Hypsoblennius ionthas

Menidia extensa

Microphis brachyurus

Noturus sp. 1

Odontaspis taurus

Poecilia latipinna

night shark

Carolina pygmy

sunfish

spinycheek sleeper

speckled hind

Warsaw grouper

Waccarnaw darter

lyre goby

spotfin killifish

Waccamaw killifish

marked goby

least killifish

freckled blenny

Waccamaw

silverside

opossum pipefish

broadtail madtom

sand tiger shark

sailfin molly

Federal Species of

Concern

Federal Species of

Concern

Federal Species of

Concern

Federal Species of

Concern

Federal Species of

Concern

Federal Species of

Concern

Federal Species of

Concern

Federal Species of

Concern

Threatened

Federal Species of

Concern

Special Concern

Threatened

Significantly Rare

Threatened

Significantly Rare

Significantly Rare

Special Concern

Significantly Rare

Special Concern

Significantly Rare

Threatened

Significantly Rare

Special Concern

Significantly Rare

Bladen, Brunswick,

New Hanover, Pender

(North Carolina)

(North Carolina)

Brunswick, Columbus

Brunswick

(North Carolina)

(North Carolina)

Columbus

New Hanover

Brunswick

Columbus

Brunswick

Brunswick

Brunswick

Columbus

Brunswick

Brunswick

(North Carolina)

Brunswick

MOLLUSKS

Anodonta couperiana barrel floater - Endangered Bladen, New Hanover

Elliptio foliculata pod lance -- Special Concern Bladen, Brunswick,

Columbus, Pender

Elliptio marsuplobesa Cape Fear spike - Threatened Bladen, Pender

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-26 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-2. (contd)

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status Counties

Ellipto roanokensis Roanoke slabshell - Threatened Bladen

Elliptio sp. 5 Waccamaw lance Federal Species of - Columbus

pearlymussel Concern

Elliptio Waccamaw spike Federal Species of Threatened Brunswick, Columbus

waccamewensis Concern

Fusconala masoni Atlantic pigtoe Federal Species of Endangered Bladen, Pender

Concern

Helisoma eucosmium = greenfield ramshorn Federal Species of Endangered Brunswick

Taphius eucosmius Concern

eucosmius

Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel Federal Species of Endangered Bladen, Columbus,

Concern Pender

Lampsilis fullerkati Waccamaw Federal Species of Threatened Columbus

fatmucket Concern

Ligumia nasuta Eastern pondmussel Threatened Brunswick

Planorbella magnifica magnificent Federal Species of Endangered Brunswick, Columbus

ramshom Concern

Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput Federal Species of Endangered Columbus

Concern

Triodopsis sootnedi Cape Fear Federal Species of Threatened Brunswick,

threetooth Concern Columbus,

New Hanover

Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshell Significantly Rare Bladen, Brunswick

(a) Counties are in North Carolina unless otherwise noted.

In 1998, CP&L prepared a self-assessment report of compliance with regard to State and

Federal threatened and endangered species as well as to other species of concern that were

identified by FWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), and an

NRC-sponsored document (Sackschewsky 1997). Three Federally listed aquatic species, the

loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), and Kemp's ridley turtle

(Lepidochelys kemp!,), were identified during the self-assessment as potentially being affected

by BSEP operations, future facility expansion, or other activities.

BSEP holds an endangered species permit, issued on an annual basis by the North Carolina

Wildlife Resources Commission, to tag sea turtles entrained In the intake canal, using methods

in accordance with the FWS and NMFS sea turtle tagging protocols. BSEP also holds an

incidental take statement issued by the NMFS that contains terms and conditions that authorize

the capture and relocation of sea turtles. These permits allow certain BSEP staff to possess

April 2006 2-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

and transport entrained or stranded sea turtles for the purpose of rehabilitation and/or release

and the possession of dead stranded sea turtles for the purposes of disposition

(NCWRC 2004). The permit requires notification of each stranding event within 24 hours and

submittal of a written report within 48 hours.

All three sea turtle species have been collected, as recently as 2004, in the vicinity of the BSEP

intake canal (BSEP 2005a). Seventy-five percent of these turtles were released unharmed to

the ocean or transported to a sea turtle hospital for rehabilitation. "Turtle-blocker panels" have

been installed at the diversion structure, located at the entrance to the intake canal, to minimize

the potential for sea turtles to enter the canal. BSEP staff regularly patrol the canal to look for

turtles and to ensure the blocker panels are well maintained.

The loggerhead turtle is listed by the FWS as threatened. The species occurs on beaches

suitable for nesting from North Carolina to Florida (FWS 2005f). The loggerhead may be found

hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes,

creeks, ship canals, and the mouths of large rivers (FWS 2005f). Nesting season is generally

between May and November. Loggerhead turtles were the most common species observed at

BSEP in 2004. Sixty-nine percent of the sea turtles handled were loggerheads.

The green turtle is also listed by the FWS as threatened. In eastern North America, this

species is-found from Massachusetts to Mexico. Continental United States nesting is limited to

between 300 and 1000 nests annually on Florida's east coast (FWS 2005d). Green turtles are

generally found in shallow waters inside reefs, bays, and inlets and are attracted to lagoons and

shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae (FWS 2005d). Approximately 12 percent

of the sea turtles handled at BSEP in 2004 were green turtles.

The Kemp's ridley turtle is listed by the FWS as endangered. Adults of this species are found

primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, but immature turtles are found along the Atlantic coast as far

north as Canada (FWS 2005e). The Kemp's ridley turtle is found in shallow coastal waters,

often in association with red mangrove shorelines (FWS 2005e). Nearly 19 percent of the sea

turtles handled at BSEP in 2004 were Kemp's ridley turtles.

Two more sea turtle species, the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) and the hawksbill

turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) are listed as endangered by the FWS, NMFS, and the State of

North Carolina. None has been observed at the BSEP site. Both species rarely enter the

estuary. Only historical sightings of the leatherback turtle (last observed more than 20 years

ago) have been documented in Brunswick County (NCNHP 2004a). The hawksbill turtle has

been observed in the county within the past 20 years, but sightings north of Florida are rare.

Also, it is generally found in deeper, offshore waters, rather than in salt marshes or estuaries

(NCNHP 2004a).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-28 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Seven marine mammals that potentially occur in the vicinity of BSEP are Federally listed

endangered species: the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), sei whale (Balaenoptera

borealis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), right whale

(Eubalaena glacialis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and sperm whale (Physeter

macrocephalus). The manatee may be found as far north as Virginia along the Atlantic Coast.

At least two manatees have been observed in the Cape Fear Estuary, but none has been

reported at the BSEP site (CP&L 1998; PEC 2005d). Manatees may inhabit both salt and

freshwater, generally between 1.5 and 6 m deep (FWS 2005o). The diversion structure with

turtle-blocker panels installed at the entrance to the intake canal should minimize the potential

for manatee entry into the canal. None of the six whale species is expected to enter the Cape

Fear estuary or to be found near the BSEP discharge structure, because the sei whale favors

temperate, deep offshore waters. Local distribution is thought to be linked to their food source,

which consists of copepods, fish, or krill. Current population estimates are around 54,000

individuals (American Cetacean Society 2005). Although blue whales have been seen in

coastal waters, they are found predominantly offshore (NMFS 2005a). This species is most

frequently sighted in more northern waters, off eastern Canada. It is considered an occasional

visitor in the U.S. Atlantic. Although fin whales are found in all oceans of the world, they prefer

the vastness of the open sea (American Cetacean Society 2005). Precise estimates of

population abundance are unavailable, but present fin whale populations may number around

40,000 in the northern hemisphere. The majority of right whales in the western North Atlantic

population-utilize wintering and calving areas off the southeastern United States, then move to

summer feeding and nursery grounds in New England waters and to the north (NMFS 2005a).

Critical habitat for the species has been designated in coastal Florida and Georgia, but not in

North Carolina. Humpback whales are seasonal migrants.- They generally swim to polar waters

in summer and to tropical waters in winter. In the western North Atlantic, humpback whales

feed during spring, summer, and fall along the eastern coast of the United States (NMFS

2005a). An increased number of sightings in the U.S. mid-Atlantic and southern states,

including North Carolina, has been reported. These areas may be increasingly important

habitat for juvenile humpback whales (NMFS 2005a). Sperm whales are uncommon in waters

shallower than 300 meters deep (NMFS 2005a). Because of their association with deep

waters, it is unlikely that this species would be found near the BSEP.

One fish species from Brunswick County, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is

Federally listed as endangered (FWS 2005h). Nine adult shortnose sturgeon were captured in

the Cape Fear River between 1987 and 1998 (CP&L 1998). No shortnose sturgeon have been

collected at BSEP (CP&L 2004a).

The Waccamaw silverside (Menidia extensa), which is Federally listed as threatened, resides in

freshwater and is, therefore, not expected to occur at the BSEP site.

April 2006 2-29 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

The Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehikei), Waccamaw darter (Etheostoma perlongum),

Waccamaw killifish (Fundulus waccamensis), Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus), speckled

hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi), night shark (Carcharhinus signatus), dusky shark

(Carcharhinus obscurus), sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus), and Atlantic sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhunchus) are Federal species of concern. The sunfish is a

freshwater species. It is not known to exist at the BSEP site (CP&L 1998, FWS 2005h). The

Warsaw grouper, speckled hind, and night shark are all deep-water species, preferring much

greater depths than those found in the vicinity of BSEP (NMFS 2005b). The dusky shark

avoids low salinities and is not commonly found in estuaries (NMFS 2005b). The two species of

concern most likely to be present in the vicinity of the BSEP are the sand tiger shark and

Atlantic sturgeon. The sand tiger shark is a coastal species and may generally be found in the

surf zone to depths of 75 ft (NMFS 2005b). Juvenile sand tiger sharks are found in estuaries of

the eastern United States and therefore may be present in the vicinity of BSEP. The Atlantic

sturgeon is relatively common in the lower Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross 1995). Juveniles

were found to prefer waters greater than 10 m deep in the vicinity of the saltwater and

freshwater interface.

Several other fish found in counties surrounding the BSEP site do not have Federal listing

status, but are either State species of special concern or are considered significantly rare

(NCNHP 2004a). Species that have been documented at the BSEP site are the marked goby

(Gobionellus-stigmaticus), lyre-goby (Evorthodus lyricus), freckled blenny (Hypsoblennius

ionthas), spinycheek sleeper (Eleotris pisonis), and opossum pipefish (Microphis brachyurus)

(CP&L 1998). Many of these species are at the northern extent of their range and are

uncommon in the area. The least killifish (Heterandria formosa) and sailfin molly (Poecilia

latipinna) are documented as occurring within the past 20 years in Brunswick County

(NCNHP 2004a). The spotf in killifish (Fundulus luciae), and broadtail madtom

(Noturus sp. 1) are State-listed species, but they have not been documented in Brunswick

County for more than 20 years (NCNHP 2004a). The listing status of these fish species can be

found in Table 2-2.

Three snails, the magnificent ramshom (Planorbella magnifica), the Greenfield ramshom

(Helisoma eucosmium=Taphius eucosmius eucosmius), and the Cape Fear threetooth

(Triodopsis soelnen) are listed by the FWS as Federal species of concern. None are known to

exist on the BSEP site (CP&L 1998).

Five mussels are listed as Federal species of concern in counties surrounding the BSEP site

(FWS 2005h; CP&L 2004a; NCNHP 2004a). They are the Waccamaw lance pearlymussel

(Elliptio sp. 5), Waccamaw spike (Elliptio waccamawensis), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masom),

yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), and Waccamaw fatmucket (Lampsilis fullerkati). Each

of the mussels is a freshwater species and is, therefore, not known or expected to exist at the

BSEP site or to be affected by continued plant operation (NCNHP 2004a; CP&L 1998).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-30 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Five mussels that have been documented in counties surrounding the BSEP site, but that do

not have Federal status, are State-listed as endangered or threatened. These include the

barrel floater (Anodonta couperiana), Cape Fear spike (Elliptio marsupiobesa), Roanoke

slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), Eastern pondmussel (Ligumia nasuta), and Savannah lilliput

(Toxolasma pullus) (NCNHP 2004a; CP&L 2004a). Two additional mussel species, the pod

lance (Elliptio folliculata) and Eastern creekshell ( Villosa delumbis) are State-listed as of special

concern and significantly rare, respectively (NCNHP 2004a; CP&L 2004a). All of these mussel

species are found in freshwater and are, therefore, not known or expected to exist at the BSEP

site or to be affected by continued plant operation (NCNHP 2004a; CP&L 1998).

The non-native invasive aquatic plant species, Gracilaria tenuistipitata, was first documented in

the Cape Fear Estuary in 2001 (Sargeant 2005). The plant originated in southeast Asia where

it is reported to be edible (as jelly) and is used for animal feed and fertilizer. As its population in

the estuary increases, it may begin to outcompete native macroalgae species and may impact

the shrimp fishery (Sargeant 2005). In addition, the plants have become a nuisance,

occasionally causing blockage problems at the BSEP diversion structure. As a result, the

diversion screens are now cleaned seven days a week.

One exotic Invasive aquatic organism tolerant of salt water may be found near the BSEP. The

eel swimbladder nematode, Anguillicola crassus, was found in an eel from the Cape Fear River

drainage-in-I 998-(Moser et al. 2001). This-parasite has the potential to impact native eel

populations in the Cape Fear River and adjacent drainages.

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources

The BSEP site is located within the mid-Atlantic coastal plain ecoregion, which in pre-European

settlement times was dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) with patches of oak (Quercus

spp.), gum (Nyssa spp.), and cypress (Taxodium spp.) (Griffith et al. 2002). The BSEP site is

within the Carolina flatwoods sub-region, which includes a wide variety of community types

including pine flatwoods, pine savannas, fresh-water marshes, pond-pine woodlands, Carolina

bays, some sandhill communities, and pocosins (Griffith et al. 2002). Pocosins, which are a

relatively unique community type in the area, are wetland depressions vegetated with dense

stands of various evergreen shrubs and small trees such as red bay (Persea borbonia) and

sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) (CP&L 2004a). The transmission line rights-of-way cross other

sub-region types, including mid-Atlantic floodplains and low terraces, and non-riverine swamps

and peatlands. The region is a significant center of endemic biota (Hall et al. 1999). Although

there is still a substantial amount of native habitat in the vicinity of the BSEP site, much of it has

been converted to other uses, including loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations and croplands of

com, soybeans, and tobacco.

April 2006 2-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

The terrestrial environment on the BSEP site includes waterways such as the Cape Fear River,

Dutchman Creek, and Nancy Creek; saline and brackish marshes; coastal dunes; and uplands

(AEC 1974). Most upland portions of the BSEP site have been replanted with loblolly pine.

Terrestrial and wetland communities in the vicinity of BSEP include pine savannas, longleaf

pine-wiregrass (Aristida stricta) communities, pine-hardwood forests, pocosins, dune-strand

communities, and salt marshes (CP&L 2004a).

Loblolly pine is the principal pine species in the pine-hardwood forests in the vicinity of BSEP.

Important hardwoods include sweet gum (Liquidamberstyraciflua), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica),

hickory (Carya spp.), and oaks. Along the ancient dunes, which tend to be well drained, the

forests are dominated by longleaf pine, turkey oak (Quercus laevis), wiregrass, and a few

remnants of pine savannas. Remnant pine savannas occur in periodically flooded areas; these

areas are characterized by an open canopy of longleaf pine or pond pine (Pinus serotina) with a

dense ground cover of herbs and shrubs.

Sparse stands dominated by sea oats (Uniola paniculata) characterize the seaward side of the

dune-strand communities found at the interface between the sea and land. Because of the

wind and salt spray, plants are primarily found on the landward side of the dunes. Relatively

dense herbaceous shrub communities dominated by sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) and live oak

(0. virginiana) develop in these more protected areas (CP&L 2004a).

Cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora) and needlerush (Juncus romerianus) are the dominant species

in the salt marshes at the BSEP site. The marshes represent habitat for many important

aquatic organisms that are prey for a variety of terrestrial wildlife species (CP&L 2004a).

Wildlife species in the vicinity of BSEP are typical of those found in the southeastern Coastal

Plain. The upland communities support many species of birds, including hawks, woodpeckers,

warblers, and sparrows; mammals such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), opossum

(Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon loto4, squirrels (Sciurus spp.), skunk (Mephitis

mephitis), and bobcat (Lynx rufus); and a variety of snakes, toads, frogs, and lizards. Wetlands

such as the salt-marshes provide habitat for the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis),

raccoon, otter (Lontra canadensis), and many species of wading birds (CP&L 2004a).

Section 2.1.7 describes the eight transmission lines that were constructed to connect BSEP to

the transmission system. The Whiteville line crosses several pocosins as well as the Green

Swamp, which has been designated a National Natural Landmark (NPS 2005). The Whiteville

line also passes about 1 mi west of Lake Waccamaw State Park and approximately 2 mi south

of Lake Waccamaw. The Jacksonville line crosses the Holly Shelter Game Land in the Holly

Shelter Swamp. The Wallace line crosses the B. W. Wells Savannah in northwest Pender

County; this is a 117-ac remnant of wetland savannah that supports 170 native plant species,

some of which are considered rare (NCCLT 2001). The transmission line rights-of-way do not

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-32 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

cross any Federal or State parks. CP&L has partnered with the North Carolina Coastal Land

Trust (NCCLT), the Conservation Trust for North Carolina, the Nature Conservancy, North

Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society, and the NCNHP to preserve unique and rare

species within its transmission line rights-of-way.

Terrestrial species that are listed as threatened or endangered by FWS and have potential to

occur in the vicinity of the BSEP site or along the transmission line rights-of-way are presented

in Table 2-3. Species listed by the State of North Carolina in the vicinity of BSEP and along the

transmission line rights-of-way are presented in Table 2-4.

In 1998, CP&L conducted an assessment of the State and Federal threatened and endangered

species as well as other species of concern identified by FWS, NCNHP, and NRC

(Sackschewsky 1997). CP&L evaluated more than 90 sensitive plant and animal species that

could occur in the vicinity of BSEP and evaluated potential threats to these species from

activities at BSEP (CP&L 1998). Three Federally listed terrestrial species, the red-cockaded

woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), and rough-leaf

loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), were identified during the assessment as potentially

affected by BSEP operations, future facility expansion, or other activities. In 1996, one

population of golden sedge (Carex lutea) was recorded in Onslow County along the

Jacksonville transmission line right-of-way, but the species did not receive Federal protection

until 2002.-Therefore, the golden sedge was not identified in the 1998 CP&L assessment as

being a potentially affected, Federally listed species. The CP&L assessment also identified the

American alligator as being widespread in Walden Creek and the intake and discharge canals.

The golden sedge is listed by FWS as endangered and is only found in Pender and Onslow

Counties, North Carolina. This species was first discovered in 1991, and was not formally

described until 1994 (67 FR 3120); therefore, relatively little is known about its ecology. Golden

sedge is a perennial found in a rare habitat type of coastal savanna underlain by calcareous

(limestone) deposits (FWS 2002). At the time it was listed as endangered, there were only

eight known populations of golden sedge, all within a 2-mi radius. Several additional

populations have been found since the publication of the final listing determination

(NCNHP 2005). In 1996, a single population of golden sedge was recorded along Jacksonville

transmission right-of-way in Onslow County. Since that time, additional populations have been

noted, and data provided by the NCNHP indicate the presence of three populations within the

Jacksonville transmission line right-of-way and three others within one-half mile of that right-ofway in Onslow and Pender Counties. The populations in the Jacksonville transmission line

right-of-way are protected and managed by CP&L under an agreement with the NCNHP.

April 2006 2-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-3. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species Reported from Counties

Associated with BSEP and Its Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Federal State

Species Common Name Status Status Counties

REPTILES

Alligator mississippionsis American alligator T(SIA) T Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,

Cumberland, New Hanover, Pender,

Robeson

MAMMALS

Puma concolor cougar eastern cougar E E Brunswick,(") Onslowfb)

BIRDS

Charadrius melodus piping plover T T Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow,

Ponder

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T T Bladen,'b) Brunswick, Columbus,

Onslow(b)

Mycterla americana wood stork E E Brunswick

Picoides borealis red cockaded E E Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,

woodpecker Cumberland, New Hanover, Onslow,

Ponder, Robeson

INVERTEBRATES

Neonympha mitchellil Saint Francis' satyr E SR Cumberland

francisci butterfly

PLANTS

Amaranthus pumilus seabeach amaranth T T Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow,

Ponder

Carex lutea golden sedge E E Onslow, Ponder

Dichanthelium hirstii Hirst's panic grass C E Onslow

Isotria medeoloides small whorled T E Cumberland"c)

pogonia

Lindera melissifolia pondberry or E E Cumberland, Bladen(a)

southern spicebush

Lysimachia asperulfolia rough-leaf E E Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,(a)

loosestrife Cumberland, New Hanover, Onslow,

Ponder

Rhus michauxil Michaux's sumac E E Cumberiand, Robeson

Schwalbea americana chaffseed E E Bladen,(a) Cumberland, Penderl)

Thalictrum cooleyi Cooley's E E Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover,ld)

meadowrue Onslow, Pender

E - endangered, T - threatened, T(S/A) - threatened because of similarity of appearance, SR - state rare

(a) Historic record at least 20, maybe more than 50, years old

(b) Recorded In State database but not USFWS listing

(c) Obscure record in State database but not In FWS listing

(d) Obscure record

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-34 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-4. North Carolina State Listed Terrestrial Species Reported from Counties

Associated with BSEP and Its Transmission Line Rights-of-Way

Federal State

Species Common Name Status Status Counties

MAMMALS

Corynorhinus rafinesquli Rafinesque's big- SC T Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus,(a

eared bat Pender, Robeson

Neotoma flordana floridana eastern woodrat - T Brunswick,() New Hanover, Onslow,

Pender

BIRDS

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon - E Brunswick

Sterna nilotica gull-billed tem - T Brunswick, Onslowvs)

REPTILES

Crotalus adamanteus eastern - E Bladen, Brunswick,n) Columbus,()

diamondback Cumberlandc) New Hanover,(a)

rattlesnake Onslow, Pender,l') Robeson',)

M =rUS fluvius eastern coral snake - E Bladen, Brunswick,(a) Cumberiand,O')

New Hanover, Onslow, Pender

AMPHIBIANS

Ambystoma tigrinurn eastern tiger - T Cumberland, Robeson

._.._ .__ salamander

Rana capito Carolina gopher frog SC T Bladen,la) Brunswick, New Hanover,c"

Onslow, Pender, Robeson

PLANTS

Adiantum capillus-veneris Venus hair fem - E Columbus

Amorpha georgiana var savanna Indigo- SC T. Bladen,c') Brunswick, Columbus,

confusa bush New Hanover,") Pender, Robeson(')

Amorpha georgiana var Georgia Indigo-bush SC E Cumberland

georglana

Asplenium heteroresiliens Carolina spleenwort SC E Bladen,(a) Onslowva)

Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milk-vetch SC T Bladen,1') Cumberland, New Hanover,("

Pender, Robeson()

Calopogon muliflonus many-flowered SC E Onslow

grass-pink

Carex exilis coastal sedge T Cumberland

Carya myristiciformis nutmeg hickory - E Pender

Chrysoma pauciflosculosa woody goldenrod - E Columbus, Cumberland, Robeson

Cystopteris tennesseensis Tennessee bladder- - E Onslov/a)

fem

Eupatorium resinosurn resinous boneset - T Cumberland, Bladena)

Fimbristylis perpusilla Harper's fimbry SC T Brunswick, Columbus

April 2006 2-35 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-4. (contd)

Federal State

Species Common Name Status Status Counties

Helenium brevifolium littleleaf - E

Helenium vemale

Lllaeopsis carolinensis

Lilium pyrophilum

Undera subcoriacea

Lobelia boykinli

Lophiola aurea

Macbridea caroliniana

Muhlenbergia torreyana

Myriophyllum laxum

Pamassia caroliniana

Pamassia grandiflora

. _ . ..........

Plantago sparsiflora

Platanthera Integra

Platanthera nivea

Pteroglossaspis ecristata

Pyxidanthera barbulata var

brevifolia

Rhexia aristosa

Rhynchospora macra

Rhynchospora thomel

Sabatia kennedyana

Solidago pulchra

Solidago villosicarpa

Sporobolus teretifolius

sneezeweed

spring sneezeweed

Carolina grasswort

Sandhills lily

bog spicebush

Boykin's lobelia

golden crest

Carolina bogmint

pinebarren

smokegrass

loose watermilfoil

Carolina grass-ofpamassas

large-leaved grassof-pamassus

pineland plantain

yellow fringeless

orchid

snowy orchid

spiked medusa

Sandhllls pixie-moss

awned meadowbeauty

southern white

beaksedge

Thome's beaksedge

Plymouth gentian

Carolina goldenrod

coastal goldenrod

wireleaf dropseed

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

E

T

E

T

T

E

T

E

T

E

T

E

T

T

E

E

T

E

E

T -

E

E

T

Brunswick

Brunswick, Columbus

Brunswick, New Hanover

Cumberland

Cumberland, Robeson

Bladen,"' Cumberland, Onslow

Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover,

Onslow

Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Pender,

Robeson

Brunswick, Cumberland, Onslow,

Ponder, Robeson

Brunswick, Cumberland, Onslow

Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland,

Onslow, Pender

Brunswick, Columbus

Bladen,' ' Brunswick, Columbus,

Onslow, Ponder

Brunswick, Columbus, Onslow,('1

Ponder, RobesonO)

Bladen,'O' Brunswick, Columbus,(")

New Hanover,C'O Ponder, Robeson"')

Bladen,°b) Cumberlandc() New

Hanoverea)

Cumberland

Bladen, Brunswick,(') Cumberland,(a)

Onslow, Robeson

Cumberland

Brunswick, Onslow, Pender

Brunswick, Columbus

Brunswick, Cumberland, Onslow,

Ponder

Brunswick,(') New Hanover,' Onslow,

Ponder

Brunswick, Columbus

SC

SC

SC

SC

SC

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-36 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-4. (contd)

Federal State

Species Common Name Status Status Counties

Stylisma pickering!ivar Pickering's SC E Bladen, New Hanover

pickeringii dawnflower

Trillium pusillum var Carolina least SC E Pender

pusillum trillium

Utrcularia olivacea dwarf bladderwort - T Brunswick.la) Cumberland, New

Hanover, Onslow, Pender

E - endangered, T- threatened, SC - Species of Concern.

(a) Historic record (more than 20 years old)

(b) Obscure record

The Cooley's meadowrue is listed by FWS as endangered; there are approximately 11 known

populations in North Carolina, all in Brunswick, Columbus, Onslow, and Pender Counties, and

one very small population in northern Florida (FWS 1994, 2005b). The populations in North

Carolina are in two clusters; there are six sites within 4 mi of each other in Pender and Onslow

Counties, and five sites within 8 mi of each other in Brunswick and Columbus Counties. The

Cooley's meadowrue is a perennial herb that grows in circumneutral soils in wet pine savannas,

and grass-sedge bogs, often at the border of intermittent drainages or swamp forests. It is

often associated with some type of disturbance such as clearings, edges of frequently burned

savannas, and utility or highway rights-of-way that are maintained by fire or mowing

(NatureServe 2005). The species typically occupies a narrow hydrological niche, where soil is

moist to saturated but water does not stand above the soil surface (NatureServe 2005). The

Cooley's meadowrue is potentially affected by plant or transmission line operations and

maintenance. Several populations have been found in or near the Jacksonville transmission

right-of-way in Onslow County. The populations within the right-of-way are protected and

managed by CP&L under an agreement with NCNHP. Several other populations have been

observed near, but not within, the Fayetteville transmission line right-of-way in western

Brunswick County. It is likely that there are additional areas of suitable habitat along several of

the transmission line rights-of-way.

The rough-leaf loosestrife is listed by FWS as endangered. It is a perennial herb that occurs in

pocosins in the coastal plain and sandhills of North Carolina (FWS 2005k). Habitat is generally

in the ecotone between longleaf pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas where moist

sandy or peaty soils occur, and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight to penetrate the

herb layer (FWS 1995b). This grass-shrub ecotone would naturally be fire maintained;

therefore, the species appears to benefit from some periodic disturbance. Eight populations of

rough-leaf loosestrife are known from Brunswick County; one occurs in a transmission line

right-of-way north of BSEP in the Boiling Spring Lakes area (i.e., the right-of-way that contains

the Castle Hayne East, Wilmington Corning, Wallace, and Jacksonville transmission lines).

April 2006 2-37 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Several populations are associated with the Wallace and Jacksonville transmission line rightsof-way in Pender County (CP&L 2004a), and one population is found near the end of the

Fayetteville transmission line. These populations are protected and managed by CP&L under

an agreement with NCNHP. It is likely that there are additional areas with suitable habitat for

this species near the BSEP site and several of the transmission line rights-of-way.

The red-cockaded woodpecker is listed by FWS as endangered. It occurs throughout the

southeastern United States and has been observed near the BSEP site and in all of the

counties crossed by the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way. In eastern North Carolina, it is

found in mature pine forests (generally longleaf pine) with sparse understory vegetation. As of

2003, there were nine active red-cockaded woodpecker nesting groups on the Military Ocean

Terminal Sunny Point, and it is thought that the facility could support as many as 17 nesting

groups (FWS 2003). Suitable nesting habitat for this species is not found at BSEP

(CP&L 2004a); however, birds may forage in the vicinity of the plant and could nest or forage

near many of the transmission lines.

In addition to the species CP&L noted as potentially being affected by BSEP operations, future

expansion or other activities, 12 other Federally listed species (described below) have been

identified that may occur in the vicinity of BSEP or the transmission line rights-of-way.

The American alligator Is listed by FWS as threatened because of its similarity in appearance

with other threatened species of crocodilians. This species is not biologically endangered or

threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC 1536). Alligators are found in freshwater wetland areas throughout

southeastern North Carolina (NCNHP 2005). In the vicinity of BSEP, this species is widespread

in Walden Creek, the intake and discharge canals, and has been seen along the Fayetteville

and Wallace transmission line rights-of-way.

The bald eagle is listed as Federal and State threatened. It was proposed for delisting on

July 6, 1999 (64 FR 36453), but a decision about delisting the bald eagle is still pending. Bald

eagle nests are large, measuring up to 6 ft across (FWS 2005a). Nest trees are usually large

diameter trees characterized by open branching and stout limbs. Because fish is the primary

food source, the majority of nest sites are within a half mile of bodies of water such as coastal

shorelines, bays, rivers, lakes, farm ponds, dammed up rivers (i.e., beaver dams, log jams, etc.)

and have unobstructed views of the water. Winter foraging areas are usually located near open

water on rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and bays where fish and waterfowl are abundant, or in areas

with little or no water (i.e., rangelands, barren land, tundra, suburban areas, etc.) where other

prey species are abundant (e.g., rabbit, rodents, deer, carrion). Bald eagles have been

periodically observed near BSEP and along the transmission line rights-of-way, but there are no

known nesting locations near BSEP. In the last 15 years, there have only been two confirmed

nest sites within 20 mi of BSEP in Brunswick County.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-38 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

The eastern cougar is listed by FWS as endangered under the ESA. This large cat formerly

ranged throughout the eastern United States and Canada, but was driven to near extinction

during the 1800s. This species may be extirpated from North Carolina (FWS 2005c), and may

be extinct throughout its former range (NatureServe 2005). It has not been reported from

Brunswick County or any of the surrounding counties for over 20 years, and it is not likely to

occur near BSEP or the transmission lines.

The piping plover is listed by FWS as threatened under the ESA. This small shorebird breeds

along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to North Carolina, as well as along the great lakes

and on river sandbars in the upper great plains (FWS 2005i). They winter along the Atlantic

and Gulf coasts from North Carolina to Mexico. The FWS has designated portions of the

Atlantic coastal beaches in Brunswick, Hanover, Pender, and Onslow Counties as critical

habitat for the piping plover (66 FR 36038). Critical habitat does not occur at BSEP or adjacent

to associated transmission lines (CP&L 2004a). Suitable nesting or foraging habitat is not

known to occur at the BSEP site or along the transmission line rights-of-way.

The wood stork is listed as endangered under the ESA. It inhabits freshwater and brackish

wetlands and normally nests in cypress or mangrove swamps. Because of its unique feeding

technique (tacto-location) it typically requires higher prey concentrations than other birds, and

tend to rely on depressions in marshes or swamps where prey can become concentrated during

periods of-falling water levels. Breeding colonies are located in Florida, Georgia, and South

Carolina (FWS 1997). Every summer since the 1980s, between 15 and 100 wood storks have

frequented the area around Sunset Beach, North Carolina, approximately 30 mi southwest of

BSEP. This non-breeding colony represents the northernmost extent of this species, and is the

only known colony of wood storks in North Carolina (FWS 2005p). This species has been

periodically observed foraging in the bypass return pond on the BSEP site. It has not been

observed along the transmission lines, which are at least 15 mi from the Sunset Beach colony.

The Saint Francis' satyr butterfly is listed as endangered under the ESA. It occurs in a single

metapopulation in the sandhills of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina

(FWS 20051). Its habitat consists primarily of wet meadows dominated by sedges (Carex spp.)

and other wetland graminoids (FWS 1996a). It has been observed in a variety of other wetland

areas, including areas with pitcher plants and the endangered rough-leaf loosestrife, but it is not

known if the Saint Francis' satyr uses these habitats for any part of its life cycle other than as a

travel corridor. Although suitable habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr potentially could occur

within or near the Brunswick to Fayetteville transmission line right-of-way, the NCNHP does not

have record of this species within at least 8 mi of the right-of-way.

Seabeach amaranth is listed as threatened under the ESA. It is an annual plant that inhabits

open sand areas on Atlantic Ocean beaches, originally from Massachusetts to South Carolina,

but is now restricted to approximately 55 populations in South Carolina, North Carolina, and

April 2006 2-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

New York (FWS 1996). Between 60 and 70 percent of the surviving populations are in North

Carolina, including some in Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, and Pender Counties

(FWS 2005m and NCNHP 2005). All populations are strictly coastal, and it often co-occurs in

the same areas as the piping plover (FWS 1 996b). There are no known populations near the

BSEP site, and it is unlikely that there is any suitable habitat at the BSEP site or near any of the

transmission line rights-of-way.

The pondberry or southern spicebush is a Federally listed endangered shrub. It occurs in

wetland habitats such as bottomland and at the margins of sinks, ponds, and other

depressions. It normally grows in shaded areas but may also be found in full sun (FWS 2005j).

It occurs in widely scattered sites along an arc from southeastern North Carolina through

Georgia and Mississippi to Arkansas and southern Missouri (FWS 1993). It is known from

three sites in North Carolina, including one population in Bladen County. Suitable habitat could

be found within several of the transmission line rights-of-way, but the NCNHP data do not

include records of it occurring within at least 1 mi of the nearest BSEP transmission line rightof-way.

Hirsts' panic grass is currently a candidate for protection under the ESA. It is currently known

from only three sites, one in Delaware and two in North Carolina, with two sites in New Jersey

where it has not been seen in 10 to 20 years (FWS 2002). Hirsts' panic grass i9habits coastal

plain intermittent ponds in wet savanna or pine barren habitats. The species relies on periods

of standing water to help minimize competition from other species. The two known populations

in North Carolina are both located on Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base in Onslow County.

The known populations of Hirsts' panic grass are at least 7 mi from the nearest BSEP

transmission line rights-of-way, but suitable habitat may be found within or near the Jacksonville

right-of-way.

The Michaux's sumac is a Federally listed endangered shrub. It inhabits a variety of soil types

that may range from sandy, acidic soils to clayey, circumneutral soils (NatureServe 2005). It

survives best in areas that are subjected to some form of disturbance that provides open space.

At least 12 populations in North Carolina are on highway rights-of-way, road clearings, or on the

edges of artificial clearings (FWS 2005g). There are an estimated 31 populations remaining in

North Carolina, spread over eight counties, including one population in Robeson County, which

contains the terminus of the Weatherspoon transmission line. There are also three populations

in Virginia and two populations in Georgia. The known population in Robeson County is not

within at least 2 mi of the Weatherspoon transmission line right-of-way. However, there is a

potential for suitable habitat to occur within or near the Weatherspoon right-of-way.

The American chaffseed is listed by FWS as endangered. Of the 72 known extant populations,

18 are located in North Carolina. However, 17 of those populations are on Fort Bragg in

Cumberland and Hoke Counties. The other extant population in North Carolina is along a

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-40 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

roadside in Moore County (FWS 1995a). Historically, the species has been reported in Bladen

and Pender Counties, but has not been observed in these counties for at least 20 years

(NCNHP 2005). The American chaffseed is a hemi parasitic plant that occurs in sandy, acidic,

seasonally moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist, pine

flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy

soils, and other open grass-sedge systems. It is dependent on factors such as fire, mowing,

or fluctuating water tables to maintain the open-to partly-open conditions that it requires

(FWS 1995a). No populations have been recorded near the BSEP site or along the

transmission line rights-of-way, or anywhere in the counties containing these rights-of-way

for at least 20 years. However, suitable habitat potentially exists in these areas.

The small whorled pogonia, a species listed as threatened under the ESA, is listed by NCNHP

(NCNHP 2005) as occurring in Cumberland County based on an obscure record. The FWS

does not include this species in its county listings (FWS 2005n). This species occurs in very

small populations that are widely distributed from southern Maine and New Hampshire south

through Virginia, to northern Georgia and Eastern Tennessee, with outlying populations

occurring in a number of states west to Michigan and Illinois (FWS 1992). In the southern

portion of its range, the small whorled pogonia is normally found in white pine (Pinus strobus)

mixed deciduous forests. It appears to be somewhat shade intolerant (FWS 1992). All of the

known populations of the small whorled pogonia in North Carolina or South Carolina are located

on the far western end of each state, and no known populations are located within 150 mi of the

BSEP or Its associated transmission lines.

In addition to the Federally listed species described above, there are six additional species that

have been found within the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way, and approximately 14 other

species occurring within 1 mi of the transmission line rights-of-way that are currently listed by

the State of North Carolina as endangered or threatened. The species that are known from the

BSEP site or transmission line rights-of-way are discussed below.

The Carolina gopher frog inhabits xeric upland habitats in long-leaf pine/turkey oak

communities and other similar community types (NatureServe 2005) in the coastal plain and

sandhills from southern Alabama and Florida through southeastern North Carolina. It breeds in

temporary fish-free pools (NCNHP 2004a; NatureServe 2005) but spends most of its adult life

foraging in upland areas. Gopher frogs use the burrows of rodents or gopher tortoises for

shelter. The NCNHP database includes records of gopher frogs within the rights-of-way of the

Jacksonville, Whiteville, and Wilmington-Corning transmission lines. Additional habitat likely

occurs within several of the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way.

The savanna indigo-bush is a short shrub that inhabits wet savannas in the coastal plain

(NCNHP 2004b). Apparently, the only high quality population remaining is within the Green

Swamp preserve in Brunswick County (NatureServe 2005). The one record in the NCNHP

April 2006 2-41 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

database of this species occurring within a BSEP transmission line right-of-way is a very old

record (1949) from approximately 2 mi east of what is now the Delco substation. However,

suitable habitat may occur elsewhere within the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way.

The Sandhills lily was first described as a separate species in 2002 and is currently listed as

endangered by NCNHP. It is narrowly endemic to the sandhills from southern Virginia to

northern South Carolina (FONA 2003a). The species is fire dependent, and appears to survive

best on military bases where fires are frequently initiated by exploding ordnance (FONA 2003a).

The species' habitat is in streamhead pocosins, seeps, and drainages in maintained power lines

(FONA 2003a), or peaty seepage bogs (NCNHP 2004b). One population of Sandhills lily has

been identified within the Fayetteville transmission right-of-way in Cumberland County, and

suitable habitat may occur elsewhere in the western reaches of the BSEP transmission lines.

Carolina grass-of-parnassas inhabits wet savannas in the coastal plain and sandhills

(NCNHP 2004b). Although many of the existing populations are on timber lands, the species is

adversely affected by fire suppression because of encroachment by shrubs and trees

(NatureServe 2005). One population of this species is known to occur in the Jacksonville

transmission right-of-way in western Onslow County. However, suitable habitat likely exists in

other BSEP transmission line rights-of-way.

The pinelahd plantain is a perennial forb that inhabits wet savannas (NCNHP 2004b) in the

coastal plain from Florida to southeastern North Carolina (NatureServe 2005). Like many of the

rare species in this area, this species requires fires to maintain viable populations. A fire

frequency of 1 - 10 year return intervals is needed to maintain the open character of the

savannas where species such as the pineland plantain are found (Nature Conservancy 2001).

One population of pineland plantain is known to occur within the Jacksonville transmission line

right-of-way in western Onslow County. However, additional suitable habitat may occur

elsewhere within the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way.

Thome's beaksedge is a small perennial sedge-like plant that grows on the shores of limestone

ponds, seeps (FONA 2003b), and wet savannas (NCNHP 2004b) within the coastal plains in

Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina. Thorne's beaksedge occurs at several of the

same sites as golden sedge and Cooley's meadowrue (67 FR 3120), as it does at one location

along the Jacksonville transmission right-of-way in western Onslow County. Additional habitat

is likely to occur elsewhere within the BSEP transmission line rights-of-way.

No other Federally or State-listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species is known to

occur at BSEP or along its transmission line rights-of-way. CP&L has procedures in place to

protect endangered or threatened species if they are encountered at the plant site or along

transmission line rights-of-way and provides training for employees on these procedures

(BSEP 2003, 2005b). In 1993, CP&L signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-42 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

NCDENR to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species and sensitive

natural areas occurring on transmission line rights-of-way (CP&L and NCDENR 1993). The

company also maintains best management practices for management of rare plants on

Progress Energy rights-of-way (BSEP 2005b).

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts

CP&L has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) around the

BSEP site since 1973. Through this program, radiological impacts to workers, the public, and

the environment are monitored, documented, and compared to the appropriate standards. The

objectives of the REMP are to measure accumulation of radioactivity in the environment,

determine whether this radioactivity is the result of operations of BSEP, and assess the

potential dose to the off-site population based on the cumulative measurements of radioactivity

of plant origin (PEC 2004b).

Each year, results of measurements of radiological releases and environmental monitoring are

summarized in two annual reports: the BSEP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating

Report (PEC 2004b) and the BSEP Radioactive Effluent Release Report (PEC 2004a). The

limits for all radiological releases are specified in the ODCM, and these limits are designed to

meet Federal standards and requirements (CP&L 2004b).

The REMP includes monitoring of the waterbome environment (surface water and shoreline

sediments), ingestion pathways (milk, fish, and vegetation), direct radiation (gamma dose on

thermoluminescent dosimeter locations), and atmospheric environment (airborne radioiodine,

particulates, gross beta, and gamma) (PEC 2004b) at a variety of locations surrounding the

BSEP site. Sampling locations are chosen based on meteorological factors, preoperational

planning, and results of land-use surveys. A number of locations in areas unlikely to be

affected by plant operations are selected as controls. Monitoring results for the 5-year period

1999 through 2003 indicate that the radiation and radioactivity in the environmental media

monitored around the plant are well within applicable regulatory limits and are not significantly

higher than pre-operational levels (PEC 2000b, 2001 b, 2002b, 2003c, 2004b)

In addition to monitoring radioactivity in environmental media, CP&L annually assesses doses

to the maximally exposed individuals from gaseous and liquid effluents at several locations

based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent release data. Calculations are performed using the

plant effluent release data, onsite meteorological data, and appropriate pathways identified in

the ODCM (CP&L 2004b). For 2003, a summary of the calculated maximum doses to

individuals in the vicinity of BSEP from liquid and gaseous effluents is as follows:

April 2006 2-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

* The total body dose from liquid effluents was 6 x 10-5 mrem, which is about

0.001 percent of the 6-mrem dose design objective specified in 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I. The critical organ dose from liquid effluents was 3 x 104 mrem. This dose

was about 0.001 percent of the 20-mrem dose design objective (PEC 2004a).

* The air dose from noble gases in gaseous effluents was 3.7 x 10 3 mrad from gamma

I radiation, which is 0.02 percent of the 20-mrad gamma dose design objective, and

| 1.6 x 10 3mrad from beta radiation, which is 0.004 percent of the 40-mrad beta dose

design objective (PEC 2004a).

* The critical organ dose from gaseous effluents because of iodine-I 31, iodine-1 33,

tritium, and particulates with half-lives greater than 8 days was 6.8 x 102 mrem, which is

0.2 percent of the 30-mrem dose design objective (PEC 2004a).

These results were consistent with those reported for the period 1999 through 2002

(PEC 2000a,2001a, 2002a,2003b). In all cases, doses were well below the limits as defined in

the ODCM and confirm that BSEP is operating in compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I;

I10 CFR Part 20; and 40 CFR Part 190.

As described In Section 2.1.4, CP&L completed a EPU in 2005, and the NRC concluded that

| the uprate could result in up to a 15-percent increase in the amount of radioactive material in

| gaseous effluents (67 FR 36040). Such an increase could result in up to a 15-percent increase

in the doses from gaseous effluents. However, because the estimated doses to individuals in

the vicinity of BSEP from current operations are much less than regulatory limits (less than

1 percent of the applicable limit in all cases), a 15-percent increase in gaseous effluents would

not result in significantly greater impacts than current dose limits. In addition, CP&L (2004a)

does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or exposures

from BSEP operations during the license renewal term and, therefore, the impacts to the

environment are not expected to change.

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors

The staff reviewed the ER (CP&L 2004a) and information obtained from several county, city,

and local economic development staff during a site visit to southeastern North Carolina and

northeastern South Carolina from January 22 through 28, 2005. The following sections

describe the housing market, public services, offsite land use, visual aesthetics, noise,

demography, and economy of the region surrounding the BSEP site.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-44 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

2.2.8.1 Housing

As of January 2005, approximately 1143 employees work at BSEP (about 300 long-term

contract employees and 743 permanent employees). Approximately 90 percent of CP&L's

permanent employees live in Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, and the rest of the

employees live in other locations (see Table 2-5). Table 2-5 also provides residence

information for all contractors employed during 2004, but it does not distinguish between longterm and temporary workers. The staff assumed that the residence distribution of the

approximately 300 long-term contractor employees was equal to that of permanent employees.

Table 2-5. BSEP Permanent and Contractor Employment

Permanent Staff (Jan. 2005)

County or State Employees

Brunswick 407

New Hanover 273

Columbus 28

Pender 19

South Carolina 5

Bladen 3

Sampson -- 3

Percent

54.8%

36.7%

3.8%

2.6%

0.7%

0.4%

Rel

All I

Bru

Mid

All I

SoL

Noi

All Contractor Staff (2004 - Unit 1 Outage)

]Ion Contractors Percent

Other Southem States 153 13.1%

nswick County, NC 149 12.7%

western States 148 12.6%

Other North Carolina 109 9.3%

ith Carolina 104 8.9%

theastem States 91 7.8%

cas 81 6.9%

umbus County, NC 73 6.2%

rida 62 5.3%

stem States 59 5.0%

linia 52 4.4%

orgia 51 4.4%

N Hanover County, NC 39 3.3%

al Contractors 1171 100.0%

0.4% Te)

All other counties

Total Employees

Source: Progress Energy 2005a.

Col

Floi

5 0.7% We

Viqc

Gee

Nei

743 100.0% Tot

CP&L refuels BSEP on an 24-month cycle (CP&L 2004a). Each spring, one of the plant's

reactors is shut down for approximately 35 days to replace some of the fuel and to perform a

variety of maintenance activities. During refueling outages, the number of workers onsite

increases substantially, as reflected in Table 2-5. Most outage workers come from all parts of

the country, and, during the length of the outage, are assumed to reside in the same general

proportion to long-term employees. However, the bulk of the economic impact accrues to the

economy of their home residence. Given the predominance of CP&L employees living in

Brunswick and New Hanover Counties and the small possibility of significant socioeconomic

effects in other locations, the focus of the analyses undertaken in this SEIS is on these two

counties.

ApriI2006 2-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-6 provides the number of housing units and housing unit vacancies for Brunswick and

New Hanover Counties for 1990 and 2000. Both the number and percentage of vacancies

grew in both counties during that period. Both Brunswick County and New Hanover County

have urban development boundaries within which development is to take place. Land-use

planning for each county addresses several issues with respect to successful co-existence of

mixed land uses. Extremely high vacancy rates in Brunswick County stem from the seasonal

nature of beachfront rental housing or summer homes, which remain vacant outside of the

summer beach season.

Table 2-6. Housing Units by County During 1990 and 2000

Approximate Percentage Change

1990 2000 1990 to 2000

Brunswick County, NC

Housing Units 37114 51431 38.6%

Occupied Units % 54.1% 59.2% 51.7%

Vacant Units % 45.9% 40.8% 23.2%

New Hanover County, NC

Housing Units 57076 79616 39.5%

Occupied Units % 84.3% 85.6% 41.6%

Vacant Units % 15.7% 14.4% 27.9%

Source: USCB 1990a, b; 2000a, b

2.2.8.2 Public Services

* Water Supply

Brunswick County receives most of its potable water from the Lower Cape Fear Water and

Sewer Authority (LCFWSA), which has 15 deep wells that tap into the Castle Hayne aquifer.

Table 2-7 shows water supplies in the Lower Cape Fear region used for water planning.

Brunswick County receives the majority of its potable water 7.5 MGD from the LCFWSA

(LCFWSA 2005). Brunswick County receives raw surface water from the LCFWSA that it treats

at the County's Northwest Water Treatment Facility. This facility has a capacity of 24 MGD

(CP&L 2004a).

All the systems that currently obtain water from Wilmington or LCFWSA and the other local

government water systems in New Hanover and Brunswick counties are considered a regional

group for water planning purposes. The 27 systems included in this group have a combined

projected 2050 average daily demand of 73.4 MGD. They have 11 5.5 MGD of available supply

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-46 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-7. Water Supply and Demand in the Lower Cape Fear Planning Group

Lower Cape Fear Group Total Current 2010 Demand 2050 Demand

Water Suppliers and Customers Supply MGD MGD MGD

Apple Valley 0.166 0.156 0.241

Brickstone - Marsh Oaks 0.216 0.075 0.117

Brunswick Co 0.000 14.466 26.586

Carolina Beach 0.890 0.742 1.104

Caswell Beach 0.000 0.220 0.314

Figure Eight Island 0.564 0.399 0.642

Holden Beach 0.000 0.799 2.599

Kure Beach 0.824 0.414 0.766

Lower Cape Fear WSA 53.300 11.650 11.650

Monterey Heights 0.360 0.122 0.177

Murrayville 2.916 1.667 2.855

Navassa 0.000 0.053 0.084

New Hanover Co Airport 0.000 0.024 0.040

New Hanover Co Flemington 0.432 0.362 0.315

North Brunswick WSA 0.000 0.588 0.953

Oak Island 0.000 1.215 2.383

Ocean Isle Beach 0.000 0.589 1.157

Prince George 0.180 0.066 0.103

Runnymeade 0.144 0.066 0.103

Shallotte 0.000 0.228 0.303

Southport 0.000 0.800 1.446

Sunset Beach 0.000 0.628 1.185

Walnut Hills 0.148 0.092 0.143

Westbay 0.792 0.050 0.077

Wilmington 53.300 11.952 16.696

Wrightsville Beach 1.222 1.111 1.372

Group Total 115.454 48.534 73.412

Source: NCDENR 2002

when the supplies from existing wells are combined with the 106.6 MGD available at the intakes

located on the Cape Fear River. Based on this analysis, NCDENR concludes these systems

have enough water available to meet future demands (NCDENR 2002).

BSEP receives water from Brunswick County Public Utilities. From 1996 through 2001, BSEP's

water use ranged from approximately 0.22 MGD to approximately 0.25 MGD with an average

April 2006 2-47 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

consumption of 0.23 MGD (CP&L 2004a). The BSEP average use over the six-year period

represents two percent of the total water supplied to customers by Brunswick County Public

Utilities in 2000 and one percent of the utility's total production capacity over the same period.

Transportation

Brunswick County is served by US Hwy. 17, which runs east-west and connects Myrtle Beach,

South Carolina, with Wilmington, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation

(NCDOT) currently is planning significant expansion of US 17 and is studying the significant

feeder and collector routes in Brunswick County (NRC 2005). Traffic congestion during the

summer beach season occurs along access routes to the island beach communities in

Brunswick County and at points along US 17 and NC Hwy. 211. The largest capacity highway in

the immediate vicinity of the BSEP site is NC Hwy. 87/133, to which the BSEP access road

connects. This north-south route carries the merged volume of NC 87 and NC 133, connecting

Southport and Wilmington.

Road access to BSEP is via River Road (NC 87/133), a two-lane paved highway (see

Figure 2-2). River Road intersects NC 211 (Southport-Supply Road) via the Dosher Cut Off, a

0.6 mi link to the west of NC 87/133, about 0.3 mi north of the plant access road. About 0.9 mi

south of the plant access road, River Road intersects Howe Street (NC 211) in Southport.

Employees traveling from areas of Brunswick County west of BSEP most likely take the

Southport-Supply Road (NC 211) to the Dosher Cut Off to connect with River Road. Employees

traveling from the Wilmington area or northern Brunswick County most likely take River Road

(NC 133) or the George Hwy. (NC 87) from their junctions with US 17 and travel south to BSEP.

Traffic count data for routes in the immediate vicinity of BSEP is shown in Table 2-8 (NCDOT

2004).

The State of North Carolina does not make level of service determinations in rural, nonmetropolitan areas unless it has deemed it necessary. None of the roads listed have had levelof-service determinations calculated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation

(CP&L 2004a). Both Brunswick and New Hanover Couhties are served by Class I railroads, and

there is rail service to the BSEP site.

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use

BSEP is located in unincorporated Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina, near the

mouth of the Cape Fear River. Brunswick County is the sixth largest county in North Carolina

and encompasses approximately 855 mi2. The county has a population of approximately 82,000

people. Bolivia is the county seat of Brunswick County.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-48 ApriI2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-8. Traffic Counts for Roads in the Vicinity of BSEP

Route No. Vicinity of 2003 Est. AADT(8'

NC 133/87 (River Road) Bethel Road 16,000

NC 211 (Howe Street) Between River Road and Dosher Cut Off 17,000

NC 211 (Howe Street) Downtown Southport 9200

NC 211 (Southport-Supply Road) NC 133 (Long Beach Road) 28,000

NC 133 (Long Beach Road) NC 211 (Southport-Supply Road) 22,000

NC 133 Oak Island Drive 16,000

Dosher Cut Off Between NC 87 and NC 211 10,000

NC 87 (River Road) NC 211 (Howe Street) 8100

NC 87 (George Hwy) Boiling Spring Lakes 9600

AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes - all for 2003.

NC = State highway

(a) North Carolina Department of Transportation 2004.

National land cover satellite Imagery data (Vogelmann et al. 2001) were analyzed within ArcView

9 Geographic Information System for the region within 50 mi of the BSEP. Table 2-9 provides a

summarization of land-use classifications.

Table 2-9. Land-Use Classification in the 50 mi Region of BSEPwa)

Land Classification Area (ac) Percent of Total

Open Water 66,952 3.0

Developed Residential 34,781 1.6

Developed Nonresidential 24,845 1.1

Open Underdeveloped 45,939 2.1

Forested 1,025,143 46.0

Agricultural 303,191 13.6

Wetlands 728,126 32.7

Total Acreage 2,228,976

(a) U.S. Geological Survey land-cover classes have been aggregated for presentation purposes based on

Vogelmann et al. (2001). Rounding may affect totals.

April 2006 2-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Under Brunswick County's land classification system, the majority of land in Brunswick County is

rural and is classified as rural, conservation, or transitional (Brunswick County 1997). The area

immediately surrounding BSEP is a mix of agricultural lands, woodlands, swamps, and marshes.

The nearest incorporated community to BSEP is the town of Southport, located approximately

2.5 mi south of BSEP. The communities of Boiling Spring Lakes, Caswell Beach, Oak Island,

and Bald Head Island are within 6 mi of BSEP.

The closest metropolitan area to BSEP is Wilmington, North Carolina. Wilmington is in

New Hanover County.

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise

BSEP typically is not visible to people in the vicinity because of dense vegetation. It is visible

from the Cape Fear River and from points in southern New Hanover County, such as Fort Fisher

State Park and Kure Beach. Noise from plant operations is not distinguishable from other

industrial noise to people in the vicinity.

The nearest municipalities to the BSEP site are Southport, located approximately 1.9 mi

southeast of the plant; Oak Island, located approximately 5 ml southwest of the plant; and

Boiling Spring Lakes, located about 6 mi northwest of the plant.

The discharge canal is a prominent feature of the surrounding populated area. Bridges on two

major highway routes in the vicinity cross the discharge canal. Depending on conditions, steam

rising from the discharge canal is visible from roadways. The discharge pumping station in

Caswell Beach is a prominent building in the beach access area of that community. It is located

just north of Caswell Beach Road, across the street from beachfront housing, and is well lighted

during night-time hours. Noise occurs as a result of pumping operations and is audible to people

in the area (NRC 2005). Residents of Caswell Beach report that a noticeable concavity in the

shape of the beach has been developing for an unspecified amount of time, and hypothesize

that perhaps the ocean outfall may be a contributing factor (NRC 2005b). Based on reports in

the local media, an engineering consultant hired by the Town of Caswell Beach reported in 2003

that, based on his analysis, the BSEP discharge has not contributed to erosion along the

shoreline of Caswell Beach and the east end of Oak Island (Town of Caswell Beach, 2003;

Calhoun, 2003).

2.2.8.5 Demography

The staff estimated population from the BSEP site out to a distance of 50 mi. NRC guidance

calls for the use of the most recent USCB decennial census data, which in the case of the BSEP

site is data from the 2000 census (USCB 2001). The NRC staff used 2000 census data

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-50 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

and GIS analysis in discussing both minority and low-income populations. Population

projections based on census data have been made by the North Carolina Statistical Data Center

(NCSDC).

Using USCB 2000 census information and the Azimuthal Equidistant projection in the ArcView 9

Geographic Information System, the staff estimated that 133,341 people lived within 20 mi of

BSEP. Applying the GEIS sparseness measures, Brunswick has a population density of

226 persons/mi 2 within 20 mi and falls into the least sparse category, Category 4 (having 120 or

more persons per square mi).

Using USCB 2000 census information, the staff estimated that 361,872 people live within 50 mi

of the BSEP site. This equates to a population density of 111 persons/mi 2 within 50 mi.

Applying the GEIS proximity measures, the BSEP site is classified as being "not in close

proximity," Category 2 (having no city of more than 100,000 persons and less than

190 persons/mi 2 within 50 mi). Based on the GEIS sparseness and proximity matrix, the BSEP

site meets sparseness Category 4 and proximity Category 2. This results in the conclusion that

the site is located in a medium population area. All or parts of seven counties are located within

50 mi of the BSEP site. Over 92 percent of BSEP site employees live in New Hanover and

Brunswick Counties. The remaining 8 percent are distributed across 11 counties, with numbers

ranging from 1 to 28 people. The cities of Wilmington, Southport, and Oak Island have the

highest numbers of employees In residence, with 34 percent, 17 percent, and 10 percent of the

plant workforce, respectively (PEC 2005b).

Both Brunswick and New Hanover Counties are growing at faster rates than North Carolina as a

whole. From 1990 to 2003, North Carolina's average annual population growth rate was

2 percent, while New Hanover County increased by 3.1 percent per year and Brunswick County

increased by 4.7 percent per year (NCSDC 2001). In 2003, North Carolina reported a population

estimate of 8.4 million people. By the year 2030, North Carolina is projected to have 12.9 million

people (NCSDC 2004b), growing at an average annual rate of 2 percent. By the year 2030,

Brunswick and New Hanover Counties are projected to grow at average annual rates of 2.3 and

1.3 percent, respectively (NCSDC 2004b). Both Brunswick and New Hanover counties are

projected to outpace North Carolina's overall population growth rate through 2030.

Table 2-10 shows estimated populations and annual growth rates for the four counties that

comprise the economic region (Farrell and Hall 2004) found to be affected by BSEP operations.

The table is based on State of North Carolina projections through 2030.

April 2006 2-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-10. Regional Population Growth

Brunswick Columbus New Hanover Pender 4-County Percent

Year County County County County Region Change

1970's) 24,223 46,937 82,996 18,149 172,305

1980'^' 35,777 51,037 103,471 22,262 212,547 23.4%

1990(a) 50,985 49,587 120,284 28,855 249,711 17.5%

2000"' 73,141 54,749 160,327 41,082 329,299 31.9%

2003>b 81,810 54,557 169,050 43,699 349,116 6.0%

201 0(c 95,961 57,945 194,392 51,906 400,204 14.6%

2020(c) 115,412 62,442 229,603 63,898 471,355 17.8%

203010 133,435 66,538 262,828 75,516 538,317 14.2%

(a) NCSDC 2001

(b) NCSDC 2004a

(c) NCSDC 2004b

I

I

I

I

* Resident Population Within 50 miles

Table 2-11 presents the population distribution within 50 ml of the BSEP site for the year 2000

based on the 2000 census.

Table 2-11. Year 2000 Population Distribution Within 50 mi of the BSEP Site

Oto 10 ml 10to 20 ml 20to 30 ml 30to 40 ml 40to 50 ml Total

24,666 10,8675 9,6874 58,361 73,296 361,872

Source: USCB 2001

* Migrant Labor

Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to tend or harvest

agricultural crops. Some migrant workers may follow seasonal crop cycles through

North Carolina and South Carolina, while others may be permanent residents of the Brunswick

area who travel from farm to farm performing seasonal work.

Migrant workers can be members of minority or low-income groups. Because migrant workers

travel and can spend significant time in an area without being residents, they may be unavailable

for counting by census takers. If this occurs, they would be "under-represented" in census

minority and low-income population counts.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-52 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

There are 270 farms in Brunswick County and 77 in New Hanover County. The other two

counties in the BSEP economic region are substantially more rural and have more farms

(Columbus County with 828 and Pender County with 296) (USDA 2004). According to the 2002

Census of Agriculture, approximately 4050 farm workers were present at some time during the

year on 569 farms hiring farm labor in the four-county economic region (USDA 2004). Of the

569 farms reporting hired farm labor, 98 reported hiring migrant farm labor. No estimate of the

actual number of migrant laborers hired is available. Migrant labor is also employed in

Brunswick County during the golf season (February to October) for golf course maintenance and

the beach season (June to August) for retail and service jobs, although no estimates of migrant

employment for these jobs are available (NRC 2005). Especially in Brunswick County, previous

migrant laborers are increasingly settling in the county as a result of stable employment in the

tourism industry. Continued strong, off-season housing construction provides a constant

demand for unskilled labor. Farming and farm labor play a secondary role to tourism in the use

of migrant labor.

2.2.8.6 Economy and Taxes

A recent study by the University of North Carolina - Wilmington (Farrell and Hall 2004)

determined that the region affected by the Brunswick plant should include the entire Wilmington

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), formed by New Hanover, Brunswick, and Pender Counties,

and should also include Columbus County. This region of North Carolina has been growing

significantly in economic activity over the last decade. Brunswick and New Hanover Counties

border the Atlantic Ocean and have ready access to domestic and international markets, with a

transportation network consisting of interstate highway access to major north-south and

east-west routes, trucking and rail terminals, an international airport, and two international ports.

Brunswick County is a regional tourism and retirement living center. The increasing popularity of

destination golfing has spilled over from the Myrtle Beach region of South Carolina into the

county and has led to the development of 42 golf courses in Brunswick County. The golf season

begins in February and extends into November. The beach communities along the southern

coastal islands of Brunswick County have been extremely popular summer destinations for

vacationers specifically from the northeast and from interior sections of North Carolina. At

current rates of construction, these islands will exhaust the remaining available land for

construction in the next 10-15 years (NRC 2005a). The real estate and home construction

market has been booming in Brunswick County for several years as the retirement market has

boomed. Retirees relocate to Brunswick County principally from the Northeast, other parts of

North Carolina, and from Florida to take advantage of the climate, amenities, lower taxes, and

relatively lower home prices (NRC 2005a).

The four-county economic region suggested by Farrell and Hall (Farrell and Hall 2004) has

developed into an economy strongly weighted toward health care, leisure services, retail, and

April 2006 2-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

land development/ construction. There is a strong wood products extraction and conversion

industry as well; however, the service sector of the economy dominates employment (NCESC

2005). This is consistent with the observations that the area has become a retirement

destination. The trade, health care, construction/real estate, and leisure services sectors make

up over 60 percent of regional employment.

BSEP is the second largest employer in Brunswick County, behind the public school system.

BSEP pays annual property taxes to Brunswick County and is its most significant property

taxpayer. Property tax revenues fund Brunswick County operations, school systems, the county

general fund, fire districts, libraries, the emergency management system, and various

environmental services (NCDST 2005). From 1997 to 2004, property taxes paid by Progress

Energy for BSEP have remained relatively constant, while the tax base of the county has greatly

expanded with in-migration of new residents. The Progress Energy share of property tax

revenue in Brunswick County has been steadily decreasing since the mid 1990's, from

13.5 percent of tax revenue in 1997, to as low as 6.5 percent in 2003 (PEC 2005c; NCDST

2005). Although the county's reliance on Progress Energy for tax revenue has been decreasing,

if the operating license for BSEP were not renewed and the plant were decommissioned,

impacts to the tax basis of Brunswick County and its economic structure still would be

significant, as discussed in Section 8.4.7 of the GEIS (NRC 1996). Table 2-12 compares

BSEP's tax payments to Brunswick County tax revenues.

In the BSEP ER, Progress Energy assumed that BSEP's annual property taxes will remain

relatively constant through the license renewal term. The North Carolina legislature has studied

the issue of electric power industry deregulation, and it has decided to defer any consideration of

deregulation for the foreseeable future (CP&L 2004a). Any changes to BSEP tax rates due to

deregulation would, however, be independent of license renewal.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-54 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-12. Local Government Revenues and Property Tax Payments for BSEP I

Countyl') County( ) Progress Progress

County Property Total Energytb) Energy Progress Energy

Fiscal Taxes Revenue Tax Payments Proportion of Proportion of

Year (SMililon) ($Millon) (SMillion) Property Taxes County Revenue

1999 45.3 103.6 4.2 9.3% 4.1%

2000 52.8 120.0 4.2 8.0% 3.5%

2001 55.7 163.2 4.6 8.3% 2.8%

2002 61.0 115.7 4.6 7.5% 4.0%

2003 62.8 146.1 4.1 6.5% 2.8%

2004 68.5 193.6 4.8 7.0% 2.5%

(a) NCDST (2005)

(b) PEC (2005c)

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological

resources at BSEP and in the surrounding area. The North Carolina State Historic

Preservation Office, Department of Cultural Resources Office of Archives and History,

North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, and the North Carolina Archive and State Library are

the primary sources of information used in this assessment. Additional information is derived

from a cultural resource management report completed in the vicinity of BSEP by New South

Associates and other secondary sources relevant to Brunswick county history (Abbot et al. 2003;

Perdue 1985).

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background

The prehistoric-historic cultural chronology for the North Carolina Coastal Plain is broadly divided

into four periods: Paleo-lndian (12,000 to 8000 B.C.), Archaic (8000 to 1000 B.C.), Woodland

(1000 B.C. to A.D. 1650), and Historic (A.D. 1650 to 1715).

Paleo-lndian Period (12,000 to 8000 B.C.)

The Paleo-lndian period is the first cultural tradition present in the North Coastal Plain

(Perdue 1985). The subsistence strategy characterized by this time period focused on big-game

hunting of large animals such as mammoth and bison, supplemented by smaller animals and

fishing (Abbott et al. 2003). Population densities were also low. Cultural materials associated

with this region consist largely of projectile points diagnostically associated with Clovis and

Hardaway-Dalton culture (Abbott et al. 2003). However, there is very little evidence of

April 2006 2-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Paleo-lndian presence within the vicinity of Brunswick County. Most likely, any cultural

resources that were present have been erased by rising sea levels along the coast of North

Carolina.

Archaic Period (8000 to 1000 B.C.)

The Archaic period is divided into Early, Middle, and Late periods. Major climate changes

(warming trends) forced a shift from big-game subsistence to a reliance on small animals, fish,

and plants at 8000 B.C. (Perdue 1985). The Early and Middle periods are characterized by

increased population densities and less migration (Abbott et al. 2003). Cultural materials

associated with this period include the atlatl, atlatl weights, soapstone bowls, and lithic tools.

These sites have been located in both the upland areas and along river banks in North Carolina.

During the Late Archaic period, the economy began to transition from the hunter-gathering

subsistence to a horticultural focus, leading to permanent settlements. The end of the Late

Archaic period coincides with the advent of pottery production. Archaeological sites associated

with this period have been located in the southern North Carolina Coastal Plain.

Woodland Period (1000 B.C. to A.D. 1650)

The Woodland Period is also divided into Early, Middle, and Late periods. Relying on

horticultural practices, Woodland peoples planted squash, corn, and pumpkin, and constructed

permanent housing structures (Perdue 1985). The Early Woodland period is recognized by the

presence of fiber-tempered pottery (Abbott et al. 2003). This pottery is represented by the New

River ceramics style in the southern North Carolina Coastal Plain. The pottery from this region

and era is characterized by cordmarked and fabrics and designs (Abbott et al. 2003). There are

two site types associated with the Woodland Period that are represented in the vicinity of BSEP.

One site type is a large highly populated camp "situated along estuaries resources," while the

second type can be described as less populated "foray camp" (Abbott et al. 2003).

Shell midden sites, "low sand burial mounds," and the bow and arrow became prevalent during

the Middle Woodland Period in the Coastal Plain (Abbott et al. 2003). McFayden Mound is the

closest Middle to Late Woodland mound to have been excavated near BSEP. White-Oak

pottery tempered with shell is a hallmark of the Late Woodland period along the southern

North Carolina Coastal Plain (Abbott et al. 2003). Late Woodland sites typically consist of large

shell middens located on estuaries, which is indicative of an estuarine adaptation. An additional

unique characteristic of the Late Woodland period is the use of ossuaries to bury the dead.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-56 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Early Historic and Historic Period (Post A.D. 1650)

The South Coastal Plain was occupied historically by three Siouan speaking tribes: the Cape

Fear, Waccamaw, and Woccon Indians (Abbott et al. 2003). These groups encountered

European colonists in the 1660s. By 1730, European settlement and disease forced the

Cape Fear Indians to move out of the area that now encompasses Brunswick County.

Descendants of these groups who still have an interest in this area today include two Staterecognized tribes, the Lumbee and the Waccamaw-Siouan.

Although the first known European exploration of North Carolina occurred around 1523 by

Giovanni da Verrazano, a Florentine navigator sent by France, there is little evidence of

colonization in the area until the early 1700s. According to historic maps, the area in the vicinity

of BSEP had no evidence of permanent European settlement until 1725, when Waldren's

Plantation appears in the records (Hyme 1749). Plantations provided indigo, rice, and naval

stores in the Southport area (Abbott et al. 2003).

The first defense facility established by colonialists in the area was Fort Johnson, burned by the

patriots during the American Revolution in 1775. The area survived the American Revolution,

and the town of Southport, formerly called Smithville, was established in 1792 along the

Cape Fear River. The Southport National Register-eligible historic district is located within 1 mi

of BSEP (Lounsbury 1980). Fort Fisher, an earthwork fortification constructed by the

Confederacy in the 1860s to defend the mouth of the Cape Fear River, played an important role

in protecting the security of the Southport and Wilmington river ports during the Civil War (Abbott

et al. 2003). Smithville fell to Federal forces in 1865. In the 1880s, a natural deep harbor was

created at Southport, and for a short time, the town drew business to the area (Abbott et al.

2003). However, Wilmington, North Carolina, dominated the region, and Southport was never a

busy deep river port (Abbott et al. 2003). Throughout the twentieth century, the area grew slowly

with an emphasis on agriculture, commercial fishing, and timber products. CP&L constructed

BSEP in 1974.

2.2.9.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources at the BSEP Site

An archaeological records and literature search was conducted at the North Carolina State

Office of Archaeological Research to identify historic properties that may be located in the area

of potential effect (APE) and to determine if significant archaeological and historic resources

may exist at the BSEP site. The APE was defined by NRC as being confined to the power plant

site and its immediate environs.

The BSEP Final Environmental Statement identified seven National Register-eligible properties

near the construction area (AEC 1974). None however, was identified within the boundaries of

the plant construction area. A concern was raised regarding the possible impact of the plant's

April2006 2-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

construction of the Brunswick-Barnard's Creek transmission line on the archaeological site

known as Old Town/Charlestown (AEC 1974). The area in question was inspected by

Department of Archives and History staff, who found no evidence of archaeological remains. It

was also discovered that the location of the "suspected archaeological...site of Old Town" is

actually south of the transmission line right-of-way (AEC 1974).

Much of the APE has been disturbed by construction of BSEP and the intake and discharge

canals. None of the APE has been systematically surveyed for cultural resources, either before

construction or since construction of BSEP. A cultural resource marine remote sensing survey

was completed for the relocation of a submerged power cable crossing the Cape Fear River to

Bald Head Island (Hall 2001). The survey did not locate any submerged cultural resources. The

only recorded resources located within the APE are two historic cemeteries recorded in 1979.

Cemetery site number 31 BW532 is described as a county Potters field, and cemetery site

number 31 BW529 is described as the Swain Cemetery. The Swain Cemetery consisted of three

graves dating from 1875. The graves were relocated in the late 1980s with the consent of the

Swain family (NRC 2005a). Site 31 BW532 is described as an abandoned cemetery dating to

the early 1900s with no markers present. It was recorded as a burial ground for the poor or for

unclaimed bodies.

Archaeological field personnel visited the locations of the two cemeteries on January 27, 2005.

Having been relocated, there was no evidence of site 31 BW529. Field personnel were also

unable to locate site 31 BW532. The area appears to be disturbed by the presence of

communication and water towers. According to land acquisition records maintained by CP&L,

most of the lands contained dairy farms owned by the Swain, Magnolia, and Cochran families.

Archaeological personnel identified remains of the Magnolia Dairy in the vicinity of site

31 BW532. Surface and archaeological remains of these properties likely remain in the

undisturbed portions of the APE.

The Georgiana McCaw Shipwreck (site number 0201B) is located 100 yards off Caswell Beach

near the BSEP cooling system discharge canal. It has not been evaluated for National Register

eligibility.

There is a high potential for prehistoric archaeological resources to be located along the several

creeks that traverse the APE.

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consulations

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

renewal of the OLs for BSEP. Any such activities could result in cumulative environmental

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-58 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

impacts and the possible need for a Federal agency to become a cooperating agency for

preparation of the SEIS [10 CFR 51.1 0(b)(2)].

The only Federal land in close proximity to BSEP is the Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point.

This terminal is operated by the U.S. Army. The terminal comprises approximately 16,000 ac

and is located immediately north of and adjacent to the BSEP. The terminal is the largest

ammunition port in the nation, and the Army's primary east coast deep-water port. The terminal

provides worldwide trans-shipment of ammunition, explosives, and other cargo for the

U.S. Department of Defense.

After reviewing the Federal activities in the vicinity of BSEP, the staff determined that there were

no Federal project activities that would make it desirable for another Federal agency to become

a cooperating agency for preparation of this SEIS.

NRC is required under Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act to consult with

and obtain the comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise

with respect to any environmental impact involved in the subject matter of the SEIS. During the

preparation of this SEIS, NRC consulted with FWS and NMFS. Consultation correspondence is

included in Appendix E.

2.3 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

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

Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licences for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material."

April 2006 2-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

40 CFR Part 58. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 58,

"Ambient Air Quality Surveillance."

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

64 FR 36453. July 6, 1999. "Proposal Rule to Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States

From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife." Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

66 FR 36038. September 11, 2002. "Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Great Plain

Breeding Population of the Piping Plover; Final Rule." Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

67 FR 3120. January 23, 2002. "Endangered Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Carex

lutea (Golden Sedge)." Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

67 FR 36040. May 22, 2002. "Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Related to Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Rated Thermal Power

Level." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Abbott, L., J.D. Gunn, E. Sanborn, J. Langdale, and S. Norris. 2003. Phase I Archeological

Survey of 1344 Acres at Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, Brunswick, North Carolina.

Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah Georgia by New

South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

American Cetacean Society. 2005. Cetacean fact packs. American Cetacean Society, San

Pedro, California. Accessed at: http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/ on June 26, 2005.

Brunswick County. 1997. Brunswick County Land Use Plan. Bolivia, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2002a. Aerial Patrols. MNT-TRMX-00052, Rev. 0,

Southport, North Carolina. March, 2002.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2002b. Transmission Line Right of Way.

MNT-TRMX-00176, Rev. 0. March, 2002.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-60 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2002c. Transmission Line Equipment and Right of

Way Maintenance Schedules. MNT-TRMX-00051, Rev. 0, Southport, North Carolina. March

2002.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2003. Environmental Training: Endangered Species.

EVC-SUBS-00062, Rev 0. Southport, North Carolina. January 2003.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2004 Sea

Turtle Annual Report. Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005b. Endangered and Threatened Species.

EVC-SUBS-0001 1, Rev 2. Southport, North Carolina. February 2005.

Calhoun, T., 2003. "Erosion not fault of outfall." The State Port Pilot. Southport, North Carolina.

April 16,2003.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1979. 316(a) Demonstration, Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Volume XIX. Environmental Technology Section, Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1980. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear

Studies: Interpretive Report. Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1985. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear

Studies: Interpretive Report. New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1998. Threatened and Endangered Species

Self-Assessment Report. Environmental Services Section, Biological Assessment Unit, New Hill,

North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2001. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report, Revision 18C. Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004a. Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Off-Site

Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), Revision 28. Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport,

North Carolina.

April 2006 2-61 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (CP&L and NCDENR). 1993. Memorandum of Understanding between the Carolina

Power & Light Company and the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources (now North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources).

March 19, 1993.

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 USC 1451, et seq.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Farrell, C. and W. Hall, Jr. 2004. Economic Impact Study of the Progress Energy, Inc.

Brunswick Nuclear Power Facility on North Carolina State Planning Region 0. Center for

Business and Economics Services, Cameron School of Business, University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, October 2004. Accessed at:

http://www.nei.org/documents/EconomicBenefits_BrunswickUNC.pdf on January 16, 2005.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act). 33 USC 1251, et seq.

Flora of North America Committee (FONA). 2003a. Flora of North America North of Mexico.

Vol. 26, New York and Oxford, United Kingdom. Accessed at: http://www.fna.org/FNAI on

March 11,2005.

Flora of North America Committee (FONA). 2003b. Flora of North America North of Mexico.

Vol. 23, New York and Oxford, United Kingdom. Accessed at: http://www.fna.org/FNAI on

March 11, 2005.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat,

T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbu me. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and

South Carolina, (Color poster with map, descritptive text, summary tables, and photographs):

Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,5,00,000). Accessed at:

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ncsceco.htm on January 19, 2005.

Hall, S.P, M.P. Schafale, and J.T. Finnegan. 1999. Conservation Assessment of the Southeast

Coastal Plain of North Carolina Using Site-Oriented and Landscape-Oriented Analysis. North

Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Hall, W. 2001. A Cultural Resources Marine Remote Sensing Survey of the Proposed

Realignment corridor of a Power Cable Crossing the Cape Fear River to Bald Head Island, North

Carolina. Submitted to Carolina Power & Light Company by Mid-Atlantic Technology and

Environmental Research, Inc. Castle Hayne, North Carolina.

Hyme, E. 1749. The New and Exact Plan of Cape Fear River from the Bar to Brunswick. Detail

from Map of Caper Fear River.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-62 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

LCFWSA, 2005. Water Use by Customers (MGD) Brunswick County. Accessed at:

http://www.lcfwasa.org/graphics.html on March 7, 2005.

Lounsbury, C. 1980. Southport Historic District National Register of Historic Places Inventory -

Nomination Form. Survey and Planning Branch, Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section,

North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Moser, M.L. and S.W. Ross. 1995. Habitat use and movements of shortnose and Atlantic

sturgeons in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society, 124(2): 225-234

Moser, M.L., W.S. Patrick, and J.U. Crutchfield, Jr. 2001. 'Infection of American Eels, Anguilla

rostrata, by an introduced nematode parasite, Anguillicola crassus, in North Carolina." Copeia.

2000(3):848-853.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004a. "2003 Local Climatic Data Annual Summary

with Comparative Data - Wilmington, North Carolina." Asheville, North Carolina.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2004b. "Storm Events Data Base." (CD-ROM

containing data for the period from 1950 through August 2003), Asheville, North Carolina.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 2005. Storm Events. Accessed at:

http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent-storms on January 20, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005a. Species Information. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ on June 26, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005b. Species of Concern and Candidate Species. NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,

Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern/ on June

26, 2005.

National Park Service (NPS). 2005. Green Swamp National Natural Landmark. Accessed at:

http://nature.nps.gov/nnVRegistry/USA-Map/States/NorthCarolina/NNUGS/ on March 11, 2005.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life (Web Application).

Accessed at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer on March 10,2005.

Nature Conservancy. 2001. State Success Stories, North Carolina Fire Management Program.

Accessed at: www.conserveonline.org/2001/6/s/en/northcarolina.pdf. on 14 June 2005.

North Carolina Coastal Land Trust (NCCLT). 2001. Group Preserving Remnant of Wetland

Studied by N.C. State Ecologist. Press release dated October 22,2001. Accessed at:

http://www.coastallandtrust.org on January 30, 2004.

April 2006 2-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2002. Cape

Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan: Second Draft for Discussion, Division of Water Resources,

March 2002. Accessed at:

http://www.ncwater.org/Water-Supply-Planning/CapeLFear_BasinWater.-Supply-Plan/ on

March 3, 2005.

North Carolina Department of State Treasurer (NCDST). 2005. Financial Information Brunswick

County. Accessed at: http://ncdst-web2.treasurer.state.nc.us/lgc/units/D_09.htm on January 12,

2005.

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2004. GIS Traffic Survey County Maps

2003. Accessed at: httpJ/www.ncdot.org/planning/tpb/gis/DataDisVGISTrafSurvMaps.html on

March 1,2005.

North Carolina Employment Security Commission (NCESC). 2005. 2004 Quarter 2

Employment and Wages by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Accessed

at: httpJ/esimi23.esc.state.nc.us/ew/EWGeoArea.asp?Report=1&Year=2004&Period=02 on

March 7, 2005.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004a. Natural Heritage Program Ust of

the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. 2004 Edition. Accessed at:

http:/~www.ncnhp.org/images/Other/2OPublications%/2ORare%/2OAnimal%2OList.pdf on

March 11, 2005.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004b. Natural Heritage Program List of

the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. 2004 Edition. Accessed at:

httpi/www.ncnhp.org/images/Other%/o2oPublications%2ORare%20Plant%2OList.pdf on

March 11, 2005.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2005. Heritage Data. Accessed at:

http:/Afww.ncnhp.org/pages/heritagedata.html on March 11, 2005.

North Carolina Statistical Data Center (NCSDC). 2001. Population Overview: 1970-1995.

Accessed at: hftp://demog.state.nc.us/demog/pop7095.html on February 21,2005.

North Carolina Statistical Data Center (NCSDC). 2004a. 2003 Certified County Population

Estimates. North Carolina Statistical Data Center. Accessed at:

httpi/demog.state.nc.us/demog/certO3pa.html on February 21, 2005.

North Carolina Statistical Data Center (NCSDC). 2004b. County/State Population Projections.

North Carolina Statistical Data Center. Accessed at: hftp://demog.state.nc.us/projections.html

on February 21,2005.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2004. Endangered Species Permit

No. 04ST49. Raleigh, North Carolina.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 2-64 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

Perdue, T. 1985. Native Carolinians The Indians of North Carolina. Division of Archives and

History North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2000a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Radioactive

Effluent Release Report, January 1 through December 31, 1999. Docket Nos. 50-325 and

50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2000b. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 1999. Docket Nos. 50-325

and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2001 a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Radioactive

Effluent Release Report, January 1 through December 31, 2000. Docket Nos. 50-325 and

50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2001 b. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 2000. Docket Nos. 50-325

and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2002a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Radioactive

Effluent Release Report, January 1 through December31, 2001. Docket Nos. 50-325 and

50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2002b. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December31, 2001. Docket Nos. 50-325

and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2003a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2003 Biological

Monitoring Report. Environmental Services Section, New Hill, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2003b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Radioactive

Effluent Release Report, January 1 through December 31, 2002. Docket Nos. 50-325 and

50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2003c. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 2002. Docket Nos. 50-325

and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2004a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Radioactive

Effluent Release Report, January 1 through December31, 2003. Docket Nos. 50-325 and

50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2004b. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 2003. Docket Nos. 50-325

and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

April 2006 2-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2005a. 'Herbicide Usage-Progress Energy Carolinas,

Inc." Accessed at http://www.progress-energy-com/environmenVvegetation/herbicide.asp on

January 4, 2005.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2005b. BSEP Employment Data. Provided as

spreadsheets via email from Paul Snead as a response from the Site Audit, February 2005.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2005c. Information on Tax Payments to Brunswick

County. E-mail received from Paul Snead in response to data requested at the site audit,

February 4, 2005.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2005d. E-mail message from Tom Thompson,

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., Environmental Services Section, to Susan Sargent, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory. July 8, 2005. ADAMS Accession No. ML052030260.

Renewable Resource Data Center (RReDC). 2005. 'U.S. Solar Radiation Resource Maps:

Atlas for the Solar Radiation Data Manual for Flat-Plate and Concentrating Collectors." National

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Accessed at:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/olddata/nsrdb/redbook/atlas on January 20, 2005.

Sackschewsky, M.R. 1997. Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for 75 Licensed

Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants. PNNL-1 1524. Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Town of Caswell Beach. 2003. Caswell Beach Sandpiper. July, 2003.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Continued Construction and Proposed Issuance of an Operating License for the Bnrnswick

Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2, Carolina Power & Light Company. Docket Nos. 50-324 and

50-325, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990a. Brunswick County, North Carolina - DP-5. Housing

Characteristics: 1990. 1990 Census Data. Accessed at: http-//factfinder.census.gov/ on

February 18, 2005.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 1990b. New Hanover County, North Carolina - DP-5. Housing

Characteristics: 1990. 1990 Census Data. Accessed at: httpJ//factfinder.census.gov/ on

February 18, 2005.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics: 2000,

Brunswick County, North Carolina. 2000 Census Data. Accessed at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/ on February 18, 2005.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-66 Apnl 2006
Plant and the Environment

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. QT-H1. General Housing Characteristics: 2000, New

Hanover County, North Carolina. 2000 Census Data. Accessed at: http:l/factfinder.census.gov/

on February 18,2005.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1). Accessed at:

http://www2.census.gov/census-2000/datasets/SummaryFile_1/ on March 1, 2005.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture: Volume 1

Geographic Area Series, Part 33, North Carolina State and County Data. AC-02-A-33.

Accessed at: httpJ/www.usda.gov/nass on December 18,2004.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. "North Carolina Wind Resource Map." Accessed at:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windlandhydro/windpoweringamericalmaps-template.asp?stateab=

NC on January 20, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Criteria Pollutants - Metropolitan Area

Trends. Accessed at: http:J/www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html on January 19, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005a. Air Quality Index Report. Accessed at:

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monaqi.html?st-NC-North%2OCarolina on January 20, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005b. National Estuary Program: About

Estuaries. Accessed at: http:/lwww.epa.gov/nep/about1.htm on April 1, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)

Recovery Plan, First Revision, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera

melissifolia). Atlanta Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Cooley's Meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyiAhles)

Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995a. American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana)

Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995b. Rough-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia

asperulaefolia) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996a. Saint Francis' Satyr (Neonympha mitchellil

francisci) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1996b. Recovery Plan for Seabeach Amaranth

(Amaranthus pumilus) Rafinesque. Atlanta, Georgia.

April 2006 2-67 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Plant and the Environment

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding

Population of the Wood Stork. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Candidate Assessment and Listing Priority

Assignment Form. Panicum hirstii. Accessed at:

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms-pdf/r5/panhir.pdf on March 11, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker

(Picoides borealis). Second Revision, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005a. Bald Eagles in North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://nc-es.fws.gov/birds/balde.html on January 21, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005b. Cooley's Meadowrue in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http-J/nc-es.fws.gov/plant/coolmeadow.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005c. Eastern Cougar in North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://nc-es.fws.gov/mammaVcougar.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005d. Green Sea Turtles in North Carolina. Accessed

at: httplJ/nc-es.ffws.gov/reptile/greensea.htmI on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005e. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://nc-es.ffws.gov/reptile/ridley.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005f. Loggerhead Sea Turtles in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://nc-es.ffws.gov/reptile/logger.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005g. Michaux sumac in North Carolina. Accessed at:

http:H/nc-es.fws.gov/plantlmichsumac.html on March 10,2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005h. North Carolina County Endangered Species,

Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. Accessed at:

httpl//nc-es.fws.gov/eslchtylistl on March 10,2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005i. Piping Plovers in North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://nc-es.fws.govlbirds/pipiplov.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005j. Pondberry in North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://nc-es.fws.gov/plant/pondberry.html on March 10,2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005k. Rough-Leaf Loosestrife in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://nc-es.fws.gov/plant/rllooses.html on March 10, 2005.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 2-68 April 2006
Plant and the Environment

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 20051. Saint Francis' Satyr in North Carolina. Accessed

at: http://nc-es.fws.govfinsect/stfrancis.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005m. Sea Beach Amaranth in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http:llnc-es.fws.gov/plant/sdeabamaranth.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005n. Small Worled Pogonia in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://nc-es.fws.gov/plant/swpogonia.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005o. West Indian Manatees in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://nc-es.ffws.gov/mammaVmanatee.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005p. Wood Storks in North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://nc-es.fws.gov/birds/woodstor.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Notes to file regarding staff interviews

with CP&L and Agency personnel in conjunction with site audit on January 2005

ADAMS Accession No. ML050880508

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. E-mail from Dave Anderson, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) regarding Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

site audit information pertaining to socioeconomics and land use. June 18, 2005.

ADAMS Accession No. ML052030237

Vogelmann, J.E., S.M. Howard, L. Yang, C.R. Larson, B.K. Wylie, and N. Van Driel. 2001.

"Completion of the 1990s National Land Cover Data Set for the Conterminous United States

from Landsat Thematic Mapper Data and Ancillary Data Sources," Photogrammetric Engineering

and Remote Sensing 67:650-652.

April 2006 2-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are discussed in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additional

mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a

Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective off site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) unless new and

significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These

actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type

of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment

that were determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.

Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these

conclusions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2

issues. These issues are listed in Table 3-2.

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

to the AGEISM include the GEIS and Its Addendum 1.

April 2006 3-1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 3.4.1

Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1

AoUAMiC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Refurbishment 3.5

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALrTY

Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 3.4.2

LAND USE

Onsite land use 3.2

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3;

3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8

Category 1 and Category 2 issues related to refurbishment that are not applicable to Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) because they are related to plant design features or

site characteristics not found at BSEP are listed in Appendix F.

The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the

analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), operating as Progress Energy, Carolinas, Inc.

indicated that pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 54.21, it has

performed an evaluation of systems, structures, and components to identify activities that are

necessary to continue operation of BSEP during the requested 20-year period of extended

operation. CP&L conducted an integrated plant assessment as part of this evaluation. In its

Environmental Report for BSEP, CP&L stated that it uhas not identified the need to undertake

any major refurbishment or replacement actions to maintain the functionality of important

systems, structures, and components during the BSEP license renewal period" (CP&L 2004).

Therefore, refurbishment is not considered in this supplemental environmental impact

statement.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 3-2 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation

10 CFR 51.53

(c)(3)(i)

ISSUE-1 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section Subparagraph

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR AU. PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

AIR QUALITY

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and 3.3 F

maintenance areas)

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 3.7.2 1

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 1

Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1 1

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5 1

Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice Not Not

addressed(a) addressed(8 )

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not In place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision to

10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license renewal,

environmental justice must be addressed In the applicant's environmental report and the staffs environmental

Impact statement.

3.1 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

April 2006 3-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units No. 1 and 2. Docket

Nos. 50-324 and 50-325, Southport, North Carolina.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report. "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 3-4 April 2006
4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal

term are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS

includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied

to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then

assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1

issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE) has been assigned to

the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter addresses the issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in

Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

and are applicable to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP). Section 4.1

addresses issues applicable to the BSEP cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses issues related

to transmission lines and onsite land use. Section 4.3 addresses the radiological impacts of

normal operation, and Section 4.4 addresses issues related to the socioeconomic impacts of

normal operation during the renewal term. Section 4.5 addresses issues related to

groundwater use and quality, while Section 4.6 discusses the impacts of renewal-term

operations on threatened and endangered species. Section 4.7 addresses potential new

information that was identified during the scoping period. Cumulative impacts of continued

operation during the renewal term are examined in Section 4.8. The results of the evaluation of

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

references to the OGEIS" Include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 4-1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

environmental issues related to operation during the renewal term are summarized in

Section 4.9, and, finally, the references cited are listed in Section 4.10. Category 1 and

Category 2 issues that are not applicable to BSEP because they are related to plant design

features or site characteristics not found at BSEP are listed in Appendix F.

4.1 Cooling Systems

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, that are applicable

to the BSEP cooling system operation during the renewal term are listed in Table 4-1. Carolina

Power & Light Company (CP&L) stated in the Environmental Report (ER) that there is no new

and significant information associated with renewal of the BSEP operating licenses (OLs) that

would warrant additional plant-specific analysis of the remaining applicable Category 1 issues

(CP&L 2004). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

independent review of the ER (CP&L 2004), the staff's site visit, discussions with the

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), the scoping

process, its evaluation of other available information, or public comments on the draft

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). Therefore, the staff concludes that there

are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all Category 1

issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plantspecific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 4-1. Category I Issues Applicable to the Operation of the BSEP Cooling System During

the License Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2

Altered salinity gradients 4.2.1.2.2; 4.4.2.2

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2.2

Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 4.2.1.3

AoUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.3; 4.4.3; 4.4.2.2

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Cold shock 4.2.2.1.5; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-2 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Table 4-1. (contd)

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

Distribution of aquatic organisms 4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 4.2.2.1.8; 4.4.3

Low dissolved oxygen In the discharge 4.2.2.1.9; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms 4.2.2.1.10; 4.4.3

exposed to sublethal stresses

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.1 1; 4.4.3

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6

Noise 4.3.7

I

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

. Altered current Dattems at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures

during the licence renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Altered salinity gradients. Based on the information in the GEIS, the Commission found

that

Salinity gradients have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

I

I

I

I

April 2006 4-3 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

that there are no impacts of altered salinity gradients during the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of temperature effects on sediment transport capacity during the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power

plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to

be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of scouring caused by discharged cooling water during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Discharge of chlorine or other biocides. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER; the staff's site visit; discussions with NCDENR; the scoping

process; its evaluation of other available information, including the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for BSEP (NCDENR 2003); or public

comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-4 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications,

if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER; the staff's site visit; the scoping process; its evaluation of other

available information, including the NPDES permit for BSEP; or public comments on the

draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of

sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been

satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not Identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER; the staff's site visit; the scoping process; its evaluation of other

available information, including the NPDES permit for BSEP; or public comments on the

draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of other

metals in wastewater during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Water use conflicts (Dlants with once-through cooling svstems). Based on information in

the GEIS, the Commission found that

These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with once-through heat dissipation systems.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of water use conflicts for plants with once-through cooling systems

during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

April 2006 4-5 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants

but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes

with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

Entrainment of phvtoDlankton and zooplankton. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Cold shock. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with

once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of cold shock during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-6 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of thermal plume barriers to migrating fish during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the

larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on distribution of aquatic organisms during the license renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear

power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily

mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of gas supersaturation during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

April 2006 4-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a

once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

* Losses from Dredation. parasitism. and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

stresses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among

organisms exposed to sub-lethal stresses during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single

nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was

a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-8 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

that there are no impacts of stimulation of nuisance organisms during the license renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Microbiological organisms (occupational health). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of

accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludesl

that there are no impacts of microbial organisms during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

* Noise. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not

expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of noise during the license renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the renewal term that are

applicable to BSEP are listed in Table 4-2 and are discussed in the following sections.

April 2006 4-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the BSEP Cooling System During

the License Renewal Term

10 CFR

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix GEIS 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

AQUATIC ECOLOGY

(FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH AND COOLING POND HEAT-DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life 4.2.2.1.2; 4.3.3 B 4.1.1

stages

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.2.2.1.3; 4.3.3 B 4.1.2

Heat shock 4.2.2.1.4; 4.3.3 B 4.1.3

4.1.1 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish In Early Life Stages

For plants with once-through cooling systems such as BSEP, entrainment of fish and shellfish

in early life stages into nuclear power plants cooling water systems is considered a Category 2

issue, thus requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal. The staff

independently reviewed the CP&L ER, visited the site, and reviewed the applicant's existing

NPDES permit and existing literature related to fish and shellfish populations of the Cape Fear

Estuary, with particular regard to entrainment studies conducted at the BSEP.

Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the cooling water intake structure into

the cooling system. Entrained organisms are normally relatively small benthic, planktonic, and

nektonic organisms, including early life stages of fish and shellfish, and often serve as food for

larger organisms (66 FR 65255). Organisms that are too small to be caught on traveling

screens at the intake pump bays enter the cooling water system, where they are subject to

mechanical, thermal, and/or toxic stress. The number of organisms entrained may be very

large. However, the NPDES permit serves to limit entrainment to ensure the protection and

propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic

organisms.

Under new EPA regulations for existing cooling water intake facilities (40 CFR Parts 9 and

122-125, 69 FR 41575), the BSEP intake structure will be required to meet performance

standards that protect aquatic organisms based on the facility's source water. The applicant is

already in consultation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and National

Resources (NCDENR) to determine if additional sampling or other actions will be required

(NRC 2005c). Any additional requirements will be implemented through the NPDES permitting

process.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-10 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The current NPDES permit was issued by the NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, as a result

of a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of North Carolina and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The permit became effective August 1, 2003, and

expires on November 30, 2006 (NCDENR 2003). The permit established a flow minimization

schedule that limits the amount of water BSEP may draw from the Cape Fear River and

discharge to the Atlantic Ocean. The limits are designed, in part, to minimize the number of

organisms entrained by the cooling water system, while maintaining plant safety and efficiency.

Daily maximum discharge limits (and hence, intake limits) are greater in the warmer months

(April to November) than in the cooler months (December to March).

The diversion structure at BSEP was completed in 1982 (CP&L 1985). A set of removable

3/8-in. (9.4-mm) mesh screens, made of a copper-nickel alloy, extends through the water

column along the entire diversion structure. Each of the two generating units at BSEP has four

pump bays where water is drawn into the cooling water system. Water flowing into the intake

pumps first passes through trash racks and traveling screens. There is one traveling screen for

every pump bay, or four per unit. Two of the four traveling screens per unit are fully equipped

with fine mesh (1-mm) screens to reduce the number and size of fish and larvae entrained in

the condensers, in accordance with NPDES permit requirements (CP&L 2002; NCDENR 2003).

The remaining two screens are half-covered with fine mesh screen and half-covered with larger

mesh 318-in. screens. During normal full power operation, three intake pumps operate per unit.

When three pumps are operating, two pumps must be completely covered with the fine mesh

screen. Four-pump operation is allowed only between July and September, and only in one unit

at a time (CP&L 2002). There are exceptions to these requirements that provide for plant

safety and preventive screen maintenance, but a record of fine mesh screen outages must be

reported on a monthly basis (NCDENR 2003).

Before the 1981 NPDES permit was issued, flow minimization schedules and fine mesh screens

were not required (CP&L 1985; Cooke 2001). However, a monitoring program in the Cape Fear

Estuary since 1973 has collected larval and postlarval fish, shrimp, and crab, allowing

researchers to determine if any annual variation in populations of these organisms could be

attributed to operation of the BSEP cooling system (CP&L 1985). Methods of sampling larvae

and postlarvae were standardized in 1976. Between 1977 and 1984, the seasonality of larval

species in the estuary remained unchanged (CP&L 1985). The total numbers of larval

organisms collected in the estuary showed a significant increase during that time period (CP&L

1985).

Larval and postlarval densities also increased in the immediate vicinity of BSEP (i.e., Walden

Creek) and were not statistically different from larval and postlarval densities found in

Dutchman's Creek, a site chosen to represent a similar habitat that was not affected by plant

April 2006 4-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

operation (CP&L 1985). In the river, larval fish monitoring programs found that eight taxa

comprised over 90 percent of the total catch and that the relative abundance of these taxa was

similar over a 10-year period between 1974 and 1984 (CP&L 1985).

In addition to the estuary-wide sampling described above, specific studies documenting

entrainment of larval and postlarval fish and shellfish at BSEP have been conducted. North

Carolina State University completed studies between 1974 and 1978 (prior to the use of fine

mesh screens and flow minimization), while CP&L conducted entrainment studies from 1978

through 1985. By comparing entrainment rates (number/day) between historical flows and flow

minimization periods, the reduction in numbers of organisms entrained per day ranged from

26.5 percent to 47.4 percent, depending on the amount of flow reduction.

A short study designed to determine the effectiveness of the fine mesh screens in reducing

entrainment was conducted by CP&L from November 1984 to January 1985. Small organisms

were collected behind the traveling screens over three 24-hour sampling periods. A sampling

period with 3/8-in. screens in place was followed by (or in one case, done simultaneously with)

a 24-hour period with 1-mm screens in place. The results from this study showed an 82

percent reduction in the mean density and numbers of fish entrained when fine mesh screens

were used (CP&L 1985). While entrainment densities were reduced with installation of the

fine-mesh screens, the percent composition of entrainment density by species was not altered

(CP&L 1985). Thus, the plant entrained fewer organisms, while the opportunity for entrainment

remained the same (CP&L 1985).

Since issuance of the 1984 NPDES permit, the biological monitoring program at the BSEP has

evaluated the entrainment of organisms. Annual studies of entrainment of larval fish and

shellfish have been conducted since 1984. On a monthly basis, 24-hour sampling is conducted

by placing plankton nets with 505-pum mesh in the discharge canal. Flow meters incorporated

into the plankton net indicate the volume of water sampled. The results are compared to

previous data sets and to the results of larval impingement sampling conducted monthly by

sampling organisms from the fish return trough (see Section 4.1.2). The Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant 2003 Biological Monitoring Report (PEC 2003b), the most recent available, states

that the seasonalities of organisms collected in 2003 entrainment studies were similar to those

of previous years. Shrimp and crab larvae, both commercially valuable species, show the

greatest reduction in entrainment rates (PEC 2003b). Goby (Gobiosoma spp.), anchovy

(Anchoa spp.), and silverside (Atherinidae) larvae are more susceptible to entrainment because

of their small size and slender morphology (CP&L 1993). Overall, the combination of the

diversion structure and fine-mesh screens mitigate entrainment by reducing the number of

organisms passing through the plant. (PEC 2003a).

In summary, the NPDES permit issued by the NCDENR governs the impacts to the aquatic

environment due to operation of the intake system. Operation under the NPDES permit should

result in the maintenance of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and other

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-12 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

aquatic organisms, both in the Cape Fear Estuary and the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the

discharge structure. Based on a review of the available information relative to potential impacts

of the cooling water intake system on the entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages

and on the success of the mitigative measures already in place at BSEP, the staff concludes

that the potential impacts are SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.1.2 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

For plants with once-through cooling systems, such as BSEP, impingement of fish and shellfish

on screens associated with nuclear power plant cooling water systems is considered a

Category 2 issue, thus requiring a site-specific assessment before license renewal. The staff

independently reviewed the BSEP ER, visited the site, and reviewed the applicant's existing

NPDES permit and existing literature related to fish and shellfish populations of the Cape Fear

Estuary, with particular regard to impingement studies conducted at BSEP.

Impingement takes place when organisms are trapped against intake screens by the force of

the water passing through the cooling water intake structure (66 FR 65255). Impingement can

result in starvation and exhaustion, asphyxiation (water velocity forces may prevent proper gill

movement, or organisms may be removed from the water for prolonged periods of time), and

descaling (66 FR 65255). The number of organisms impinged may be large. However, the

NPDES permit serves to limit Impingement to ensure the protection and propagation of a

balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms. Under new

EPA regulations for existing cooling water intake facilities (69 FR 41575,40 CFR Parts 9,

122-125), the BSEP intake structure will be required to meet performance standards that

protect aquatic organisms based on the facility's source water. The applicant is already in

consultation with the NCDENR to determine if additional sampling or other actions will be

required (PEC 2005d). Any additional requirements will be implemented through the NPDES

permitting process.

The current NPDES permit was issued by the NCDENR Division of Water Quality as a result of

a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of North Carolina and the EPA. The permit

became effective August 1, 2003, and expires on November 30,2006. The permit established

a flow minimization schedule that limits the amount of water BSEP may draw from the Cape

Fear River and discharge to the Atlantic Ocean. The limits are designed, in part, to minimize

the number of organisms impinged on the intake screens, while maintaining plant safety and

efficiency (NCDENR 2003).

The NPDES permit requires the continuous operation and maintenance of a diversion structure

at the mouth of the intake canal to minimize impingement (NCDENR 2003). Annual

assessments of the effectiveness of the diversion structure to curtail organism impingement are

April 2006 4-13 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

published. The diversion structure was completed in 1982 (CP&L 1985). A set of removable

3/8-in. mesh screens, made of a copper-nickel alloy, extends through the water column along

the entire diversion structure. Between 1979 and 1982, the number of fish sampled inside the

intake canal equaled or exceeded those sampled outside the intake canal (CP&L 1985). In a

1984 study, catches of spot (Lelostomus xanthurus), croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), and

Atlantic menhaden (Brevootia tyrannus) were significantly lower inside the canal than outside

the diversion structure (CP&L 1985). The size of organisms captured inside the canal was also

less than the size of organisms captured outside the diversion structure (CP&L 1985). Spot

and croaker greater than 45 mm in length were not found inside the intake canal after

construction of the diversion structure. Finally, a comparison of the biomass of impinged fish

(by water volume) before and after installation of the diversion structure showed a 67 percent

reduction in impingement following the diversion screen installation (CP&L 1985).

The NPDES permit also requires fine mesh (1-mm) screens to be installed on traveling screens

at the intake pump bays. Two of the four traveling screens per unit are fully equipped with fine

mesh screens to reduce the number and size of fish and larvae entrained in the condensers, in

accordance with NPDES permit requirements (CP&L 2002, NCDENR 2003). The remaining

two screens are half-covered with fine mesh screen and half-covered with larger mesh 3/8-in.

screen. Reducing the screen mesh size decreases the number of organisms entrained in the

cooling system, but increases the number of organisms impinged on the screens. However,

while essentially all larvae entrained in the cooling system perish, many of the larval, juvenile,

and adult fish and shellfish that are impinged on the screens survive.

At BSEP, in addition to the fine mesh screens discussed above and in Section 4.1.1, each of

the eight traveling screens is equipped with a screen wash system to remove impinged debris

and larval, juvenile, and adult fish and shellfish from the screens. Organisms are washed from

the screens into a trough that then flows to the fish return system. This gravity-fed sluiceway

carries the organisms that were impinged on the screens to a holding pond. The pond is open

to Walden Creek, which in turn flows to the Cape Fear River (CP&L 2002, 2004).

The ability of organisms to survive impingement varies by species and size. Survival studies

were initiated at BSEP in 1984 to determine the percentage of impinged organisms returned to

the estuary alive (CP&L 1985). Larval, juvenile, and adult organisms returned to the sluiceway

through normal operation of the screen wash system were collected, sorted to species level,

and held for 96 hours at a laboratory facility plumbed with continuous flowing water from the

intake canal. Control organisms were collected from the intake canal and held under the same

conditions. Dead organisms were removed, counted, measured, and recorded. After 96 hours,

the number of live organisms was recorded. The results indicated that shrimp and crab, both

commercially important species, had high survival rates ranging from 69 to 90 percent. Other

species such as flounder, striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus

plagiusa), and searobin (Prionotus spp.) had survival rates of at least 67 percent. For some

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-14 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

species such as croaker and spot, the survival rate for smaller individuals was fair, but the

survival rate increased as the size of the fish increased. Other species, such as the bay

anchovy, weakfish, and menhaden showed little or no survival after being impinged.

Since the NPDES permit was issued in 1984, the biological monitoring program at BSEP has

evaluated the impingement of organisms. Annual studies of impingement rates of larval,

juvenile, and adult fish and shellfish have been conducted since 1984. The most recent report

available is the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2003 Biological Monitoring Report (PEC 2003b).

This report states that the seasonalities of organisms collected in 2003 entrainment studies

were similar to those of previous years. Spot was the most common species impinged in larval

impingement studies in 2003; shrimp and crab were the most common species in 2002 (PEC

2003a, b). Bay anchovy and shrimp dominated the juvenile and adult impingement studies in

both 2002 and 2003 (PEC 2003a, b). For all but one species studied between 1977 and 2003,

significant reduction in impingement of juvenile and adults has occurred. White shrimp

(Litopenaeus seiferus) is the only species that has shown a significant increase in impingement

over the study period. The increase is attributed to a natural increase in the number of white

shrimp populating Walden Creek. Previous studies have shown that significant increases of

these shrimp in Walden Creek coincide with increases in impingement of this species at BSEP

(PEC 2003a). Greater than 80 percent survival following impingement has been documented

for this species (PEC 2003a, b).

In summary, the NPDES permit issued by the NCDENR governs the operational impacts of the

intake system on the aquatic environment. Operation under the NPDES permit should result in

the maintenance of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic

organisms, both in the Cape Fear Estuary and Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the BSEP

discharge structure. Based on a review of the available information relative to potential impacts

of the cooling water intake system on the impingement of fish and shellfish, and on the success

of mitigative measures already in place at BSEP that reduce impingement and mortality caused

by impingement, the staff concludes that the potential impacts are SMALL, and no additional

mitigation is warranted.

4.1.3 Heat Shock

For plants with once-through cooling, such as BSEP, the effects of heat shock are listed as a

Category 2 issue that requires plant-specific evaluation before license renewal. The staff

independently reviewed the CP&L ER, visited the site, reviewed the CP&L's existing NPDES

permit, and also reviewed existing literature related to fish and shellfish populations of the Cape

Fear Estuary, with particular regard to the Clean Water Act Section 316(a) (33 USC 1326)

Demonstration (CP&L 1979).

April 2006 4-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Aquatic organisms have optimal thermal limits within which they thrive. When an organism

experiences a sudden increase in temperature, it may be stressed. If the temperature is above

the tolerance range for the species, the organism may die. Plants that discharge heated

effluent to the environment have the potential to cause heat shock in aquatic organisms if the

temperature of the water discharged from the plant is much higher than the ambient water

temperature. Heat shock Is most likely to occur when an off line unit returns to operation.

Thermal effluent from BSEP is discharged through two 13-ft diameter, 2000-ft long submerged

pipes that extend into the Atlantic Ocean (AEC 1974). Water depth at the point of discharge is

approximately 10 ft. The ocean floor in the vicinity of the discharge pipes is sandy, with no

natural hard bottom outcroppings that attract fish (CP&L 1979). The bottom is devoid of

attached vegetation, and there is a strong westerly tidal and southerly longshore flow in this

region.

The current NPDES permit was issued by the NCDENR Division of Water Quality as a result of

a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of North Carolina and the EPA. The permit

became effective August 1,2003, and expires on November 30,2006. The permit established

thermal limits and monitoring requirements for water discharged from BSEP into the Atlantic

Ocean (NCDENR 2003). It incorporates the plans for an extended power uprate at BSEP that

would gradually increase generating capacity by 10 to 15 percent, resulting in an estimated

increase in the discharge temperature of approximately 2.30C (40F).

CP&L has an approved 316(a) Demonstration, but has not sought a 316(a) variance under

40 CFR Part 125 that would allow the facility to discharge water warmer than normally allowed

by State standards. Instead, the temperature limits in the current NPDES permit are based on

North Carolina regulations governing 'Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SB Waters"

(Cooke 2001). If these thermal limits are met, then heat shock should not occur as a result of a

sudden disruption in heated discharge from one or both units of BSEP. CP&L expects these

conditions will be met, even with the extended power uprate (NCDENR 2003; CP&L 2004).

The permit states that ocean waters shall not exceed 0.80C (1.440F) above ambient during the

months June through August or 2.20C (3.960F) above ambient during the months of September

through May. Inside the approximately 2000-ac mixing zone, only a small area surrounding the

discharge pipe (120 ac at the water surface and less than 1/40th of an acre at the bottom) is

allowed to increase up to 3.90C (70F) over ambient (NCDENR 2003). Except within the defined

mixing zone, at no time should the temperature exceed 320C (89.60F) as a result of the

discharge of heated liquid as measured 3 ft below the water surface (NCDENR 2003).

Temperature monitoring is required on a semi-annual basis, with one sampling between April

and November, and the second between December and March. Reactor power levels are

required to be at least 85 percent for each unit during sampling (NCDENR 2003). To date,

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-16 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

BSEP has been able to maintain the thermal standards while operating at or near full power in

the once-through cooling mode (CP&L 2004).

The original thermal studies measured water temperatures monthly between 1975 and 1979 at

27 stations over a 941-ha (2326-ac) grid surrounding the discharge. The study determined that

only under near full power operating conditions for both units was there any observable thermal

plume at the surface anywhere outside the grid (CP&L 1979). Wind, waves, and tides all work

together to rapidly mix and dissipate the heat discharged by the plant.

While a number of aquatic species may use the nearshore area surrounding the discharge, the

slightly increased temperature above ambient ocean temperature is not enough to cause heat

shock in an organism upon the start-up of one or both BSEP units. Furthermore, other than

planktonic and sessile forms, most organisms are mobile and can avoid the discharge area.

Thus, the staff concludes that the potential for heat shock impacts resulting from operation of

the plant's cooling water discharge system to the aquatic environment on or in the vicinity of the

site is SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.2 Transmission Lines

Eight 230-kW transmission lines constructed to connect BSEP to the transmission and

distribution system were described in the final environmental statement (FES) for operation of

BSEP (AEC 1974). These lines included two lines to the Delco and Barnard Creek substations

and lines to the Fayetteville, Wallace, and Jacksonville substations. In addition, 31 miles of

new transmission line were constructed to connect BSEP to the Weatherspoon substation.

Potential electromagnetic effects of these lines were not considered in the FES.

CP&L's ER describes changes to the way in which BSEP is connected to the transmission grid

that have occurred since publication of the FES. The two lines to Barnard Creek substation

have been extended to the Castle Hayne substation and Wilmington Corning switching station,

located about 12 mi to the north of the Barnard Creek substation. Both the Castle Hayne and

the Wilmington Coming lines are considered in this SEIS in their entirety. The original

Fayetteville line now connects to the grid at the Whiteville substation. However, because the

Fayetteville line that was built to connect BSEP to the grid remains in existence, the full extent

of the original line is considered in this SEIS.

Ongoing right-of-way surveillance and maintenance of BSEP transmission facilities ensure

continued conformance to transmission line design standards. CP&L uses a variety of methods

to control vegetation in transmission line rights-of-way. Maintenance activities are generally on

a 3-year rotating schedule (BSEP 2002a). CP&L employs an integrated vegetation

April 2006 4-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

management approach that includes both mechanical and chemical control methods. This

approach allows CP&L to design the maintenance practices to fit the different kinds of terrain

and soils that are crossed by the transmission lines. Mechanical methods include pruning,

felling, mowing, and hand trimming (BSEP 2002b). Chemical control methods include the use

of tree growth regulators to slow the growth of fast-growing trees under lines, and EPAapproved herbicides to control undesirable woody vegetation that regrows after mowing. When

herbicides are used, the program consists of low-volume foliar application from May through

October, dormant-stem application from October through April, and cut-stump/vine application

throughout the year (PEC 2005a). The transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices

employed by CP&L are likely to have little or no detrimental impact on the species potentially

present in or near the transmission line rights-of-way, and, in some cases, the maintenance

practices may be beneficial.

CP&L and NCDENR signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 1993 to preserve and protect

rare, threatened, and endangered species and sensitive natural areas occurring on

transmission line rights-of-way (CP&L and NCDENR 1993). The company maintains best

management practices for the management of rare plants on its rights-of-way and has

procedures in place to protect these and other endangered or threatened species, if they are

encountered (BSEP 2003, 2005a). CP&L also has procedures in place to address migratory

bird strikes that may occur on the transmission lines (BSEP 2005b).

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

transmission lines from BSEP are listed in Table 4-3. CP&L stated in its ER that it is not aware

of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the BSEP operating

licenses (OLs). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

independent review of the CP&L ER; the staff's site visit; the scoping process; consultation with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), and NCDENR; its

evaluation of other available information; or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the

staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the

GEIS. For all of those issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and

additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be

warranted.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-18 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the BSEP Transmission Lines During the

License Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1

Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 4.5.6.3

honeybees, wildlife, livestock)

Floodplains and wetland on power line right of way 4.5.7

AiR QUALTY

Air quality effects of transmission lines 4.5.2

LAND USE

Onsite land use 4.5.3

Power line right of way 4.5.3

A brief description of the staff's review and GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for each

of these issues follows:

. Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide avplication). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small

significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS

and NCDENR, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that

there are no impacts of power line right-of-way maintenance during the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Bird collisions with power lines. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.

April2006 4-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS

and the NCDENR, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that

there are no impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants. agricultural croDs.

honeybees, wildlife, livestock). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna

have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the

license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of electromagnetic

fields on flora and fauna during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

Floodglains and wetlands on power line right of way. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power

lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant

impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the FWS

and the NCDENR, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that

there are no impacts of power line right-of-way maintenance during the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Air quality effects of transmission lines. Based on the information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not

contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-20 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no air quality impacts of

transmission lines during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

• Onsite land use. Based on the information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected onsite land use changes required during ... the renewal period would

be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is

controlled by the applicant.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no onsite land-use impacts during

the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Power line riaht of way. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in

restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of power line rights-ofway on land use during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

There is one Category 2 issue related to transmission lines, and another issue related to

transmission lines is being treated as a Category 2 issue. These issues are listed in Table 4-4

and are discussed in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

Table 4-4. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the BSEP Transmission

Lines During the License Renewal Term

1 oCFR

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 51.53(c)(3)(1i) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

HUMAN HEALTH

Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric 4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1

shock)

Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2

April 2006 4-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects

In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff found that without a review of the conformance of each

nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) (NESC 1997)

criteria, it was not possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential.

Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric

shock safety was not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land

use in the vicinity of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies

may have chosen to upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), the

applicant must provide an assessment of the potential shock hazard, if the transmission lines

that were constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission

system do not meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing electric shock from

induced currents.

All BSEP transmission lines were constructed to the NESC specifications and industry guidance

in effect at the time the lines were constructed. BSEP transmission facilities are maintained to

ensure continued compliance with the standards and guidance in effect when they were

constructed. However, since the lines were constructed, a new criterion has been added to the

NESC for power lines with voltages exceeding 98 kV. This criterion states that the minimum

clearance for a line must limit induced currents due to static effects to 5 mA.

CP&L (2004) reviewed its power lines for compliance with this criterion. The span on each line

where the potential for induced current would be the greatest was identified. The electric field

strengths and potential induced currents for these spans were calculated using the ACDCLINE

computer code (EPRI 1991). Input to the code included line sag at 200OF conductor

temperature, maximum operating voltage during normal load conditions, and a large tractortrailer parked under the line in a position to maximize the induced current. NESC assumes a

conductor temperature of 1201F. The calculated induced currents for all eight BSEP 230-kV

lines were well below the NESC 5-mA criterion. The conductor temperature assumed would

result in more line sag and higher induced currents than would the temperature specified in the

NESC. Therefore, the induced currents listed in the CP&L ER are conservative.

The staff has reviewed the applicant's evaluation and computational results. Based on this

review, the staff concludes that the impact of the potential for electric shock is SMALL, and no

additional mitigation is warranted.

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects

In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-hz electromagnetic fields from power lines were not

designated as Category 1 or 2 issues and will not be categorized until a scientific consensus is

reached on the health implications of these fields.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-22 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at

this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related

research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). A 1999 NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999)

contains the following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field]

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive

regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the

public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The

NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide

sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The staff considers the GEIS finding of "not

applicable" still appropriate and continues to follow developments on this issue.

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

BSEP in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-5. CP&L stated in its ER

(CP&L 2004) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the

renewal of the BSEP OLs. The staff has not identified any new and significant information

during its independent review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its

evaluation of other available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the

staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the

GEIS. For these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and

additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be

warranted.

Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

- During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3

April 2006 4-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

Radiation exposures to Dublic (license renewal term). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with

normal operations.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of radiation exposures to the public during the license renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

. Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are

within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal

maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of occupational radiation exposures during the license renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations.

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the

License Renewal Term

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

socioeconomic impacts during the license renewal term are listed in Table 4-6. CP&L stated in

its ER (CP&L 2004) that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with

the renewal of the BSEP OLs.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

| the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, the staff's evaluation of other available

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-24 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there

are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS

(NRC 1996). For these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL,

and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be

warranted.

Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics During the License

Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3;

4.7.3.4; 4.7.3.6

Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1

Aesthetic Impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

* Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to

be of small significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation

during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Public services: education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Only impacts of small significance are expected.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

I

I

April 2006 4-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on education during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no aesthetic impacts during the license renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

* Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on information in

the GEIS, the Commission found that

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no aesthetic impacts of transmission lines during the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Table 4-7 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis, and

environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS.

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations

In the GEIS, the staff defines the significance levels of housing impacts as SMALL when a

small or not easily discernible change in housing availability occurs. Impacts are considered

MODERATE when there is a discernible but short-lived reduction in available housing units

because of project-induced migration. Impacts are considered LARGE when project-related

housing demands result in very limited housing availability and would increase rental rates and

housing values far above normal inflation (NRC 1996).

To determine housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS

(NRC 1996), which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors:

"sparseness" and "proximity".(NRC 1996, 1999). Sparseness measures population density

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-26 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

within 32 km (20 mi) of the site, and proximity measures population density and city size within

80 km (50 mi). Each factor has categories of density and size (GEIS Table C.1), and a matrix

is used to rank the population category as low, medium, or high (GEIS Figure C.1).

Table 4-7. Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics

During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Section Subparagraph Section

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 4.7.1 1 4.4.1

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 1 4.4.2

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 I 4.4.3

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Section Subparagraph Section

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public Services, transportation 4.7.3.2 J 4.4.4

Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5

Environmental Justice addressed addressed" 4.4.6

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated

revision to 10 CFR Part 51 were prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in

the licensee's environmental report and the staffs environmental impact statement.

I

For the year 2000, the staff estimated that population living within 20 mi of BSEP was

approximately 133,341. This translates to around 226 personslm? living on the land area within

a 20-mi radius of BSEP. This concentration falls into the GEIS sparseness Category 4

(i.e., having 120 or more persons per square mi).

The staff estimated a population of 361,872 within 50 ml of the site using the 2000 census, or

111 persons/mi 2, within the GEIS proximity Category 2. According to the GEIS, these

sparseness and proximity scores identify BSEP as being located in a medium-population area.

In 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, NRC concluded that impacts on housing

availability are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium-population'

area where growth-control measures are not in effect. No additional population is expected as

a result of license renewal at BSEP.

April 2006 4-27 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff reviewed the available information relative to housing impacts and CP&L's

conclusions. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the impact on housing during the

license renewal term would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations

Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the

ability of the system to respond to the level of demand, and thus, there is no need to add capital

facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of service capabilities occurs

during periods of peak demand. Impacts are considered LARGE if existing levels of service

(e.g., water or sewer services) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to

meet ongoing demands for services. The GEIS indicates that, in the absence of new and

significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be

significant are impacts on public water supplies (NRC 1996).

Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered both plant demand and plantrelated population growth. Section 2.2.8 describes the use of water at BSEP. CP&L plans no

refurbishment in conjunction with this license renewal, so plant demand would not change

beyond current demands (CP&L 2004).

CP&L assumed no increase of employees during license renewal, which would create no

impacts from plant-related population increases and no additional demand for potable water

(CP&L 2004). The current potable water demand is within the residual capacity of the existing

water system that services Brunswick and New Hanover Counties. As shown in

Section 2.2.8.2, given projected demand for public water supplies to 2050 and current supplies,

excess capacity will exist through the term of the license renewal. CP&L notes that no increase

in plant work force or demand on water systems from the plant is expected, so the incremental

impact of license renewal on either the public water system or the regional groundwater

situation is minimal. As a result, the staff concludes that the impact on water use is SMALL,

and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations

Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue (10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1). Table B-1 of 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, notes that

"significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes

resulting from license renewal."

Sections 3.7.5 and 4.7.4 of the GEIS define the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of

plant operation during the license renewal term as follows:

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-28 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

SMALL - Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use pattern

MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern

LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattem.

CP&L determined that no additional plant workers would be required during the license renewal

term (CP&L 2004). Section 3.7.5 of the GEIS states that if plant-related population growth is

less than 5 percent of the study area's total population, offsite land-use changes would be

small, especially if the study area has established patterns of residential and commercial

development, a population density of at least 60 persons/mi 2, and at least one urban area with a

population of 100,000 or more within 50 miles. In this case, although the Wilmington

Metropolitan Statistical Area population is projected to grow significantly during the term of the

proposed license renewal, there is no expected population growth as a result of license

renewal. Consequently, the staff concludes that population changes resulting from license

renewal are likely to result in SMALL offsite land-use impacts.

Tax revenue can affect land use because it enables local jurisdictions to be able to provide the

public services (e.g., transportation and utilities) necessary to support development.

Section 4.7.4.1 of the GEIS states that the assessment of tax driven land-use impacts during

the license renewal term should consider (1) the size of the plant's payments relative to the

community's total revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land-use pattern, and

(3) the extent to which the community already has public services in place to support and guide

development. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to the community's

total revenue, tax driven land-use changes during the plant's license renewal term would be

SMALL, especially where the community has pre-established patterns of development and has

provided adequate public services to support and guide development. Section 4.7.2.1 of the

GEIS states that if tax payments by the plant owner are less than 10 percent of the taxing

jurisdictions revenue, the significance level would be SMALL. If the plant's tax payments are

projected to be medium to large (10 to 20 percent) relative to the community's total revenue,

new tax driven land-use changes would be MODERATE. This is most likely to be true where

the community has no pre-established patterns of development (i.e., land-use plans or controls)

or has not provided adequate public services to support and guide development in the past,

especially infrastructure that would allow industrial development. If the plant's tax payments are

projected to be a dominant source of the community's total revenue, new tax driven land-use

changes would be LARGE. This would be especially true where the community has no

pre-established pattern of development or has not provided adequate public services to support

and guide development in the past.

Over the period from 1999 to 2004, property tax payments made by CP&L to Brunswick County

for BSEP constituted a proportion of the county's total tax revenue ranging between 6.5 percent

April 2006 4-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

and 9.3 percent of county tax revenue, equating to between 2.5 percent and 4.1 percent of

gross revenue, this proportion is projected to remain comparable during the renewal (PEC

2005b; NCDST 2005). Consequently, the staff concludes that tax driven land-use impacts

resulting from renewal of the BSEP OLs are likely to be SMALL, and no mitigation is warranted.

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations

On October 4,1999,10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1, were revised to clearly state that "Public Services: Transportation Impacts During

Operations" is a Category 2 issue (NRC 1999). The issue is treated as such in this SEIS.

Significant growth Is expected in both Brunswick and New Hanover Counties during the license

renewal term. However, expected growth will not result directly from increases in employment

at BSEP. The permanent employment associated with BSEP is currently about

1140 employees, including both CP&L and long-term contractor employees (PEC 2005c).

During refueling outages, which occur each year, as many as 950 to 1050 additional workers

are hired on a temporary basis. The North Carolina Department of Transportation does not

maintain level-of-service designations for roadways in the state; however, the local officials

indicate that tourism-related traffic increases are the focus of current transportation planning

efforts (NRC 2005a). Because no additional employment increment is expected as a result of

license renewal, CP&L concluded that the impacts on transportation during the license renewal

term would be small (CP&L 2004).

The staff reviewed CP&L's assumptions and resulting conclusions. Based on its independent

review, the staff concludes that any impact of licence renewal on transportation service

degradation is likely to be SMALL, and no mitigation is warranted.

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, Section 106, process requires that

Federal agencies take into account the impacts of their undertakings on historic properties as

outlined in 36 CFR Part 800. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.8, NRC informed the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office,

the Lumbee Tribe and the Wacammaw Siouan that the Section 106 process is being integrated

with the NEPA process and "the SEIS will include analyses of potential impacts to historic and

cultural resources" (Appendix E). As part of this integration, the area of potential effect (APE)

was defined by NRC staff as:

the area at the power plant site and its immediate environs that may be impacted by

post-license renewal land-disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities

associated with the proposed action. The APE may extend beyond the immediate

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-30 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

environs in those instances where post-license renewal land-disturbing operations or

projected refurbishment activities, specifically related to license renewal, may potentially

have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made

irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of interest (Appendix E).

With the exception of the site identified as 31 BW532 (see Section 2.2.9), there are no historic

and archaeological resources known to be located in the APE. It is unlikely there are intact

significant historic and archaeological resources located in previously disturbed portions of the

BSEP site. Land use records indicate that there is a potential for cultural resources to be

located in areas undisturbed by plant construction. However, CP&L has a guideline in place

regarding the preservation of historic and archaeological resources. The guideline provides

that cultural resource assessments be conducted for certain land-disturbing activities, and it

provides guidance on inadvertent discoveries of graves or archaeological sites.

CP&L does not plan to undertake major refurbishment activities in the APE. CP&L has a

cultural resource policy in place to ensure that potential historic and archaeological resources

that have not yet been identified or discovered are protected. Because of the extensive

disturbance present in the APE and the lack of substantial land altering aspects of this license

renewal, the staff concludes that the potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources

would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.4.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy that requires Federal agencies to identify and

address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority(a) or

low-income populations. The memorandum accompanying Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to consider environmental justice under

NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality has provided guidance for addressing

environmental justice (CEQ 1 997a). Although the Executive Order is not mandatory for

independent agencies, the NRC has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice

reviews. On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of

environmental justice matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040).

The staff examined CP&L's (2004) analysis of the geographic distribution of minority and

low-income populations recorded during the 2000 Census within 50 mi of BSEP, encompassing

all of Brunswick and New Hanover Counties in North Carolina; parts of Columbus, Pender,

(a) The NRC guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines minority as American Indian

or Alaskan Native; Asian; or other Pacific Islander, or Black not of Hispanic Origin, or Hispanic.

(69 FR 52040).

April 2006 4-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Onslow, Bladen, and Sampson Counties in North Carolina; and part of Horry County in

South Carolina. The analysis was also supplemented by field inquiries to the planning

department and social service agencies in Brunswick County.a)

For the purpose of the staff's review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage

of minorities within the census block groups°b in each state within the 50-mi radius potentially

affected by the license renewal of BSEP exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities in

the state of which it is a part by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of minorities

within the census block group is at least 50 percent. A low-income population is defined to exist

if the percentage of low-income population within a census block group exceeds the

corresponding percentage of low-income population in the state of which it is a part by

20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-income population within a census block

group is at least 50 percent. For census block groups within Brunswick and New Hanover

Counties, for example, the percentage of minority and low-income populations is compared to

the percentage of minority and low-income populations in North Carolina. The staff used the

2000 census block groups for identifying minority and low-income populations.

The scope of the review as defined in NRC guidance (69 FR 52040) should include an analysis

of impacts on minority and low-income populations, the location and significance of any

environmental impacts during operations on populations that are particularly sensitive, and any

additional information pertaining to mitigation. The descriptions to be provided by this review

should state whether these impacts are likely to be disproportionately high and adverse, and

should evaluate the significance of such impacts.

The NRC staff used the census block groups in the 2000 census, which resulted in a universe

of 257 block groups, and followed its latest guidance (69 FR 52040) for designating minority

categories, including "other" races and multiple-race individuals. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the

distribution of census block groups for the minority and low-income populations, respectively.

(a) Brunswick and New Hanover Counties were the focus of this inquiry because they lie completely

within the 50-mi radius and contain the minority and low-income populations that are nearest the

BSEP site. The staff concluded that any findings of environmental Justice issues in these counties

would warrant further field inquiries in more distant counties. For reasons stated later in this section,

further investigation was not warranted.

(b) A census block group Is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a census

tract. A census block Is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB)

collects and tabulates decennial census Information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent

statistical subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in accordance

with USCB guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. Census

block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2001).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-32 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Based on the NRC criteria, CP&L determined that Black minority populations exist in 44 census

block groups: 41 in North Carolina and 3 in South Carolina. Two Columbus County block

groups contain Native American minority populations. Staff analysis using the 2000 census

confirmed the relative numbers and locations of minority populations in the CP&L analysis.

Figure 4-1 shows the locations of minority populations.

Black minority populations were scattered throughout the 50-mi area, especially in Wilmington

and the rural areas of southern Bladen County and northern Columbus County.

By the NRC criteria (50 percent of population, or at least 20 percent greater than state), three of

the total 257 block groups from the 2000 census within 50 mi of the site contain low-income

populations. All three census block groups containing low-income populations are located in

central Wilmington. Figure 4-2 shows the locations of the low-income populations.

With the locations of minority and low-income populations identified, the staff proceeded to

evaluate whether any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these

populations in a disproportionate manner. Based on staff guidance (69 FR 52040), air, land,

and water resources within about 50 mi of the BSEP site were examined. Within that area, a

few potential environmental impacts could affect human populations; all of these were

considered SMALL for the general population.

The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with BSEP license renewal

can affect human populations are discussed in each associated section of this SEIS. The staff

then evaluated whether minority and low-income populations could be disproportionately

affected by these impacts. The staff found no unusual resource dependencies or practices,

such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing through which these populations could be

disproportionately affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent

disproportionate impacts affecting these minority and low-income populations. The staff

concludes that offsite impacts to minority and low-income populations from BSEP license

renewal would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

Only a minor fraction of the service water imported by BSEP is from coastal groundwater

aquifers; therefore, the staff concludes that the combined onsite and offsite use of groundwater

for the plant is less than 100 gpm for plant use. Therefore, the Category 1 issues, groundwater

use and quality, in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, are applicable to BSEP.

These issues are listed in Table 4-8. CP&L stated in the ER that it is not aware of any new and

significant information associated with the renewal of the BSEP OLs (CP&L 2004). The staff

April 2006 4-33 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

15

1w7k r -i - ; | ° |soe A

Cmmy w 1d 10 2 25 S 0 .

Popuiador

Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas) Within

50 Miles of the BSEP Site Based on 2000 Census Block Group Data

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-34 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

LiEIM

PwT Lalks and Rivers

n County Boundaries

I Low4-ncome Households 0 3 .:

-

£ D .'a 10 Is = Mtb

g9;2! .

0- i lais M 2S Keg arwf

U1-

Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas)

Within 50 Miles of the BSEP Site Based on 2000 Census Block Group Data

April 2006 4-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

has not identified any new and significant information on these issues during its independent

review of the ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, or

its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts

related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the staff

concludes that the impacts are SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to

be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

I Table 4-8. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

License Renewal Term

GEIS

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 Section

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm). 4.8.1.1

Groundwater-quality degradation (saltwater intrusion) 4.8.1.2

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-I, follows.

* Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water: Rlants that use <100 grnm).

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use

conflicts.

BSEP groundwater use is less than 100 gpm. The staff has riot identified any new and

significant information on this issue. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

groundwater-use conflicts during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

the GEIS.

* Groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Nuclear power plants do not contribute significantly to saltwater intrusion.

The staff has not identified any significant new information during its independent review of the

CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available information,

or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

groundwater quality degradation impacts associated with saltwater intrusion during the renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-36 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

There are no Category 2 issues related to groundwater use and quality for BSEP.

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

The evaluation of threatened or endangered species is listed as a Category 2 issue in

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species in the

Vicinity of BSEP During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(1i) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Section Subparagraph Section

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E 4.6

This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or

endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected by continued

operation of the nuclear plant during the license renewal term. The presence of threatened or

endangered-speeisnf hevicinityof the-BSEP siteis-discussecin-Sections 2.2.5and 2;2;6.--- - -

On December 29, 2004, the staff contacted the FWS and NMFS to request information on

threatened and endangered species and the impacts of license renewal (NRC 2004a, b). In

response, on February 3,2005, the FWS provided additional information regarding Federally

listed species that have been observed or may occur in the vicinity of BSEP and its associated

transmission lines, as well as the concerns that the FWS has regarding those species

(FWS 2005a). NMFS responded on February 4,2005, with a listing of marine species that

were potentially affected by BSEP operations (NMFS 2005a). The staff has prepared biological

assessments (BA) that document its review, and these have been transmitted to FWS and

NMFS for their concurrence (NRC 2005b,c). These BAs are provided in Appendix E of this

SEIS.

4.6.1 Aquatic Species

As described in Section 2.2.5, there are 14 Federally listed endangered or threatened aquatic

species with some potential to occur in the vicinity of the BSEP. Five listed sea turtle species

have been observed in Brunswick County. The loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia

mydas), and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kemph) turtles have each been found on the BSEP

site. The hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles

have been observed on rare occasions in Brunswick County, but have not been documented at

the BSEP site.

April 2006 4-37 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

BSEP maintains a diversion structure at the mouth of the cooling water intake canal that

supports 3/8-in. mesh screens and specially designed turtle-blocker plastic mesh panels,

designed to prevent sea turtles from entering the intake canal. The screens on the diversion

structure are cleaned daily, and the canal is patrolled during the primary turtle season to reduce

the possibility of a sea turtle being harmed as a result of plant operation. BSEP has undergone

Section 7 consultation with the NMFS and has been issued an incidental take statement by that

agency. BSEP also maintains an endangered species permit, issued by the North Carolina

Wildlife Resources Commission, that allows them to capture and transport live and dead sea

turtles for the purpose of releasing them to the ocean, transporting them to a rehabilitation

facility, or disposing of them. BSEP is required to report all incidental takes, turtle stranding

events, and handling activities to these agencies.

The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) and short nose sturgeon (Acipenser

brevirostrum) are Federal endangered species that have been documented in the Cape Fear

Estuary on rare occasions but have never been documented at the BSEP site. The sei whale

(Balaenoptera borealis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera

physalus), right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and

sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) are also Federal endangered species, but they

generally inhabit deeper offshore waters and are not expected to occur at the BSEP site

(NMFS 2005e). The Federally threatened Waccamaw silverside (Menidia extensa) is known

only from Lake-Waccamaw-in Columbus County and is therefore not expected to occur at the

BSEP site (FWS 2005b).

CP&L monitors and records occurrences of Federally and State-sensitive aquatic species on

the BSEP site and within transmission line rights-of-way. In addition, CP&L directs its contract

personnel and consults with appropriate Federal and State agencies to develop and implement

restrictions and safeguards to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats

(BSEP 2003; 2005a, b).

The staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP and associated transmission line

rights-of-way maintenance during the license renewal term is not likely to adversely affect any

Federally listed aquatic species. Thus, the staff concludes that the impact on threatened or

endangered aquatic species from an additional 20 years of operation would be SMALL, and no

additional mitigation is warranted. The staff's findings were documented in the BAs

(Appendix E) that have been forwarded to NMFS and FWS for concurrence.

The NMFS reviewed the BA, as well as the annual reports on incidental take received from thel

BSEP, and noted that there is not a need for re-initiation of formal consultation under Section 7

of the ESA and that their biological opinion regarding continuing operation of the facility, issuedl

on January 20,2000, remains in force (NMFS 2005f). The staff has not received a response

from FWS, upon the publishing of this Final SEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-38 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.6.2 Terrestrial Species

A total of 16 Federally listed terrestrial species have been identified from counties traversed by

transmission line rights-of-way. Federally listed terrestrial species reported to occur from

Brunswick, Bladen, Columbus, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender, Cumberland, or Robeson

Counties include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker

(Picoides borealis), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), wood stork (Mycteria americana),

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), rough-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia),

golden sedge (Carex lutea), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus

pumilus), Hirsts' panic grass (Panicum hirstil), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), Cooley's

meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyl,), small whorled pogonia (Isotra medeoloides), Saint Francis'

satyr (Neonympha mitchelfil francisci), and the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis).

There have been historical records of the eastem cougar (puma concolor couguar) in the

vicinity.

Habitat for some of the Federally listed species could potentially be found within or traversed by

BSEP transmission line rights-of-way. There are known populations of the roughleaf

loosestrife, golden sedge, and Cooley's meadowrue, as well as several state listed species

within the BSEP transmission rights-of-way. These sites are managed in cooperation with

NCDENR {CP&L and NCDENR 1993). Red-cockaded woodpeckers are known to inhabit the

adjacent Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, and additional habitat is located in the vicinity of

BSEP as well as along several of the transmission lines. Any facility expansion involving

removal of mature longleaf pine would require surveys for this species to ensure that no redcockaded woodpeckers or trees with their nest-cavities were harmed (CP&L 2004). Wood

storks and bald eagles are occasionally seen foraging at the bypass return pond on BSEP, but

have not been recorded nesting in the vicinity of BSEP or the transmission rights-of-way. The

American alligator is widespread in Walden Creek and has been seen near the transmission

rights-of-way and near the intake and discharge canals. This species is not biologically

endangered or threatened, but is listed because of its similarity in appearance to other

threatened crocodilian species.

CP&L monitors populations of Federally and State-sensitive terrestrial species on the BSEP site

and within transmission line rights-of-way. In addition, CP&L works with their contract

personnel and appropriate Federal and State agencies to develop and implement restrictions

and safeguards to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats during

maintenance of transmission line rights-of-way (BSEP 2003; 2005a, b).

The staff reviewed information provided by CP&L (2004) and obtained from the FWS and the

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Based on the site audit, review of CP&L's ER, other

reports, and information from FWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, the staff

April 2006 4-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

concludes that the impacts on terrestrial endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate

species of an additional 20 years of operation and maintenance of BSEP and associated

transmission lines would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted. The staff's

findings have been documented in the BA (NRC 2005b, c) (Appendix E).

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information

on Impacts of Operations During the Renewal Term

The staff has not identified new and significant information on environmental issues listed in

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, related to operation during the renewal

term. The staff reviewed the discussion of environmental impacts associated with operation

during the renewal term in the GEIS and has conducted its own independent review, including

public scoping meetings, to identify issues with new and significant information. Processes for

identification and evaluation of new information are described in Section 1.2.2, License

Renewal Evaluation Process.

The staff has identified a new issue not previously addressed in the GEIS related to

consultation with the NMFS regarding essential fish habitat (EFH). The consultation

requirements of Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (MSA) provide that Federal agencies consult with the Secretary of Commerce

on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may

adversely affect EFH. According to the Mid-Atlantic and the South Atlantic Fishery

Management Councils database, an EFH assessment must be conducted for BSEP.

Consequently, the NRC staff is currently consulting with southeast NMFS Habitat Conservation

division regarding EFH for license renewal at BSEP.

4.8 Cumulative Impacts of Operations During the License

Renewal Term

The staff considered the potential cumulative impacts applicable to each of the potential

impacts of operations during the license renewal term identified within the GEIS. For purposes

of this analysis, past actions are those related to the resources at the time of plant licensing and

construction, present actions are those related to the resources at the time of current operation

of the power plant, and future actions are those that are reasonably foreseeable through the

end of the current license term, as well as during the 20-year license renewal term. The

geographical area over which past, present, and future actions could contribute to cumulative

impacts is dependent on the type of action considered, and is described below for each impact

area.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-40 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The impacts of the proposed action are combined with other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions at BSEP, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or

person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts are defined as "cumulative" in

40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place

over time. It is possible that an impact that may be SMALL by itself could result in a

MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other

actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled,

even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall

resource decline.

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System

The diversion of water from the Cape Fear River through the BSEP cooling system and then

into the Atlantic Ocean does not appreciably impact the surface water supply in the vicinity.

CP&L has not proposed any changes to the operation of the intake and discharge systems

during the renewal period. Therefore, the staff has determined that operation of the BSEP

cooling system does not appreciably contribute to the cumulative impacts on the surface water

supply.

In Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the staff determined that the potential impacts resulting from

continued operation of the BSEP cooling water intake system on the impingement and

entrainment of fish and shellfish are SMALL. To consider cumulative impacts to aquatic

resources, the staff reviewed projections for water withdrawal from the Cape Fear River in the

vicinity of BSEP. Facilities in North Carolina with run-of-the-river intake systems are designed

to withdraw only a portion of the expected low flow, which the NCDENR calculates as the lowest

consecutive 7-day average flow expected to occur once in 10 years, or the 7Q10 flow. For

general planning purposes, if a withdrawal does not take more than 20 percent of the 7Q10

flow, there is a general presumption that it will have minimum effect on local habitat and

additional studies are not required. Using a limit of 20 percent of the 7Q10 flow as a maximum

withdrawal rate for systems projected to withdraw water (cumulatively) from the Cape Fear

River in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties through 2050, the systems are likely to have

enough water available to meet future demands without significantly impacting aquatic

resources (NCDENR 2002). Additionally, all facilities with water intake systems, including

BSEP, are regulated by NCDENR so their operations do not impact the maintenance of a

balanced, Indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms. Because CP&L

has proposed no changes in the operation of the cooling water system during the license

renewal term and the projected cumulative water withdrawals from the lower Cape Fear River

during the license renewal term are not likely to significantly impact aquatic resources, the staff

has determined that continued operation of the BSEP cooling water intake system is not likely

April 2006 4-41 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts for aquatic resources and no additional

mitigation is warranted.

In Section 4.1.3 the staff also determined that the potential for heat shock impacts resulting

from operation of the plant's cooling water discharge system to the aquatic environment on or in

the vicinity of the site is SMALL. To consider cumulative impacts, the staff determined what

other facilities currently discharge to the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of BSEP. In Brunswick

and New Hanover Counties, there are currently 41 NPDES-permitted facilities. Besides BSEP,

only one facility discharges to the Atlantic Ocean. This facility, the Southport Cogeneration

Plant, began commercial operation in 1987 and is located approximately one-half mile south of

the developed portion of the BSEP site (CP&L 2004; Cogentrix 2005). The cogeneration plant

burns coal to provide 120 megawatts of electricity to CP&L and process steam to the adjacent

Archer Daniels Midland facility. The facility, which has a cooling tower, has no discharge limits,

and its outfall discharges to the BSEP discharge canal, just outside the nuclear exclusion zone

(CP&L 2004; NCDENR 2005). Thus, the two plants already operate simultaneously without

impacting aquatic resources. Because the applicant has proposed no changes in the operation

of the cooling water discharge during the renewal period, the staff has determined that

continued discharge from the BSEP cooling system is not likely to contribute significantly to

cumulative impacts for aquatic resources, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

Operation of the BSEP cooling system is not likely to contribute appreciatively to cumulative

impacts on the surface water supply or to aquatic resources through water withdrawal or

discharge. Therefore, the staff concludes that cumulative impacts resulting from 20 years of

continued operation of the plant cooling system are SMALL, and no additional mitigation is

warranted.

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of the

Transmission Lines

The continued operation of the BSEP electrical transmission facilities was evaluated to

determine if there is a potential for interactions with other past, present, and future actions that

could result in adverse cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources such as wildlife populations,

the size and distribution of habitat areas, aquatic resources such as wetlands and floodplains,

and both the acute and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. For purposes of this analysis,

the area that could contribute to adverse cumulative effects is associated with the BSEP

transmission lines (Figure 2-5). This geographic area encompasses the past, present, and

foreseeable future actions associated with the transmission lines.

CP&L follows right-of-way management procedures that have been found to be protective of

sensitive ecological resources, including wildlife habitat, wetlands, and floodplains. CP&L

maintains maps of known sensitive resources, such as wetlands, and maintains the

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-42 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

transmission line rights-of-way to minimize impacts, with the result that no net loss of resources

occurs. The maintenance procedures minimize disturbance to wildlife and, in many ways,

provide greater protection relative to many of the surrounding areas with other land uses.

The staff determined that the electrical current induced by the electromagnetic fields from the

BSEP transmission lines is well below the NESC recommendations for preventing electrical

shock from induced currents. Therefore, continued operation of the BSEP transmission lines

will not detectably change the overall potential for electrical shock in the future within the

analysis area. With respect to chronic effects of electromagnetic fields,and although the staff

considers the GEIS conclusion of "not applicable' to be appropriate in regard to BSEP, the

BSEP transmission lines are not likely to detectably contribute to the regional exposure to

extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF). This conclusion is based on the

fact that BSEP transmission lines primarily pass through sparsely populated rural areas, with

few residences or businesses close enough to have detectable ELF-EMF.

Therefore, because the impacts from maintaining and operating the transmission system are so

minor that they will neither destabilize or noticeably alter the existing aquatic or terrestrial

environment, the staff determined that the cumulative impacts of continued operation of BSEP

transmission lines will be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts

The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and workers have been developed by

EPA and NRC to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation

and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 40 CFR Part 190, 10 CFR Part 20,

and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. For the purpose of this analysis, the area within a 50-mi

radius of the BSEP site was included. As stated in Section 2.2.7, CP&L has conducted a

radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) around the BSEP site since 1973, with

the results presented annually in the BSEP Annual Radiological Environmental Operating

Report. The REMP measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, including

BSEP and Global Nuclear Fuels-Americas LLC, a manufacturer of nuclear fuel assemblies

located approximately 20 mi north of the BSEP site. Monitoring results for the 5-yr period 1999

through 2003 were reviewed as part of the cumulative impacts assessment (PEC 2000, 2001,

2002, 2003c, 2004), and it was concluded that the radiation and radioactivity in the

environmental media monitored around the plant are not significantly higher than preoperational levels.

Additionally, in Sections 2.2.7 and 4.3, the staff concluded that impacts of radiation exposure to

the public and workers (occupational) from operation of BSEP during the renewal term are

SMALL. Therefore, the monitoring program and staff's conclusion considered cumulative

April 2006 4-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

impacts. The NRC and the State of North Carolina would regulate any reasonably foreseeable

future actions in the vicinity of the BSEP site that could contribute to cumulative radiological

impacts.

Therefore, the staff concludes that cumulative radiological impacts of continued operation of

BSEP would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts

Much of the analyses of socioeconomic impacts presented in Section 4.4 of this SEIS already

incorporate cumulative impact analysis, because the metrics used for quantification only make

sense when placed in the total or cumulative context. For instance, the impact of the total

number of additional housing units that may be needed can only be evaluated with respect to

the total number that will be available in the impacted area. Therefore, the geographical area of

the cumulative analysis varies, depending on the particular impact considered, and may depend

on specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions, or may be distance related, as in the case

of environmental justice.

The continued operation of BSEP is not likely to add to any cumulative socioeconomic impacts

beyond those already evaluated in Section 4.4. In other words, the impacts of issues, such as

transportation or offsite land use, are likely to be undetectable beyond the regions previously

evaluated and will quickly decrease with increasing distance from the site. The staff determined

that the impacts on housing, public utilities, public services, and environmental justice would all

be SMALL. The staff determined that the impact on offsite land use would be SMALL because

no refurbishment actions are planned at BSEP, and no new incremental sources of plantrelated tax payments are expected that could influence land use by fostering considerable

growth. There are no reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would alter these conclusions in

regard to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the staff determined that the cumulative

socioeconomic impacts of continued operation at BSEP would be SMALL, and no additional

mitigation is warranted.

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality

A portion of the groundwater supply used by BSEP for service and auxiliary water needs comes

from local groundwater wells. The applicant is not proposing an increase in demand of

groundwater well usage during the renewal period. As demand for water supplies increase in

the vicinity of BSEP, additional withdrawals of groundwater may be involved to satisfy the water

needs of other water users in the region. Additionally, while no evidence suggests this is

currently a significant concem, given the proximity of the BSEP site to the coastline, continued

and increased groundwater withdrawals could conceivably increase the likelihood of saltwater

intrusion developing in the coastal aquifers. However, given the relative abundance of local

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-44 April 2D06
Environmental Impacts of Operation

surface water supplies (notably from the Cape Fear River), the staff has determined that, if

groundwater aquifers are unable to support the future increase in water demand, adequate

sources of surface water are available. Therefore, the staff concludes that the contribution of

BSEP operations to cumulative impacts on groundwater use and quality are SMALL, and no

mitigation is warranted.

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species

The geographic area considered in the analysis of potential cumulative impacts to threatened or

endangered species includes those North Carolina counties that contain the BSEP site and its

associated transmission line rights-of-way (Figure 2-5) and the waters of the Cape Fear River

and estuary in the vicinity of the BSEP site. As discussed in Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6, a

number of threatened or endangered species could potentially occur within this area. The

staff's findings, presented in the BA (see Appendix E) and in Section 4.6, are that continued

operation of BSEP and its associated transmission line rights-of-way maintenance during the

license renewal term would have no effect on, or would not likely adversely affect, any Federally

listed species or any designated critical habitat. Therefore, the staff concludes that the

contribution of BSEP operations to cumulative impacts to Federally protected species or

designated critical habitat Is SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

Aquatic Species

Fourteen Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species may occur in the vicinity of

the BSEP site. However, eleven of these species (hawksbill turtle, leatherback turtle, West

Indian manatee, sei whale, right whale, blue whale, humpback whale, sperm whale, fin whale,

shortnose sturgeon, and Waccamaw silverside) have never been documented at the BSEP site.

Therefore, continued plant operations are unlikely to contribute to cumulative impacts to these

species. The remaining three sea turtle species, the loggerhead, green, and Kemp's ridley

turtles, have occasionally been'found in the BSEP intake canal (CP&L 2004), and cumulative

impacts to these species are considered further.

Present and predicted future impacts to sea turtles at BSEP from continued operation may be

characterized by recent turtle encounters at the plant. In 2004, BSEP reported 16 sea turtle

encounters to NMFS. Seven of these sea turtles died or were found dead, either from plantrelated injuries or other causes, while nine were tagged and released unharmed to the Atlantic

Ocean off Oak Island, far from the BSEP seawater intake canal (BSEP 2005a; TTP 2005).

However, a biological opinion issued by NMFS regarding shrimp trawling and sea turtle

conservation in the southeastern United States places the BSEP turtle loss in perspective,

indicating that even under recent turtle excluder device regulations, approximately 9300 turtles

are estimated to die annually as a result of the shrimp trawl fishery in the southeastern United

April 2006 4-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

States (NMFS 2002). Comparing sea turtle loss from coastal seawater intakes to the losses

from incidental take during shrimp trawling, the biological opinion states that while, "sea turtles

entering coastal or inshore areas have been affected by entrainment in the cooling-water

systems of electrical generating plants. ...sea turtle mortality associated with these activities is

relatively low and does not significantly affect the environmental baseline" (NMFS 2002). The

2000 NMFS biological opinion addressing impacts to sea turtles specifically resulting from

BSEP operations reached the same conclusion, stating that BSEP "is not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of the loggerhead, leatherback, green, hawksbill, or Kemp's ridley sea

turtles" (CP&L 2004).

The baseline condition for Atlantic sea turtles considers how conditions have changed over time

and are likely to change in the future (CEQ 1 997b). The assessment of cumulative impacts

then considers the realistic potential for the resource to sustain itself in the future and whether

the proposed action would affect this potential.

Sea turtle populations in the southeast Atlantic have been in a state of decline for many years.

The Kemp's ridley turtle was listed as endangered in 1970, and its status has remained

unchanged (NMFS 2005b). The green turtle was originally listed in 1978. The recovery team

for the green turtle has concluded that the species status has not improved appreciably since

listing, although trends are particularly difficult to assess because of wide year-to-year

fluctuations in numbers of nesting females, difficulties of conducting research on early life

stages, and long generation time (NMFS 2005c). The loggerhead was listed as endangered in

1978, and its status has also remained unchanged. Numbers of nesting females in Florida

appear to be stable, but the number of nesting females in South Carolina and Georgia may still

be on the decline (NMFS 2005d). The decline of these species is primarily caused by human

activities such as harvest of eggs, killing adults for meat and other products, coastal

development, commercial fisheries, and pollution (NMFS 2005b, c, d). All three sea turtle

species have been subject to high levels of incidental take by shrimp trawlers (NMFS 2002).

Besides impingement or entrainment resulting from operation of the BSEP cooling water intake,

specific activities that may occur in the vicinity of the BSEP site and contribute to cumulative

impacts include, but are not limited to, destruction and alteration of nesting and foraging

habitats, incidental capture in commercial and recreational fisheries, entanglement in marine

debris, entrainment in hopper dredges during maintenance of shipping channels, and vessel

strikes.

The proposed action is unlikely to increase sea turtle impacts over present conditions, because

operating conditions at BSEP are not expected to change. However, other human activities,

such as fishing, boating, and polluting are likely to continue, and possibly increase, as human

populations along the coast increase. Additionally, because these sea turtle species are highly

migratory and long-lived, they may also be affected by activities that occur far outside the action

area. Fortunately, many coastal communities are adopting turtle nesting protection measures,

and State and the Federal governments are implementing turtle protection measures that may

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-46 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

slow or reverse the sea turtle population decline. Future population increases would likely be

attributed to two primary factors: full protection of nesting females and their nests in Mexico,

and the requirement to use turtle excluder devices in shrimp trawls both in the United States

and Mexico (NMFS 2005b). Table 4-10 summarizes the past, present, proposed, and future

actions that would determine cumulative impacts to sea turtles in the vicinity of BSEP.

The staff has reviewed the current status of the Kemp's ridley, green, and loggerhead sea

turtles, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and

the cumulative effects. While the sea turtle populations are threatened and endangered, the

operation of BSEP does not contribute significantly to the cumulative impact or to the continued

existence of these species, and its continued operation is not likely to change the existing level

of impact to the species. CP&L currently works with the appropriate State and Federal

agencies to develop and establish guidelines to protect threatened and endangered species

and has adopted mitigation measures to protect sea turtle species. Therefore, the staff has

determined that the contributions to cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered aquatic

species from continued operation of BSEP and its associated transmission line rights-of-way

would be SMALL, and no further mitigation is warranted.

Table 4-10. Actions that Would Determine Cumulative Impacts to Sea Turtles in the Vicinity of

BSEP

I

I

I

I

Proposed Cumulative

Resource Past Actions Present Actions Action Future Actions Effect

Sea turtles Significant Occasional Same level as Continued loss Significant

(Kemp's ridley, decline In documented take present action of sea turtles decline In

green, numbers and from BSEP regarding from human numbers; slow

loggerhead) Federal listing operations; occasional activities; better recovery of

as endangered human impacts to documented sea turtle species

and threatened nesting activities take from BSEP protection possible

species and to turtles In operations standards and through

the marine Improvement of legislative

environment; population action and

Improved status enforcement

legislative estimates of species and

protection for sea through habitat

turtles in the refinements In protection

United States and science and measures

Mexico technology

April 2006 4-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Terrestrial Species

Sixteen Federally listed threatened or endangered species may potentially occur in the vicinity

of the BSEP site and associated transmission line rights-of-way. Operation of BSEP is not

likely to have a detectable effect on terrestrial species located in the vicinity of the BSEP site.

Therefore, operations at the plant site would not have a detectable contribution to the

cumulative, regional impacts on threatened or endangered species.

Federally listed species and habitats for these species have been found within the BSEP

transmission line rights-of-way. CP&L works with appropriate Federal and State agencies to

develop and establish guidelines to protect threatened and endangered species on the BSEP

site and transmission line rights-of-way. CP&L and NCDENR signed a Memorandum of

Understanding in 1993 to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species and

sensitive natural areas occurring on transmission line rights-of-way (CP&L and NCDENR 1993).

CP&L maintains best management practices for rare plants on its rights-of-way and has

procedures in place to protect these and other endangered or threatened species, if they are

encountered (BSEP 2003, 2005a). In some cases, the rights-of-way and the maintenance

practices may provide for habitat that is not found in surrounding areas.

Therefore, the staff determined that the contributions to cumulative impacts to threatened or

endangered terrestrial species resulting from continued operation of BSEP and its associated

transmission line rights-of-way would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

4.8.7 Conclusions Regarding Cumulative Impacts

The staff considered the potential impacts resulting from operation of BSEP during the license

renewal term and from other past, present, and future actions in the vicinity of BSEP. For each

impact area, the staff has determined that the potential cumulative impacts resulting from BSEP

operation during the license renewal term would be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is

warranted.

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the

Renewal Term

Neither CP&L nor the staff is aware of information that is both new and significant related to any

of the applicable Category 1 issues associated with BSEP operation during the license renewal

term. Consequently, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with these

issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS. For each of these issues, the GEIS

concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant-specific mitigation

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-48 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 10 Category 2 issues applicable to

BSEP operation during the license renewal term and for environmental justice and chronic

effects of electromagnetic fields. For all 10 issues and environmental justice, the staff

concluded that the potential environmental impact of license renewal term operations of BSEP

would be of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS, and that

additional mitigation would not be warranted. In addition, the staff determined that a consensus

has not been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects

from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, the staff did not conduct an evaluation of this issue.

Finally, the staff has considered potential cumulative impacts resulting from BSEP operation

during the license renewal term and has determined that the cumulative impacts of continued

operation of BSEP during the license renewal term would be SMALL.

4.10 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

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

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

40 CFR Part 9. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 9,

UOMB Approvals Under the Paperwork Reduction Act."

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment,

Part 122, "EPA administered permit programs: The national pollutant discharge elimination

system."

40 CFR Part 123. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment,

Part 123, "State Program Requirements."

40 CFR Part 124. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment,

Part 124, "Procedures for Decisionmaking."

April 2006 4-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment,

Part 125, "Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System."

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."

40 CFR Part 1508.7. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment,

I Part 1508.7, "Cumulative Impact."

59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address

I Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations." Federal Register.

| 69 FR 41575. July 9, 2004. 'NPDES - Final Regulations for Cooling Water Intake Structures|

at Phase II Existing Facilities." Federal Register.

66 FR 65255. December 18,2001. 'National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:

Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities: Final Rule."

Federal Register, US Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed at:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAWATER/2001/December/Day_18/w28968.pdf on

May 5, 2004.

I 69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). "Policy Statement on the

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions."

| Federal Register, August 24,2004, Washington, D.C.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2002a. Transmission Line Equipment and Right of

Way Maintenance Schedules. MNT-TRMX-00051, Revision 0, Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2002b. Transmission Line Right of Way.

MNT-TRMX-00176, Revision 0, Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2003. Environmental Training: Endangered Species.

EVC-SUBS-00062, Revision 0, Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2004 Sea

Turtle Annual Report, Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005b. Migratory Birds. MNT-SUBS-0001 7, Rev 2,

Southport, North Carolina.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-50 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1979. 316(a) Demonstration, Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina. Volume XIX, Environmental Technology Section,

New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1985. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear

Studies: Interpretive Report. New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1993. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1992

Biological Monitoring Report. New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2002. Circulating Water System Description.

System Description (SD-29), Rev. 2, BSEP Training Department, Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos.

50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (CP&L and NCDENR). 1993. Memorandum of Understanding between the

Carolina Power & Light Company and the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources (now North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources).

March 19,1993.

Clean Water Act. 33 USC 1251 et seq.

Cogentrix. 2005. Southport Cogeneration Plant. Southport, North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://www.cogentrix.con/plants/southport.html on May 4, 2005.

Cooke J. 2001. Brunswick NPDES Permit (Thermal Discharge) Historical Background.

Carolina Power & Light Company, Environmental Services Section, New Hill, North Carolina.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997a. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997b. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1991. 'TL Workstation Code." ACDCLINE Manual,

Volume 7, Palo Alto, California.

April 2006 4-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Joint Resolution approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a I

repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to X

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 2002. Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat. 735.

National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 1997. Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers, New York, New York.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

No 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Services

(NMFS). 2002. uShrimp Trawling in the Southeastern United States, Under the Sea Turtle

Conservation Regulations and as Managed by the Fishery Management Plans for Shrimp in the

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico." Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation,

Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region. Accessed at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot-res/readingrrm/ESAsec7/Biop-shrimp.trawling.PDF on

April 28, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005a. Letter from Ms. Teletha Griffin, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, to NRC.

February 4, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Services

(NMFS). 2005b. 'Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles (Lepidochelys kempfi)." National Marine Fisheries

Service, Office of Protected Resources. Accessed at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/proLres/species/turtles/kemps.html on April 28,2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Services

(NMFS). 2005c. uGreen Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas)." National Marine Fisheries Service,

Office of Protected Resources. Accessed at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot-res/species/turtles/green.html on April 28, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Services

(NMFS). 2005d. "Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta)." NMFS, Office of Protected

Resources. Accessed at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/proLres/species/turtles/loggerhead.html

on April 28, 2005.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 4-52 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Services

(NMFS). 2005e. Species Information. Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring,

Maryland. Accessed at: http//www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ on June 26, 2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Services

(NMFS). 2005f. Letter from Roy E. Crabtree, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office to NRC.

September 19, 2005.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2002. "Cape

Fear River Basin Water Supply Plan: Second Draft for Discussion." Division of Water Quality,

Raleigh, North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://www.ncwater.org/ReportsandCPublications/Jordan_LakeCape_Fear_RiverBasin/CFR

BWSPdraft2.pdf on May 4, 2005.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2003.

"Issuance of NPDES Permit NC0007064 to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant." Division of

Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2005. "NPDES

Documents: List of active permits." Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/BIMS_031505.xis on May 4, 2005.

North Carolina Department of State Treasurer (NCDST). 2005. "Financial Information

Brunswick County." Accessed at: http://ncdst-web2.treasurer.state.nc.us/lgc/units/D_09.htm on

January 12, 2005.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2000. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 1999. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2001. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 2000. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2002. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December31, 2001. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2003a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2002

Biological Monitoring Report. Environmental Services Section, New Hill, North Carolina.

April 2006 4-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2003b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2003

Biological Monitoring Report. Environmental Services Section, New Hill, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2003c. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 2002. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2004. Radiological Environmental Operating Report

for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, January 1 through December 31, 2003. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2005a. Herbicide Usage - Progress Energy

Carolinas, Inc. Accessed at:

http:I/www.progress-energy.comlenvironmentlvegetation/herbicide.asp on March 10, 2005.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2005b. Information on Tax Payments to Brunswick

County. E-mail received from Paul Snead, February 4, 2005, in response to data requested at

the site audit.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2005c. Information on Employment by Residence at

BSEP. E-mail received from Paul Snead, February 7, 2005, in response to data requested at

the site audit.

Topsail Turtle Project (TTP). 2005. ulndex of Sea Turtles by Admission Date." The Karen

Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center, Topsail Island, North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://www.seaturtlehospital.org/turtleindex.htm on April 28, 2005.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Continued Construction and Proposed Issuance of an Operating License for the Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-324 and 50-325, Directorate of Licensing,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. "Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1)." Accessed at:

http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/SummaryFile..1/ on March 1, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005a. Letter from P. Benjamin, FWS, to NRC

regarding a list of all Federally protected endangered and threatened species in the area under

review for license renewal at BSEP. February 3, 2005. ADAMS Accession No. ML050600244.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005b. Waccamaw Silverside in North Carolina.

Accessed at: http://nc-es.fws.gov/fish/waccsilver.html on March 10, 2005.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 4-54 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Operation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service

requesting a list of protected species within the area under evaluation for BSEP, Units 1 and 2,

License Renewal. December 29, 2004. ADAMS Accession No. ML043650001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. Letter to National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), requesting a list of

protected within the area under evaluation for the BSEP, Units 1 and 2 License Renewal.

December 29, 2004. ADAMS Accession No. ML043650002.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. E-mail from Dave Anderson, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) regarding Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

site audit Information pertaining to socioeconomics and land use. June 18, 2005.

ADAMS Accession No. ML052030237

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) from NRC, regarding Biological Assessment for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1

and 2, License Renewal. August 8,2005. ADAMS Accession No. ML052200600

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005c. Letter to National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) from NRC, regarding

Biological Assessment for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal.

August 9, 2005. ADAMS Accession No. ML052200644

April 2006 4-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents are discussed in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional

mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a Category 1 or a

Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1;

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur

during the license renewal term.

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents

Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. These are design-basis accidents (DBAs)

and severe accidents, as discussed below.

(a) The GEIS was originally Issued in 1996. Addendum I to the GEIS was Issued in 1999. Hereafter, all references

to the AGEIS" Include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 5-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Postulated Accidents

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents

To receive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to operate a nuclear power

facility, an applicant must submit a safety analysis report (SAR) as part of the application. The

SAR presents the design criteria and design information for the proposed reactor and

comprehensive data on the proposed site. The SAR also discusses various hypothetical

accident situations and the safety features that are provided to prevent and mitigate accidents.

The NRC staff reviews the application to determine whether the plant design meets the

Commission's regulations and requirements and includes, in part, the nuclear plant design and

its anticipated response to an accident.

DBAs are those accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the

plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated

accidents without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number of these

postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant but are evaluated to

establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The

acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Parts 50 and 100.

The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the

ability of the plant to withstand these accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before

issuance of the operating license (OL). The results of these evaluations are found in license

documentation such as the staff's safety evaluation report, the final environmental statement,

the licensee's updated final safety analysis report, and Section 5.1 of this supplemental

environmental impact statement (SEIS). The licensee is required to maintain the acceptable

design and performance criteria throughout the life of the plant, including any extended-life

operation. The consequences for these events are evaluated for the hypothetical maximum

exposed individual; as such, changes in the plant environment will not affect these evaluations.

Because of the requirements that continuous acceptability of the consequences and aging

management programs be in effect for license renewal, the environmental impacts as

calculated for DBAs should not differ significantly from initial licensing assessments over the life

of the plant, including the license renewal term. Accordingly, the design of the plant relative to

DBAs during the extended term is considered to remain acceptable, and the environmental

impacts of those accidents were not examined further in the GEIS.

The Commission has determined that the environmental impacts of DBAs are of SMALL

significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand these

accidents. Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, DBAs are designated as a

Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The early resolution of

the DBAs makes them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the current licensing

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 5-2 April 2006
Postulated Accidents

basis of the plant is to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and, therefore,

under the provisions of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal. This

issue, which is applicable to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), is listed

in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the

License Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

POSTULATED AcciDENTS

Design-basis accidents 5.3.2; 5.5.1

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis accidents

are of small significance for all plants.

Carolina Power & Ught Company (CP&L) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (CP&L 2004)

that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of BSEP.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, Its evaluation of other available

information, or public comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement

(SEIS). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to this issue beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

5.1.2 Severe Accidents

Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result

in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious offsite

consequences. The GEIS assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the license renewal

term period, using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information to conservatively

predict the environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the renewal term.

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open

bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from

severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe

accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

April 2006 5-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Postulated Accidents

Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2

issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue, applicable to BSEP, is

listed in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the

License Renewal Term

ISSUE-1 0 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS . 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(1i) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; L 5.2

5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4;

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2

The staff has not identified any new and significant information with regard to the

consequences of severe accidents during its independent review of the CP&L ER, the staff's

l site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available information, or public comments

on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of severe accidents

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L),

the staff reviewed severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for BSEP. The results of the

staff's review are discussed in Section 5.2.

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) of 10 CFR 51 requires that license renewal applicants consider

alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for the

applicant's plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an

environmental assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes

(i.e., hardware, procedures, and training) with the potential for improving severe accident safety

performance are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not been previously considered for

BSEP; therefore, the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those altematives.

5.2.1 Introduction

This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for BSEP conducted by CP&L and

described in the ER, and the NRC's review of CP&L's evaluation. The details of the review are

described in the NRC staff evaluation, which was prepared with contract assistance from

Information Systems Laboratories, Inc. The entire evaluation of SAMAs for BSEP is presented

in Appendix G.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 5-4 April 2006
Postulated Accidents

The SAMA evaluation for BSEP was conducted using a four-step approach. In the first step,

CP&L quantified the level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents, using the

plant-specific probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) and other risk models.

In the second step, CP&L examined the major risk contributors and identified possible changes

to components, systems, procedures, and training (i.e., SAMAs) that would reduce risk. CP&L

initially identified 43 potential SAMAs for BSEP. CP&L screened out seven SAMAs from further

consideration because they are not applicable to the BSEP design, they would require

extensive changes that would involve implementation costs known to exceed any possible

benefit, or they would exceed the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all internal

and external event severe accident risk at both BSEP units. The remaining 36 SAMAs were

subjected to further evaluation, during which nine additional SAMAs were screened out on the

basis of risk insights and other factors. When this screening was completed, 27 SAMAs

remained for further consideration.

In the third step, CP&L estimated the benefits and the costs associated with each of the

remaining 27 SAMAs. Estimates were made of how much each SAMA could reduce risk.

Those estimates were developed in terms of dollars, in accordance with NRC guidance for

performing regulatory analyses (NRC 1997). The cost of implementing each proposed SAMA

was also estimated.

Finally, In the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the remaining 27 SAMAs were

compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost-beneficial, meaning the benefits of the

SAMA were greater than the cost (a positive cost-benefit). CP&L found seven SAMAs to be

potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (SAMAs 1, 15, 17, 19, 25, 29, and 36), and

several additional SAMAs to be potentially cost-beneficial when alternative discount rates and

analysis uncertainties are considered (SAMAs 6, 13, 16, 18, 30, 31, 32, and 34) (CP&L 2004).

None of these SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the term of

extended operation; therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license renewal

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. CP&L indicates that they plan to further evaluate the potentially

cost-beneficial SAMAs for possible implementation. CP&L's SAMA analyses and NRC's review

are discussed in more detail below.

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk

CP&L submitted an assessment of SAMAs for BSEP in its ER (CP&L 2004). This assessment

was based on the most recent BSEP PSA available at that time, a plant-specific offsite

consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

April 2006 5-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Postulated Accidents

(MACCS2) computer program, as well as insights from the BSEP Individual Plant Examination

(CP&L 1992) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (CP&L 1995).

The baseline core damage frequency (CDF) for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is

approximately 4.19 x 105 per year. This CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally

initiated events. CP&L did not include the contribution to risk from external events within the

BSEP risk estimate; however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated

with external events by Increasing the estimated benefits for internal events by a factor of two.

The breakdown of CDF by initiating event for Units 1 and 2 is provided in Table 5-3. As shown

in the table, events initiated by loss of offsite power (dual unit) and turbine trips are the

dominant contributors to CDF. Internal floods contribute about 2 percent of the CDF.

In its ER, CP&L estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi of the BSEP site to be

approximately 29.35 person-rem per year. The breakdown of the total population dose by

containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Containment failures within the

intermediate time frame (6 to 24 hours following event initiation) and early time frame (less than

6 hours following event initiation) dominate the population dose risk at BSEP.

The NRC staff has reviewed CP&L's data and evaluation methods and concludes that the

quality of the risk analyses Is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential

for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDFs

and offslte doses reported by CP&L.

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements

Once the dominant contributors to plant risk were identified, CP&L searched for ways to reduce

that risk. In identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, CP&L considered insights from the

plant-specific PSA, SAMA analyses performed for other operating plants that have submitted

license renewal applications, and SAMAs that could further reduce the risk of the dominant fire

compartments. CP&L identified 43 potential risk-reducing improvements (SAMAs) to plant

components, systems, procedures, and training.

Seven SAMAs were removed from further consideration because they are not applicable to the

BSEP design, they would require extensive changes that would involve implementation costs

known to exceed any possible benefit, or they would exceed the dollar value associated with

completely eliminating all internal and external event severe accident risk at both BSEP units.

The remaining 36 SAMAs were subjected to further evaluation. During the second phase of the

evaluation, CP&L screened out nine additional SAMAs on the basis of risk insights and other

factors. A detailed cost-benefit analysis was performed for each of the 27 remaining SAMAs.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 5-6 ApriI2006
Postulated Accidents

Table 5-3. BSEP Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events

-

Initiating Event

Loss of offsite power (LOOP) - dual unit

Turbine trip

Main steam isolation valve (MSIV) closurefloss of

condenser vacuum

Loss of direct current (DC) panel

Loss of alternating current (AC) emergency bus

Loss of control rod drive (CRD)

LOOP - single unit

Other

Internal floods

Loss of reactor building closed cooling water (RBCCW)

Interfacing systems loss of coolant accident

(ISLOCA)/excessive LOCA

Total CDF (internal events)

CDF

(per year)

1.47 x 1 04-

1.14 x 10-5

4.78 x 104

3.18x 104

2.39 x 10.

1.72 x 1 CO

1.01 x 104

1.01 x 104

8.80 x 10'

4.60x10'

3.40 x 1i0'

Percent Contribution

to CDF

35.1

27.3

11.4

7.6

5.7

4.1

2.4

2.4

2.1

1.1

0.8

4.19x105 100

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

-

Containment Release Mode

Early Containment Failure

Intermediate Containment Failure

Late Containment Failure

Intact Containment

Total Population Dose

Population Dose

(person-rem per year)

8.38

20.92

0.05

Negligible

29.35

Percent

Contribution

28

71

<1

Negligible

100

-

April 2006 5-7 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Postulated Accidents

The staff concludes that CP&L used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying

potential plant improvements for BSEP, and that the set of potential plant improvements

identified by CP&L is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, is acceptable.

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements

CP&L evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the remaining 27 SAMAs. Most of the SAMA

evaluations were performed using realistic assumptions with some conservatism. For several

of the SAMAs, the risk reduction was based on bounding assumptions.

CP&L estimated the costs of implementing the 27 SAMAs through the application of

engineering judgment, the use of estimates from other licensees' estimates for similar

improvements, and the development of site-specific cost estimates. The cost estimates

conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended outages required

to implement the modifications, nor did they include contingency costs associated with

unforeseen implementation obstacles.

The staff reviewed CP&L's bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant

improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction

are reasonable and somewhat conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is similar to or

somewhat higher than what would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its

estimates of averted risk for the various SAMAs on CP&L's risk-reduction estimates.

The staff reviewed the bases for CP&L's cost estimates. For certain improvements, the staff

also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements,

including estimates developed as part of other licensees' analyses of SAMAs for operating

reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The staff found the cost estimates to be

reasonable and generally consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants'

analyses.

The staff concludes that the risk reduction and the cost estimates provided by CP&L are

sufficient and adequate for use in the BSEP SAMA evaluation.

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison

The cost-benefit analysis performed by CP&L was based primarily on guidance provided in the

Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook, NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997) and was

executed consistent with this guidance. NUREG/BR-0058 has recently been revised to reflect

the agency's revised policy on discount rates. Revision 4 states that two sets of estimates

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 5-8 April 2006
Postulated Accidents

should be developed - one at 3 percent and one at 7 percent (NRC 2004). CP&L provided

both sets of estimates and stated that it would consider for further evaluation any SAMA that

was cost-beneficial using a 3 percent discount rate (CP&L 2004).

CP&L identified seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs in the baseline analysis contained in

the ER (using a 7 percent discount rate):

* SAMA 1 - Portable generator for direct current (DC) power: This SAMA involves the

use of a portable generator to supply DC power during a station blackout.

* SAMA 15 - Diverse emergency diesel generator (EDG) heating, ventilation, and airconditioning logic: This SAMA involves the installation of a diverse set of fan actuation

logic that would reduce the reliance on operators to perform a fan start on loss of the

automatic actuation logic.

* SAMA 17 - Provide alternative feeds to panels supplied only by DC bus 2A-1: This

SAMA involves the installation of alternate DC feeds that may reduce plant risk through

diversification of the power supplies.

* SAMA 19 - Provide an alternate means of supplying the instrument air header: This

SAMA involves procurement of an additional portable compressor to be aligned to the

supply header to reduce the risk associated with loss of instrument air.

* SAMA 25- Proceduralize battery charger high-voltage shutdown circuit inhibit: This

SAMA involves disabling the charger high-voltage trip circuit when the batteries are

disconnected from the DC circuit, preventing the trip and allowing the chargers to

remain online.

* SAMA 29 - Portable EDG fuel oil transfer pump: This SAMA provides additional means

of supplying the EDG day tank in the event that a common cause failure prevents

operation of the existing pumps.

* SAMA 36 - Use fire-fighting water as a backup for containment spray: This SAMA

would provide redundant containment spray function without the cost of installing a new

system.

When benefits are evaluated using a 3-percent discount rate, two additional SAMAs were

determined to be potentially cost-beneficial in the staff's assessment:

* SAMA 13- Install an inter-unit control rod drive (CRD) cross-tie as a potential means of

recovering from a loss of CRD at a given unit

April 2006 5-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Postulated Accidents

* SAMA 34 - Use of DC generators to provide power to operate the power control

breakers while a 480-V alternating current generator could supply the air compressors

for breaker support

CP&L and the staff considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis

uncertainties would have on the results of the SAMA assessment. If benefits are doubled to

account for uncertainties, the following six additional SAMAs (beyond the nine SAMAs identified

above) could be cost-beneficial: SAMAs 6,16,18, 30, 31, and 32.

Several of the SAMAs are not independent; that is, implementation of one SAMA could achieve

a portion of the benefit of the others. CP&L noted that the high positive impact of implementing

SAMA 1 could affect the cost-effectiveness of the remaining cost-beneficial SAMAs (Progress

Energy 2005a). Accordingly, CP&L performed a probabilistic evaluation to investigate the

impact on the remaining cost-beneficial SAMAs if SAMA 1 were to be implemented. Based on

the information provided by CP&L, implementation of SAMA 1 would alter the costeffectiveness of the remaining SAMAs such that several SAMAs would no longer be costbeneficial. However, several of the SAMAs that were cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis

(SAMAs 15, 25, and 29) would remain potentially cost-beneficial after implementation of

SAMA 1, and several additional SAMAs that either became cost-beneficial at using a 3 percent

discount rate or when uncertainties were considered might also remain potentially costbeneficial (SAMAs 6, 16, 18, 30,31, 32, 34).

CP&L has indicated that a further evaluation of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs will be

performed (Progress Energy 2005b). This assessment will focus on SAMA 1, and those

baseline case SAMAs that would remain cost-beneficial if SAMA 1 were implemented (i.e.,

SAMAs 15, 25, and 29). In response to the staff's recognition that SAMAs other than those in

the baseline case may become cost-beneficial when a 3-percent discount rate is used or when

uncertainties are considered, CP&L stated that it will include these SAMAs (SAMAs 6, 16, 18,

30, 31, 32, and 34) in the assessment that will make recommendations for the further

evaluations of SAMAs (Progress Energy 2005b). Completion of the evaluations is being

tracked in the BSEP action tracking system.

The staff notes that all of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in either the baseline

case or the 3-percent discount rate case (see bolded entries in Table G-4) are included within

the set of SAMAs that CP&L plans to further evaluate, with the exception of Phase II SAMAs

13, 19, and 36. The staff concludes that these three SAMAs are also potentially cost-beneficial

and may remain so even if SAMA 1 is implemented.

The staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs described

above, the costs of the SAMAs would be higher than the associated benefits.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 5-10 April 2006
Postulated Accidents

5.2.6 Conclusions

The staff reviewed CP&L's analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs

support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by CP&L are reasonable

and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external

events was somewhat limited by the unavailability of an external event PSA, the likelihood of

there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this area was minimized by (1) including several

candidate SAMAs related to dominant fire events, (2) implementing plant improvements as a

result of the IPEEE process, and (3) increasing the estimated SAMA benefits for internal events

by a factor of two to account for potential benefits in external events.

The cost-benefit analyses showed that seven of the SAMA candidates were potentially

cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (SAMAs 1, 15, 17, 19, 25,29, and 36). CP&L performed

additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and uncertainties on the results

of the SAMA assessment. As a result, eight additional SAMAs were identified as potentially

cost-beneficial (SAMAs 6, 13, 16, 18, 30, 31, 32, and 34). CP&L has committed to further

evaluate SAMA 1 and SAMAs that may remain potentially cost-beneficial if SAMA 1 is

implemented (SAMAs 6, 15, 16, 17, 18,25,29,30,31, 32, and 34). The staff concluded all of

these SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial. In addition, the staff concluded that SAMAs 13,

19, and 36 are potentially cost-beneficial and may remain so even if SAMA 1 is implemented.

Based on its review of the SAMA analysis, the staff concurs with CP&L's identification of areas

in which risk can be further reduced in a cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of

all or a subset of the identified, potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for costbeneficial risk reduction, the staff agrees that further evaluation of these SAMAs by CP&L is

warranted. However, none of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified relate to

adequately managing the effects of aging during the term of extended operation. Therefore,

they need not be Implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

5.3 References

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

Production and Utilization Facilities."

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

Regulations for Domestic ULcensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

April 2006 5-11 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Postulated Accidents

10 CFR 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria."

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1992. Letter from R. B. Starkey, Jr., CP&L, to

U.S. NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1

and 2, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324/License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Response to

Generic Letter 88-20 Supplement 1 - Submittal of Individual Plant Examination (IPE) for

Brunswick Units 1 & 2, August 31, 1992.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1995. Letter from Roy A. Anderson, CP&L, to U.S.

NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,

Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324/License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Response to Generic

Letter 88-20 Supplement 4 - Submittal of Individual Plant Examination for External Events

(IPEEE), June 30,1995.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report-Operating

License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units No. 1 and 2. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy). 2005a. Letter from Comelius J. Gannon,

Progress Energy, to USNRC Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric

Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62,

Response to Request for Additional Information - License Renewal, April 21, 2005.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy). 2005b. Letter from Cornelius J. Gannon,

Progress Energy, to USNRC Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric

Plant Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62,

Further Response to License Renewal Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Request for

Additional Information SAMA1-8 (NRC TAC Nos. MC4641 and MC4642), June 1, 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997. RegulatoryAnalysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook. NUREG/BR-01 84, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 5-12 April 2006
Postulated Accidents

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. RegulatoryAnalysis Guidelines of the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C.

April 2006 5-13 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
7
6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium

Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid-waste management are

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS includes a

determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants

and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a

Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those

that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse Impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 and,

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter addresses the issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid-waste

management during the license renewal term, are listed in Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, and are applicable to Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, Units I and 2 (BSEP). The generic potential impacts of the radiological

and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of

nuclear fuel and wastes are described in detail in the GEIS, based, in part, on the generic

impacts provided in 10 CFR 51.51 (b), Table S-3, 'Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental

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

references to the "GEIS" Include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 6-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Fuel Cycle

Data," and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, "Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and

Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor." The staff also addresses

the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99 in the GEIS.

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

BSEP from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

Management During the Ucense Renewal Term

ISSUE-1 0 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the 6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3; 6.2.3;

disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste) 6.2.4; 6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

disposal)

Nonradiological Impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8;

Low-level waste storage and disposal

Mixed waste storage and disposal

Onsite spent fuel

Nonradiological waste

Transportation

6.2.2.9; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

6.1; 6.2.2.2; 6.4.2; 6.4.3; 6.4.3.1;

6.4.3.2; 6.4.3.3; 6.4.4; 6.4.4.1;

6.4.4.2; 6.4.4.3; 6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5;

6.4.4.5.1; 6.4.4.5.2; 6.4.4.5.3;

6.4.4.5.4; 6.4.4.6; 6.6

6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3; 6.4.5.4;

6.4.5.5; 6.4.5.6; 6.4.5.6.1;

6.4.5.6.2; 6.4.5.6.3; 6.4.5.6.4; 6.6

6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2;

6.4.6.3; 6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5; 6.4.6.6;

6.4.6.7; 6.6

6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3; 6.6

6.1; 6.3.1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3; 6.3.4;

6.6; Addendum 1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 6-2 April 2006
Fuel Cycle

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) that it is not

aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the BSEP

operating licenses (OLs) (CP&L 2004). The staff has not identified any new and significant

information during its independent review of the ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process,

its evaluation of other available information, or public comments on the draft supplemental

environmental impact statement (SEIS). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the

staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, except for the collective offsite

radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, as discussed

below, and that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently

beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff review and the GEIS conclusions as codified in 10 CFR 51, Table

B-1, for each of these issues follows:

* Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disnosal of sDent fuel

and high-level waste). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Offsite impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the

Commission in Table S-3 of this part [10 CFR 51.51 (b)]. Based on information

in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases

including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no offsite radiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the

fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be

about 14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year

power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon

releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large

populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include

many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the

U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities

from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some

statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated (for example no

April 2006 6-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Fuel Cycle

cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these doses projected over

thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions are

questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there will

be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are

very small fractions of regulatory limits and even smaller fractions of natural

background exposure to the same populations.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] implications of these matters should

be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case.

Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these

impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to

require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation

under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission

has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel

cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) from the uranium fuel cycle

during the renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste disposal). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle,

there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the

current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are

developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

report, "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," and that in accordance

with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision,il0 CFR 51.23, a repository

can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits,

peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per year or less.

However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these

assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits

are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or

reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible

pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem

per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses,

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 6-4 April 2006
Fuel Cycle

but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and

international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem per

year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem annual dose limit is about

3 x 104.

Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more

problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously

compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the

Department of Energy in the 'Final Environmental Impact Statement:

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste," October 1980

[DOE 1980]. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose

commitment to the maximum individual and to the regional population resulting

from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure,

after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years.

Subsequently, the NRC and other federal agencies have expended considerable

effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high level waste

repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More

meaningful estimates of doses to population may be possible in the future as

more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain

repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with

respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard

proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of

potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative

population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the

view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a

repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards in

40 CFR Part 191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of

cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca

Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of

standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect

the population by imposing "containment requirements" that limit the cumulative

amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. Reporting

performance standards that will be required by EPA are expected to result in

releases and associated health consequences in the range between 10 and

100 premature cancer deaths with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer

deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to

repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into

account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that

these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for

April 2006 6-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Fuel Cycle

any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be

eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of

significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue

is considered Category 1.

On February 15,2002, based on a recommendation by the Secretary of the Department of

Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a

repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and HLW. The U.S. Congress

approved this recommendation on July 9, 2002, in Joint Resolution 87, which designated Yucca

Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. On July 23, 2002, the President signed

Joint Resolution 87 into law; Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat. 735 (2002) designates Yucca

Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. This development does not represent new

and significant information with respect to the offsite radiological impacts from license renewal

related to disposal of spent nuclear fuel and HLW.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed Yucca Mountain-specific

repository standards, which were subsequently adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an

opinion, issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

(the Court) vacated EPA's radiation protection standards for the candidate repository, which

required compliance with certain dose limits over a 10,000 year period. The Court's decision

also vacated the compliance period in NRC's licensing criteria for the candidate repository in

10 CFR Part 63.

Therefore, for the HLW and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there is some

uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of radioactive nuclides for the

current candidate repository site. However, prior to promulgation of the affected provisions of

the Commission's regulations, we assumed that limits would be developed along the lines of the

1995 National Academy of Sciences report, "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,"

and that, in accordance with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a

repository that would comply with such limits could and likely would be developed at some site.

Peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 mrem per year or less.

Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent

fuel and high-level waste disposal should be made. The staff concludes that these impacts are

acceptable, in that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 6-6 April 2006
Fuel Cycle

information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there

are no offsite radiological impacts related to spent fuel and HLW disposal during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Nonradiolopical impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal

of an operating license for any plant are found to be small.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Low-level waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public

doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the

environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The

maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste

storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be

small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The

radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of

low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition,

the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient lowlevel waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to

be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the scoping process, the staffs site visit, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of low-level waste storage and disposal associated with the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Mixed waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are

in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and

April 2006 6-7 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Fuel Cycle

exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants.

License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and

the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and

nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from

any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission

concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste

disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be

decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the scoping process, the staff's site visit, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of mixed waste storage and disposal associated with the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Onsite sDent fuel. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of

operation can be safely accommodated onsite with small environmental effects

through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored

retrievable storage Is not available.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of onsite spent fuel associated with license renewal beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

Nonradiological waste. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at

all plants.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no nonradiological waste impacts during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 6-8 April 2006
Fuel Cycle

. Transportation. Based on information contained in the GEIS, the Commission found

that

The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with

average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to

62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to

a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada, are found to be consistent

with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary

Table S-4-Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and

from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or

burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the

implications for the environmental impact values reported in § 51.52.

BSEP meets the fuel-enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the GEIS.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other available

information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that there

are no impacts of transportation associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid-waste management.

6.2 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, TEnvironmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, uDisposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada."

40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part

191, uDisposal Regulations."

Joint Resolution approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a

repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 2002. Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat. 735.

April 2006 6-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Fuel Cycle

National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards.

Washington, D.C.

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

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement:

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS-0046F,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 6-10 April 2006
7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor

before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). The staff's

evaluation of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in Supplement 1

resulted in a range of impacts for each environmental issue. These results may be used by

licensees as a starting point for a plant-specific evaluation of the decommissioning impacts at

their facilities.

The incremental environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities resulting

from continued plant operation during the license renewal term are evaluated in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The evaluation in NUREG-1 437 includes a

determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants

and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a

Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those

that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some Issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high

level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

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

references to the *GEIS" Include the GEIS and Its Addendum 1.

April 2006 7-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required. There are no Category 2

issues related to decommissioning.

7.1 Decommissioning

Category 1 issues in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

(BSEP), decommissioning following the renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. Carolina Power &

Light Company (CP&L) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) that it is aware of no new and

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of BSEP Units 1 and 2 license

renewal (CP&L 2004). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during

its independent review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation

of other available information, or public comments on the draft supplemental environmental

impact statement (SEIS). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to

these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues, the staff concluded

in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are

not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of BSEP

Units 1 and 2 Following the License Renewal Term

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

DECOMMISSIONING

Radiation doses 7.3.1; 7.4

Waste management 7.3.2; 7.4

Air quality 7.3.3; 7.4

Water quality 7.3.4; 7.4

Ecological resources 7.3.5; 7.4

Socioeconomic impacts 7.3.7; 7.4

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of the issues follows:

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 7-2 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

* Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless

of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase

no more than 1 person-rem caused by buildup of long-lived radionuclides during

the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no radiation dose impacts associated with decommissioning following the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate

no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in

the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts from solid waste associated with decommissioning following the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GElS.

* Air quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at

the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on air quality associated with decommissioning following the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

April 2006 7-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Water quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no

greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period

or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available

to avoid such impacts.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on water quality associated with decommissioning following the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS

Ecological resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year

license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on ecological resources associated with decommissioning

following the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Socioeconomic ImDacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The

impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a

20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and

economic growth.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the CP&L ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its evaluation of other

available information, or public comments on the draft SEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no socioeconomic impacts associated with decommissioning following the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 7-4 April 2006
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

7.2 References

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1,

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

April2006 7-5 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

to Operating License Renewal

This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with not renewing the

operating licenses (OLs) for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP)

(i.e., the no-action alternative); the potential environmental impacts from electric generating

sources other than BSEP; the possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to

replace power generated by BSEP and the associated environmental impacts; the potential

environmental impacts from a combination of generating and conservation measures; and other

generation alternatives that were deemed unsuitable for replacement of power generated by

BSEP. The environmental impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's (NRCs) three-level standard of significance - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE -

developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines and set forth in the footnotes

to Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B:

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

The impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1 999)(a), with the additional impact categories of environmental

justice and transportation.

8.1 No-Action Alternative

The NRC's regulations [10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A(4)] implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) specify that the no-action alternative be discussed in

an NRC environmental impact statement (EIS). For license renewal, the no-action alternative

refers to a scenario in which the NRC would not renew the OLs for BSEP, and Carolina Power

& Ught Company (CP&L) would then decommission BSEP when plant operations cease. CP&L

will be required to comply with NRC decommissioning requirements whether or not the OLs are

(a) The GEIS was originally Issued In 1996. Addendum I to the GEIS was Issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 8-1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

renewed. If the BSEP OLs are renewed and CP&L continues to operate BSEP during the

renewal period, shutdown of the units and decommissioning activities will not be avoided, but

will be postponed for up to an additional 20 years.

The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning under both license renewal and

the no-action alternative would be bounded by the discussion of impacts in Chapter 7 of the

GEIS, Chapter 7, of this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), and

Supplement 1 to the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of

Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). The impacts of decommissioning after 60 years

of operation are not expected to be significantly different from those occurring after 40 years of

operation.

The environmental impacts of the no-action alternative are summarized in Table 8-1 and are

discussed in the following paragraphs. Implementation of the no-action alternative would also

have certain positive impacts, in that adverse environmental impacts associated with current

operation of BSEP (e.g., solid waste impacts and adverse impacts on aquatic life) would be

eliminated.

The no-action alternative is a conceptual alternative resulting In a net reduction in power

production, but with no environmental impacts assumed for replacement power. In actual

practice, the power lost by not renewing the BSEP OLs would likely be replaced by (1) CP&L

generating alternatives other than BSEP, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers,

(3) demand-side management (DSM) and energy conservation, or (4) some combination of

these options. This replacement power would produce additional environmental impacts, as

discussed in Section 8.2.

8.1.1 Land Use

Temporary changes in onsite land use could occur during decommissioning. Temporary

changes may include addition or expansion of staging and laydown areas or construction of

temporary buildings and parking areas. No offsite land-use changes are expected as a result of

decommissioning. Following decommissioning, the land occupied by BSEP would likely be

retained by CP&L for other corporate purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the land occupied

by BSEP, however, could result in changes to land use. Notwithstanding this possibility, the

staff concludes that the impacts of the no-action alternative on land use would be SMALL.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-2 April 2006
Alternatives

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative

Impact Category Impact Comments

Land Use SMALL Onsite impacts expected to be temporary. No offsite

impacts expected.

Ecology SMALL Impacts to ecology are expected to be temporary and largely

mitigable using best management practices.

Water Use and Quality SMALL Water use will decrease. Water quality unlikely to be

adversely affected.

Air Quality SMALL Greatest impact Is likely to be from fugitive dust. Impact can

be mitigated by application of best management practices.

Waste SMALL Generation of low-level and mix waste will decrease and

high level waste generation will eventually stop.

Human Health SMALL Radiological doses to workers and members of the public

are expected to be within regulatory limits and comparable

to, or lower than, doses from operating plants. Occupational

injuries are possible, but injury rates at nuclear power plants

are below the U.S. average Industrial rate.

Socioeconomics SMALL to There could be a decrease In employment In Brunswick

MODERATE County and surrounding counties and tax revenues in

Brunswick County.

Aesthetics SMALL Positive impact from eventual removal of buildings and

structures. Some noise Impact during decommissioning

operations.

Historic and SMALL Minimal impact on land utilized during plant operations.

Archaeological Resources Land occupied by BSEP would likely be retained by CP&L for

other corporate purposes.

Environmental Justice SMALL to Some loss of employment opportunities and social programs

MODERATE is expected.

I

8.1.2 Ecology

At the BSEP site, impacts on aquatic ecology could result from removal of in-water pipes and

structures or the filling of the intake and discharge canals. Any impacts to aquatic ecology

would likely be short-term and could be mitigated. The aquatic environment is expected to

recover naturally. Impacts on terrestrial ecology could occur as a result of land disturbance for

additional laydown yards, stockpiles, and support facilities. Land disturbance is expected to be

minimal and to result in relatively short-term impacts that can be mitigated using best

April 2006 8-3 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

management practices. The land is expected to recover naturally. Overall, the staff concludes

that the ecological impacts associated with the no-action alternative would be SMALL.

8.1.3 Water Use and Quality

Decommissioning would be expected to result in a significant reduction in water use because

reactor cooling would no longer be required. As plant staff size decreases, the demand for

potable water is expected to also decrease. BSEP currently uses groundwater wells primarily

for the biology laboratory. Plant shutdown would be expected to further reduce use of all

groundwater resources. Overall, water use and quality impacts of decommissioning are

considered SMALL.

8.1.4 Air Quality

Decommissioning activities that can adversely affect air quality include dismantlement of

systems and equipment, demolition of buildings and structures, and the operation of internal

combustion engines. The most likely adverse impact would be the generation of fugitive dust.

Best management practices, such as seeding and wetting, can be used to minimize the

generation of fugitive dust. Overall, air quality impacts associated with decommissioning are

considered SMALL.

8.1.5 Waste

The impacts of waste generated by plant operation are discussed in Chapter 6. The impacts of

low-level and mixed waste from plant operation are characterized as SMALL. When the plant

stops operating, the plant will eventually stop generating high-level waste, and generation of

low-level and mixed waste associated with plant operation and maintenance will be reduced.

Disposal of nonradioactive waste would be at onsite and offsite licensed disposal facilities.

Therefore, the staff concludes the impact of waste generated after shutdown of the plant would

be SMALL.

8.1.6 Human Health

Radiological doses to occupational workers during decommissioning activities are estimated to

average approximately 5 percent of the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, and to be similar to, or

lower than, the doses experienced by workers in operating nuclear power plants. Collective

doses to members of the public and to the maximally exposed individual as a result of

decommissioning activities are estimated to be well below the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, and to

be similar to, or lower than, the doses received from operating nuclear power plants.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-4 April 2006
Alternatives

Occupational injuries to workers engaged in decommissioning activities are possible. However,

historical injury and fatality rates at nuclear power plants have been lower than the average

U.S. industrial rates. Overall, the staff concludes that the human health impacts associated

with the no-action alternative would be SMALL.

8.1.7 Socioeconomics

If the two BSEP units cease operation at the end of their current OLs, there would be a

decrease in employment and tax revenues associated with the plant closure. Employment

(primary and secondary) impacts and impacts on population would occur principally in

Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, where most BSEP employees reside (CP&L 2004).

The no-action alternative would result in the loss of plant payrolls 20 years earlier than if the

OLs were renewed.

Tax-related impacts would occur in Brunswick County. Property tax payments made by CP&L

to Brunswick County for BSEP constituted approximately 7.5 percent of the county's total tax

revenue in 2002 (CP&L 2004). The no-action alternative would result in the loss of the taxes

attributable to BSEP. There could also be an adverse impact on housing values and the local

economy if BSEP were to cease operations.

Both Chapter 7 of the GEIS and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002) note that

socioeconomic impacts would be expected as a result of the decision to close a nuclear power

plant, and that the direction and extent of the overall impacts would depend on the state of the

economy, the net change in workforce at the plant, and the changes in local government tax

receipts. The socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning activities are expected to be small.

However, Appendix J of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002) shows that the overall

socioeconomic impact of plant closure plus decommissioning could be greater than small.

CP&L employees working at BSEP contribute time and money toward community involvement,

including school, churches, charities, and other civic activities. It is likely that, with a reduced

presence in the community following decommissioning, community involvement efforts by CP&L

and its employees in the region would decrease.

Overall, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts resulting from implementation of

the no-action alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.1.8 Aesthetics

Decommissioning would result in the eventual dismantlement of buildings and structures at the

BSEP site, the effects of this can normally be mitigated, resulting in a positive aesthetic impact.

April 2006 8-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Operational noise would be reduced or eliminated. Noise that may be detectable offsite would

be generated during decommissioning operations; however, the impact is unlikely to be of large

significance and can normally be mitigated. Overall, the staff concludes that the aesthetic

impacts associated with the no-action alternative would be SMALL.

8.1.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

The amount of undisturbed land needed to support the decommissioning process will be

relatively small. Activities conducted within operational areas are not expected to have a

detectable effect on important cultural resources, because these areas have been impacted

during the operating life of the plant. Minimal disturbance of land outside the operational area

for decommissioning activities is expected. Historic and archaeological resources on

undisturbed portions of the site are not expected to be adversely affected. It is likely that the

BSEP site would be retained by CP&L following decommissioning. Notwithstanding this

possibility, the staff concludes that the impacts of the no-action alternative on historic and

archaeological resources would be SMALL.

8.1.10 Environmental Justice

As discussed in Chapter 4, current operations at BSEP have no disproportionate impacts on the

minority and low-income populations of Brunswick County and the surrounding counties, and no

environmental pathways have been identified that would cause disproportionate impacts.

Closure of BSEP could result in decreased employment opportunities and tax revenues in

Brunswick County and the surrounding counties, with possible negative and disproportionate

impacts on minority or low-income populations. Therefore, overall, the staff concludes that the

environmental justice impacts under the no-action alternative would be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources

This section discusses the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources of electric

power to replace the power generated by BSEP, assuming that the OLs are not renewed. The

order of presentation of alternative energy sources in Section 8.2 does not imply which

alternative would be most likely to occur or to have the least environmental impacts. The

following generation alternatives are considered in detail:

* coal-fired generation at the BSEP site and at an alternate site (Section 8.2.1)

* natural gas-fired generation at the BSEP site and at an alternate site (Section 8.2.2)

* nuclear generation at the BSEP site and at an alternate site (Section 8.2.3).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-6 April 2006
Alternatives

The existing BSEP nuclear generating units use a once-through cooling system, as described in

Section 2.1.3 of this SEIS. For the coal (Section 8.2.1), natural gas combined-cycle (Section

8.2.2), and new nuclear (Section 8.2.3) alternatives, a closed-cycle cooling system using

natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers is assumed as the principal plant cooling option.

Once-through cooling is considered as a secondary cooling option in Sections 8.2.1.2, 8.2.2.2,

and 8.2.3.2.

The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated at BSEP is

discussed in Section 8.2.4. Other power generation alternatives and conservation alternatives

considered by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for BSEP are discussed

in Section 8.2.5. Section 8.2.6 discusses the environmental Impacts of a combination of

generation and conservation altematives.

Each year, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), issues an Annual Energy Outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with

Projections to 2025, EIA projects that combined-cycle or combustion turbine technology fueled

by natural gas is likely to account for more than 60 percent of new electric generating capacity

through the year 2025 (DOE/EIA 2005a). Both technologies are designed primarily to supply

peak and intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology can also be used to meet

baseload(a) requirements. Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to account for approximately

33 percent of new capacity during this period. Coal-fired plants are generally used to meet

baseload requirements. Renewable energy sources -primarily wind, geothermal, and biomass

units- are projected by EIA to account for approximately 5 percent of capacity additions. The

remaining capacity additions are projected by EIA to come from distributed generation, mostly

from natural gas-fired turbines. The EIA projections are based on the assumption that

providers of new generating capacity will seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable

environmental requirements. Advanced natural gas combined-cycle plants are projected by

EIA to have the lowest generation cost in 2015, and advanced coal-fired plants are projected to

have the lowest generation cost in 2025 (DOE/EIA 2005a).

EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little new generation capacity in the

United States through the year 2025 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies

(DOE/EIA 2005a).

EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation

capacity in the United States through the year 2020 because natural gas and coal-fired plants

(a) A baseload plant normally operates to supply all or part of the minimum continuous load of a system

and consequently produces electricity at an essentially constant rate. Nuclear power plants are

commonly used for baseload generation (i.e., these units generally run near full load).

April 2006 8-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

are projected to be more economical (DOE/EIA 2005a). In spite of this projection, a new

nuclear plant alternative for replacing power generated by BSEP is considered in this SEIS, for

reasons stated in Section 8.2.3.

If an alternative generating technology were selected to replace power generated by BSEP, the

two BSEP units would be decommissioned. Environmental impacts associated with

decommissioning are discussed in Section 8.1 and are not otherwise addressed in Section 8.2.

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

The coal-fired alternative is analyzed for both the BSEP site and an alternate site. The staff

assumed construction of two 913 net megawatt electric [MW(e)] units, which is consistent with

the Environmental Report (ER) CP&L prepared for license renewal of BSEP (CP&L 2004).(a)

This assumption slightly understates the impacts of replacing the 1909 net MW(e) capacity of

BSEP.

The staff reviewed the information in the CP&L ER and compared it to information in the GEIS

for license renewal. Although the renewal period for the OLs is 20 years, the impact of

operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is considered (as a reasonable projection of the

operating life of a coal-fired plant).

The staff assumed that coal and lime or limestone for a coal-fired plant sited at the BSEP site

would be delivered by railroad. The BSEP site is served by an existing rail line. Lime or

limestone is used in the scrubbing process for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions.(' Rail

delivery would be the most likely option for delivering coal and lime/limestone to an alternate

site for the coal-fired plant. Barge delivery of coal and lime/limestone would also be possible,

although there is no existing barge slip at BSEP. A coal slurry pipeline is also a technically

feasible delivery option; however, the associated cost and environmental impacts make a slurry

pipeline an unlikely transportation alternative. Construction at an alternate site could

necessitate the construction of a new transmission line to connect to existing lines and a rail

spur to the plant site.

The coal-fired plant is assumed to use tangentially fired, dry-bottom boilers and to

consume bituminous, pulverized coal with an ash content of approximately 10.4 percent by

(a) Each unit would have a rating of 967 gross MW(e) and 913 net MW(e). The difference between

"gross" and finer is electricity consumed on the plant site.

(b) In a typical wet scrubber, lime (calcium hydroxide) or limestone (calcium carbonate) is injected as a

slurry into the hot effluent combustion gases to remove entrained sulfur dioxide. The lime-based

scrubbing solution reacts with sulfur dioxide to form calcium sulfite, which precipitates and is removed

in sludge form.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-8 April 2006
Alternatives

weight (CP&L 2004). Annual coal consumption would be approximately 5.92 million tons

(CP&L 2004). In its ER, CP&L assumed a heat rate(a) of 10,200 Btu/kWh and a capacity

factor@b) of 0.85.

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The staff assumed that a new coal-fired plant located at the BSEP site would use a closedcycle cooling system with natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers, instead of the

existing once-through cooling system used for BSEP. Closed-cycle cooling is also assumed for

an alternate site. The overall impacts are discussed in the following sections and summarized

in Table 8-2. The extent of impacts at an alternate site would depend on the location of the

particular site. For comparison, Section 8.2.1.2 discusses impacts if a once-through cooling

system were utilized.

* Land Use

The staff assumed that the existing facilities and infrastructure at the BSEP site would be

used to the extent practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be

required. Specifically, the staff assumed that the coal-fired replacement plant alternative

would use the existing switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way.

Construction of the powerblock and coal storage area would impact approximately 520 ac

(CP&L 2004). Cooling towers and associated infrastructure would impact approximately

30 ac. Disposal of ash and scrubber waste would impact an additional approximately

487 ac, assuming a 40-year operating life for the plant (CP&L 2004). Additional land-use

changes would occur offsite in an undetermined coal-mining area to supply coal for the

plant. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 34 m?2 would be affected for

mining the coal and disposing of the waste to support a 1000 MW(e) coal plant during its

operational life (NRC 1996). A replacement coal-fired plant to replace the 1909 net MW(e)

capacity of BSEP would affect proportionately more land. Partially offsetting this offsite land

use would be the elimination of the need for uranium mining and processing to supply fuel

for BSEP. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 1000 ac would be affected

for mining and processing the uranium during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear

power plant (NRC 1996).

(a) Heat rate is a measure of generating station thermal efficiency. In English units, it is generally

expressed in British thermal units (Btu) per net kilowatt-hour (kwh). It is computed by dividing the

total Btu content of fuel burned for electric generation by the resulting net kWh generation.

A corresponding metric unit for energy is the joule (J).

(b) The capacity factor is the ratio of electricity generated, for the period of time considered, to the energy

that could have been generated at continuous full-power operation during the same period.

April 2006 8-9 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the BSEP Site and an Alternate Site

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Category

Impact Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE Uses essentially all of the

unused BSEP land for

plant, Infrastructure, and

waste disposal. Additional

offsite land Impacts for coal

and limestone mining.

Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas at

BSEP. Potential habitat

loss and fragmentation and

reduced productivity and

biological diversity.

MODERATE

to LARGE

MODERATE

to LARGE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

Uses up to 3200 ac for plant,

Infrastructure, and waste disposal;

additional land Impacts for coal and

limestone mining; possible Impacts

for transmission line and rail spur.

Impacts depend on location and

ecology of the site, surface water

body used for Intake and discharge,

and transmission line route; potential

habitat loss and fragmentation;

reduced productivity and biological

diversity.

Impacts will depend on the volume of

water withdrawn and discharged and

the characteristics of the surface

water body.

Impacts will depend on the volume of

water withdrawn and discharged and

the characteristics of the aquifers.

Potentially same impacts as the

BSEP site, although emission control

standards may vary.

Water Use and SMALL

Quality

(Surface)

Water Use and

Quality

(Groundwater)

Air Quality

SMALL

MODERATE

Discharge of cooling tower

blowdown containing

dissolved solids. Discharge

would be regulated by the

State. Decreased water

withdrawal from the Cape

Fear River.

Existing well would likely

continue to be used.

Sulfur Oxides

4778 tons/yr

Nitrogen Oxides

1479 tonslyr

Particulate Matter

308 tons/yr of total

suspended particulates

which would Include

71 tonslyr of PM, 0

Carbon Monoxide

1479 tons/yr

Small amounts of mercury

and other hazardous air

pollutants and naturally

occurring radioactive

materials - mainly uranium

and thorium

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 81 10 April 2006
Alternatives

Table 8-2. (contd)

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Waste MODERATE

Human Health SMALL

Socloeconomics MODERATE

Total waste volume would

be approximately

876,000 tons/yr of ash and

scrubber sludge requiring

approximately 487 ac for

disposal during the 40-year

life of the plant.

Impacts are uncertain, but

considered SMALL in the

absence of more

quantitative data.

The peak construction work

force would be In the range

of 1200 to 2500. Most

workers likely to commute

from the Wilmington area.

After construction, the

current BSEP work force of

1060 would be reduced to

150 for the completed coal

plant. Tax base preserved.

Rail transportation of coal

and lime/limestone would

have some impacts.

SMALL Same Impacts as BSEP site.

MODERATE Construction impacts depend on

to LARGE location, but could be significant if

plant is located In a rural area.

Brunswick County would experience

loss of BSEP tax base and

employment. Impacts during

operation would be small.

Transportation Impacts associated

with construction workers could be

significant. For rail transportation of

coal and lime/limestone, impacts are

considered moderate. For barge

transportation, the impacts are

considered small.

MODERATE Impacts would depend on the site

to LARGE selected and the surrounding land

features. If needed, a new

transmission line or rail spur could

have a significant aesthetic impact.

Exhaust stacks, cooling towers, and

cooling tower plumes would be visible

from offsite locations. Noise

associated with rail transportation of

coal and lime/limestone would have

an aesthetic impact. Barge

transportation of coal and

lime/limestone would have a smaller

aesthetic impact. Noise from plant

operations would be noticeable.

MODERATE Same impacts as BSEP site; waste

disposal constraints may vary.

Aesthetics MODERATE Exhaust stacks would be

highly visible from offsite

locations. Cooling towers

and plumes would also be

visible. Noise associated

with rail transportation of

coal and lime/limestone

would have aesthetic

Impacts. Noise from plant

operations would be

noticeable.

April 2006 8-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Table 8-2. (contd)

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Impact

Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Historic and SMALL Some construction would SMALL Altemate location would necessitate

Archaeological affect previously cultural resource studies. Impacts

Resources undeveloped parts of BSEP can likely be mitigated.

site; cultural resource

Inventory would be needed

to minimize any impacts on

undeveloped lands.

Environmental SMALL to Impacts on minority and SMALL to Impacts at an alternate site would

Justice MODERATE low-income communities MODERATE vary depending on population

should be similar to those distribution and makeup at site.

experienced by the Brunswick County would lose tax

population as a whole. revenue, which could impact minority

Some impacts on housing and low-income populations.

may occur during

construction; loss of

operating Jobs at BSEP

could reduce employment

prospects for minority and

low-income populations.

PM = Particulate matter

Overall, the staff concludes that the land use impacts of new coal-fired generating units

located at the BSEP site would be MODERATE. The impacts would be expected to be

greater than the alternative of renewing the BSEP OLs.

In the GEIS, the staff estimated that a 1000 MW(e) coal-fired plant and associated facilities

would be expected to require approximately 1700 ac (NRC 1996). A 1909 MW(e) coal-fired

generation plant at an alternate site would require proportionately more land. Additional land

could be needed for a transmission line and for a rail spur to an alternative plant site.

Depending particularly on transmission line and rail line routing requirements, the staff

concludes that siting at an alternative location would result in MODERATE to LARGE landuse impacts.

Ecology

Locating a coal-fired plant at the BSEP site would alter ecological resources because of the

need to convert land that is currently unused to industrial use for the plant, coal storage, and

waste disposal. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced productivity, habitat

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-12 April 2006
Alternatives

fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Some impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling tower drift could occur. However, some of the BSEP land would have

been previously disturbed. Overall, the staff concludes that siting a coal-fired plant at the

BSEP site would have a MODERATE ecological impact that would be greater than renewal

of the BSEP OLs.

At an alternate site, the coal-fired generation alternative would introduce construction

impacts and new incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously

disturbed area, the impacts would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat

loss, reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity.

Some impacts to terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift could occur. Use of cooling

makeup water from a nearby surface water body could have adverse aquatic resource

impacts. If needed, construction and maintenance of a transmission line and a rail spur

would have ecological impacts. Overall, the staff concludes that the ecological impacts at

an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE.

* Water Use and Quallty

Surface Water. At the BSEP site, closed-cycle cooling with cooling water withdrawn from

the existing intake canal connecting to the Cape Fear River is assumed. Blowdown would

be discharged to the existing discharge canal that connects to the Atlantic Ocean.

Discharges would be regulated by the North Carolina Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (NCDENR). The staff assumed that an alternative coal-fired plant

located at the BSEP site would follow the current practice of obtaining potable, process, and

fire-protection water from the Brunswick County Public Utilities Department (CP&L 2004).

Some erosion and sedimentation would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996).

Overall, the staff concludes that surface water use and quality impacts would be SMALL;

the impacts would be sufficiently minor that they would not noticeably alter any important

attribute of the resource.

For a coal-fired plant located at an alternate site, the staff assumes a surface water body

will be used to withdraw cooling water. The impacts on surface water would depend on the

discharge volume and the characteristics of the receiving body of water. Intake from and

discharge to any surface body of water would be regulated by the State. The staff

concludes that the impacts on surface water use and quality would be SMALL to

MODERATE.

Groundwater. An alternative coal-fired plant located at the BSEP site would likely continue

to use the groundwater well that currently supplies water to the biology laboratory. The staff

concludes that groundwater impacts would be SMALL; the impacts would be sufficiently

minor that they would not noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

April 2006 8-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Groundwater withdrawal at an alternate site could require a permit; in addition, groundwater

use would likely be equivalent or similar to current groundwater use at BSEP. The impacts

of groundwater withdrawal would be site specific and would depend on the site aquifer

characteristics and the amount of groundwater needed. Overall, the staff concludes that

groundwater use and quality impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Air Quality

The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation vary considerably from those of nuclear

generation, due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SO.), nitrogen oxides (NO.), particulate

matter, carbon monoxide (CO), hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally

occurring radioactive materials.

Brunswick County, which is in the Southern Coastal Plain Intrastate Air Quality Control

Region (40 CFR 81.152), is in compliance with the national ambient air quality standards for

criteria pollutants (40 CFR 81.334).(a)

A new coal-fired generating plant located at the BSEP site would likely need a prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) permit issued under Title I Part C of the Clean Air Act and an

operating permit issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401). The plant would

be required to comply with the new source performance standards for such plants set forth

in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da. These regulations establish limits for particulate matter and

opacity (40 CFR 60.42a), S02 (40 CFR 60.43a), and NO, (40 CFR 60.44a).

EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in

an area designated as attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. Brunswick

County is classified as attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future and

remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

impairment is caused by air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, EPA

issued a new regional haze rule in 1999 (64 FR 35714).- The rule specifies that for each

mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, the state must establish goals that

provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The

reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the mostimpaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in

(a) Existing criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are ozone, CO, particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead,

and NOV. Ambient air standards for criteria pollutants are set out at 40 CFR Part 50.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-14 April 2006
Alternatives

visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51 .308(d)(1)]. If a new

coal-fired power station were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air

pollution control requirements could be imposed. The mandatory Class I Federal area

closest to the BSEP site is the Cape Romain Wilderness, located approximately 100 mi

southwest (40 CFR 81.426).

In 1998, EPA issued a rule requiring 22 eastern states, Including North Carolina, to revise

their state implementation plans to reduce NO, emissions. Nitrogen oxide emissions

contribute to violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone (40 CFR 50.9).

The total amount of NO, that can be emitted by each of the 22 states in the year 2007

ozone season (May 1 through September 30) is set out at 40 CFR 51.121 (e). Any new

coal-fired plant sited in North Carolina would be subject to this limitation. For North

Carolina, the amount is 165,306 tons.

EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in May 2005 (70 FR 25162). CAIR

provides a Federal framework requiring certain states to reduce emissions of SO2 and NO1.

EPA anticipates that states will achieve this reduction primarily by limiting emissions from

the power generation sector. CAIR covers 28 eastern states. Any new fossil-fired power

plant sited in North Carolina would be subject to the CAIR limitations.

Impacts for specific pollutants are as follows:

Sulfur oxides. CP&L states in its ER that an alternative coal-fired plant located at the BSEP

site would use wet scrubber technology, using lime for flue gas desulfurization

(CP&L 2004).

A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements in Title IV of the Clean

Air Act. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of SO2 and NO,, the two principal

precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from power plants.

Title IV caps aggregate annual power plant S emissions and imposes controls on SO2

emissions through a system of marketable allowances. EPA issues one allowance for each

ton of SO2 that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive allowances but are

required to have allowances to cover their SO2 emissions. Owners of new units must

therefore acquire allowances from owners of other power plants by purchase, or reduce

S02 emissions at other power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future

years. Thus, a new coal-fired power plant would not add to net regional S02 emissions,

although it might do so locally. Regardless, S02 emissions would be expected to be greater

for the coal alternative than the alternative of renewing the BSEP OLs, since a nuclear

power plant releases almost no SO2 during normal operations.

April2006 8-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

CP&L (2004) estimates that by using the best technology to minimize SO2 emissions, the

total annual stack emissions would be approximately 4778 tons of sulfur oxides.

Nitrogen oxides. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act establishes technology-based emission

limitations for NOX emissions. The market-based allowance system used for SO2 emissions

is not used for NOX emissions. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the new

source performance standards for such plants at 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1). This regulation,

issued on September 16, 1998 (63 FR 49453), limits the discharge of any gases that

contain nitrogen oxides (expressed as NO2) in excess of 1.6 lb/MWh of gross energy

output, based on a 30-day rolling average.

CP&L estimates that by using low NO, burners, overf ire air, and selective catalytic reduction

with steam/water injection, the total annual NO, emissions for a new coal-fired power plant

would be approximately 1479 tons (CP&L 2004). Regardless of control technology, the

level of NO, emissions would be greater than the alternative of renewing the BSEP OLs,

because a nuclear power plant releases almost no NO, during normal operations.

Particulate Matter. CP&L estimates that the total annual stack emissions would include

308 tons of filterable total suspended particulates (particulates that range in size from less

than 0.1 pm up to approximately 45 pm), including 71 tons of PM10 (particulate matter

having an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 pm). Fabric filters would be used

for control (CP&L 2004). In addition, coal-handling equipment would introduce fugitive

particulate emissions. Particulate emissions would be greater under the coal alternative

than the alternative of renewing the BSEP OLs, because a nuclear power plant releases few

particulates during normal operations.

During the construction of a coal-fired plant, fugitive dust would be generated. In addition,

exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the

construction process.

Carbon monoxide. CP&L estimates that the total CO emissions would be approximately

1479 tons per year (CP&L 2004). This level of emissions is greater than the alternative of

renewing the BSEP OLs.

Hazardous air Dollutants including mercury. In May 2005, EPA issued a final rule limiting

mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants (70 FR 28606). Emissions are capped at

specified, nationwide levels. A first phase cap of 38 tons per year (tpy) becomes effective in

2010, and a second phase cap of 15 tpy becomes effective in 2018. Plant owners must

demonstrate compliance with the standard by holding one "allowance" for each ounce of

mercury emitted in any given year. Allowances are transferable among regulated plants.

A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to this rule.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-16 April 2006
Alternatives

Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are

generally in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million. Thorium concentrations are generally

about 2.5 times greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is that

a typical coal-fired plant had an annual release of approximately 5.2 tons of uranium and

12.8 tons of thorium in 1982 (Gabbard 1993). The population dose equivalent from the

uranium and thorium releases and daughter products produced by the decay of these

isotopes has been calculated to be significantly higher than that from nuclear power plants

(Gabbard 1993).

Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions

that could contribute to global warming.

Summary. The GEIS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants but

implied that air impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentioned global warming

from unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SO, and NO, emissions as

potential impacts (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects from coal combustion such as

cancer and emphysema have been associated with the products of coal combustion.

Overall, the staff concludes that the air impacts from coal-fired generation at the BSEP site

would be MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize

air quality.

Siting a coal-fired generation plant at a location other than the BSEP site would not

significantly change air-quality impacts, although it could result in the installation of more or

less stringent pollution-control equipment to meet applicable local requirements. The plant

would need to meet applicable new source performance standards. Siting in an area that is

in compliance with national ambient air quality standards would likely require a prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) permit. Siting in an area not in attainment with national

ambient air quality standards would likely require a nonattainment permit under Title I Part D

of the Clean Air Act. An air operating permit would likely be needed at either type of

location. Overall, the staff concludes that the air quality impacts would also be

MODERATE.

Waste

Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air

pollution generates additional ash, spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst, and

scrubber sludge. An alternative coal-fired plant would generate approximately 876,000 tons

of this waste annually (CP&L 2004). The ash and scrubber sludge could potentially be

disposed of onsite, accounting for approximately 485 ac of land area over the 40-year plant

life. Alternatively, waste could be disposed of at a more inland location, away from

estuaries. Spent SCR catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. Waste impacts

April 2006 8-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

to groundwater and surface water could extend beyond the operating life of the plant if

leachate and runoff from the waste storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could

noticeably affect land use and groundwater quality but, with appropriate management and

monitoring, it would not destabilize any resources. After closure of the waste site and

revegetation, the land could be available for other uses.

In May 2000, EPA issued a "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels" (65 FR 32214). EPA concluded that some form of national

regulation is warranted to address coal combustion waste products because (1) the

composition of these wastes could present danger to human health and the environment

under certain conditions; (2) EPA has identified 11 documented cases of proven damages

to human health and the environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills

and surface impoundments; (3) present disposal practices are such that, in 1995, these

wastes were being managed in 40 to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments

without reasonable control in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and

(4) EPA identified gaps in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. Accordingly, EPA

announced its intention to issue regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste under

subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities.

For all of the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that the waste impacts from a coalfired plant sited a the BSEP site would be MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly

noticeable, but would not destabilize any important resource.

Siting the coal-fired plant at a location other than the BSEP site would not alter waste

generation, although other sites might have more constraints on disposal locations.

Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts would also be MODERATE.

Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risks from coal and limestone mining, worker

and public risks from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risks from

disposal of coal combustion wastes, and public risks from inhalation of stack emissions.

Emission impacts can be widespread, and health risks can be difficult to quantify. The coal

alternative also introduces the risk of coal-pile fires and attendant inhalation risks.

The staff stated in the GEIS that there could be human health impacts (cancer and

emphysema) from inhalation of toxins and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but did not

identify the significance of these impacts (NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-18 April 2006
Alternatives

uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially jroduce radiological doses in

excess of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

Regulatory agencies, including EPA and State agencies, set air emission standards and

requirements based on human health impacts. These agencies also impose site-specific

emission limits as needed to protect human health. As discussed previously, EPA has

recently concluded that certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus

and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse

health effects due to mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants.

However, in the absence of more quantitative data, the staff concludes that human health

impacts from radiological doses and inhaling toxins and particulates generated by burning

coal at a newly constructed coal-fired plant would be SMALL.

Socioeconomics

Construction of a coal-fired alternative would be expected to take approximately 4 years

(Duke 2001). The staff assumed that construction would take place while BSEP continues

operation and would be completed by the time BSEP Unit I permanently ceases operations.

The staff estimates that the peak construction work force would be in the range of 1200 to

2500 workers (NRC 1996). These workers would be in addition to the approximately

1060 workers currently employed at BSEP. During construction of the new coal-fired plant,

communities near the BSEP site would experience demands on housing and public services

that would be noticeable. These impacts would be expected to be mitigable, however,

because workers could commute to the site from Wilmington and other nearby

communities. After construction, the nearby communities would be impacted by the loss of

the construction jobs. CP&L estimates that the completed coal plant would employ

approximately 150 workers (CP&L 2004).

If a coal-fired replacement plant were constructed at the BSEP site and the two nuclear

units decommissioned, there would be a loss of approximately 910 permanent, high-paying

jobs (1060 for BSEP down to 150 for the coal-fired plant), with a commensurate reduction in

demand on socioeconomic resources and contributions to the regional economy. The coalfired plant would provide a new tax base to offset the loss of tax base associated with

decommissioning of the nuclear unit.

During the construction period for a replacement coal-fired plant, the construction workers

would place significant traffic loads on existing highways near the BSEP site. Impacts

would be less for the estimated 150 permanent workers operating the plant.

The BSEP site is served by an existing rail spur that would be used to deliver coal and

lime/limestone for a replacement coal-fired plant. There would be some socioeconomic

April 2006 8-19 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

impacts associated with rail transportation, such as delays at rail crossings. Barge delivery

of coal and lime/limestone would also be possible, although there is no existing barge slip at

BSEP.

Construction of a replacement coal-fired power plant at an alternate site would relocate

some socioeconomic impacts but not eliminate them. The communities around the BSEP

site would experience the impact of BSEP operational job loss, and Brunswick County

would lose some of its tax base. Communities around the alternate site would have to

absorb the impacts of a substantial, temporary work force. The staff stated in the GEIS that

socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an urban site, because more

of the peak construction work force would need to move to the area to work (NRC 1996).

Alternate sites would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Coal and lime/limestone would likely be delivered by rail, although barge delivery is feasible

for an alternate site located on a navigable body of water.

For siting at the BSEP site or at an alternate site, socioeconomic impacts would also occur

at the site of coal mining.

Overall, the staff concludes that socioeconomic impacts would be MODERATE at the BSEP

site and MODERATE to LARGE at an alternate site.

Aesthetics

If sited at BSEP, the coal-fired power block could be as much as 200 ft tall and would be

visible from offsite during daylight hours. The exhaust stacks, which could be as much as

600 ft high, would likely be visible in daylight hours for distances greater than 10 mi.

Natural draft cooling towers could be up to 520 ft high. Mechanical draft cooling towers

could be up to 100 ft high and also have associated noise impacts from operation of the

motors and fans. The plant and associated stacks and towers would also be visible at night

because of outside lighting and aircraft warning lights. The U.S. Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) generally requires that all structures exceeding an overall height of

200 ft above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not to impair aviation safety

(FAA 2000). Plumes from the cooling towers would also be visible offsite. The visual

impacts of a new coal-fired plant could be mitigated by landscaping and color selection for

buildings that is consistent with the environment. Visual impacts at night could be mitigated

by reduced use of lighting, provided the lighting meets FAA requirements, and appropriate

use of shielding.

Coal-fired generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

offsite. Sources contributing to total noise produced by plant operation are classified as

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-20 April 2006
Alternatives

continuous or intermittent. Continuous sources include the mechanical equipment

associated with normal plant operations. Intermittent sources include the equipment related

to coal handling, solid-waste disposal, transportation related to coal and lime/limestone

delivery, use of outside loudspeakers, and the commuting of plant employees. There would

likely also be noise impacts associated with rail transportation of coal and lime/limestone.

At an alternate site, there would be aesthetic impacts from the buildings, exhaust stacks,

and cooling tower plumes. There would be aesthetic impacts that could be significant if

construction of a new transmission line and/or rail spur is needed. Aesthetic impacts at the

plant site would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other

power plants.

Overall, the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated with a new coal plant

would be MODERATE at the BSEP site and MODERATE to LARGE at an alternate site.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

At the BSEP site or an alternate site, new construction could impact previously undeveloped

land. Before construction at the BSEP site or at an alternate site, studies would likely be

needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant

construction on cultural resources. These studies would likely be needed for all areas of

potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new

construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission line rights-of-way, rail lines, or other

rights-of-way). The Impact on historic and archaeological resources could be greater at an

alternate site because more undeveloped land would likely be disturbed. However,

construction activities at any site can generally be effectively managed under current laws

and regulations to prevent significant adverse historic and archaeological resource impacts.

Therefore, the staff concludes that historic and archaeological resource impacts would be

SMALL at BSEP or at an alternate site.

* Environmental Justice

No environmental pathways or locations have been identified that would result in

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income

populations if a replacement coal-fired plant were built at the BSEP site. Some impacts on

housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Closure of BSEP would

result in employment of approximately 910 fewer operating employees. Resulting economic

conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income populations.

Impacts at other sites would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

distribution. If a replacement coal-fired plant were constructed at an alternate site,

April 2006 8-21 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Brunswick County would experience a loss of property tax revenue, which could affect its

ability to provide services and programs. Property tax payments made by CP&L to

Brunswick County for BSEP are discussed in Section 4.4.3 of this SEIS.

Overall, the staff concludes that environmental justice impacts would be SMALL to

MODERATE at BSEP or at an alternate site.

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a coal-fired generation plant at the BSEP site using

a once-through cooling system are similar to the impacts for a coal-fired plant using a closedcycle system. However, there are some environmental differences between the closed-cycle

and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-3 summarizes the incremental differences.

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at the BSEP Site

-Change In Impacts from

Impact Category Impact Closed-Cycle Cooling System

Land Use MODERATE Less land required because cooling towers and

associated Infrastructure would not be needed.

Ecology MODERATE Impacts would depend on ecology at the site. No

Impacts to terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift.

Increased water withdrawal with possible greater

impacts to aquatic ecology.

Surface Water Use and Quality SMALL No discharge of cooling water blowdown. Increased

water withdrawal and more thermal load on receiving

body of water.

Groundwater Use and Quality SMALL No change

Air Quality MODERATE No change

Waste MODERATE No change

Human Health SMALL No change

Socioeconomics MODERATE No change

Aesthetics SMALL to Less aesthetic Impact because cooling towers would not

MODERATE be used.

Historic and Archaeological Resources SMALL Less land Impacted.

Environmental Justice SMALL to No change

MODERATE

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-22 April 2006
Alternatives

8.2.2 Natural Gas-Fired Generation

The environmental impacts of the natural gas-fired generation alternative are examined in this

section for both the BSEP site and an alternate site. The staff assumed construction of five net

365 MW(e) units, which is consistent with CP&L's ER (CP&L 2004)(a). This assumption slightly

understates the impacts of replacing the 1909 net MW(e) capacity of BSEP.

The staff reviewed the information in the CP&L ER and compared it to environmental impact

information in the GEIS for license renewal. Although the renewal period for the OLs is

20 years, the impact of operating the natural gas-fired alternative for 40 years is considered (as

a reasonable projection of the operating life of a natural gas-fired plant).

CP&L states in its ER that for siting at the BSEP site, a new 1 i 4 ml gas pipeline would be

needed to connect the site to the existing pipeline network (CP&L 2004). If a new natural

gas-fired plant were built elsewhere to replace BSEP, a new transmission line could need to be

constructed to connect to existing lines. In addition, construction or upgrade of a natural gas

pipeline from the plant to a supply point where a firm supply of gas would be available could be

needed.

The staff assumed that a replacement natural gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle

combustion turbines (CP&L 2004). The following additional assumptions are made for the

natural gas-fired plant (CP&L 2004):

i natural gas with an average heating value of 1032 Btu/ft3 as the primary fuel

* heat rate of 6204 Btu/kWh electricity

* capacity factor of 0.85.

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The staff assumed that a natural gas combined-cycle power plant located at the BSEP site

would use a closed-cycle cooling system with natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers

instead of the existing once-through cooling system used for BSEP. Closed-cycle cooling is

also assumed for an alternate site. The overall impacts are discussed in the following sections

and summarized in Table 8-4. The extent of impacts at an alternate site would depend on the

location of the particular site. For comparison, Section 8.2.2.2 discusses impacts if a oncethrough cooling system were used.

(a) Each unit would have a rating of 380 gross MW(e) and 365 net MW(e).

April 2006 8-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Generation

Using Closed-Cycle Cooling at the BSEP Site and at an Alternate Site

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE 122 ac for powerblock, MODERATE to 200 ac for powerblock, offices,

offices, roads, and parking LARGE roads, switchyard, and parking

areas. An additional 1382 areas. Additional land possibly

ac impacted by construction Impacted for transmission line

of an underground gas and/or natural gas pipeline.

pipeline.

Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas at MODERATE to Impacts depend on location and

the BSEP site plus land for LARGE ecology of the site, surface water

a new gas pipeline. body used for intake and

discharge, and possible

transmission and pipeline routes;

potential habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

Water Use and SMALL Discharge of cooling tower SMALL to Impacts depend on volume of

Quality (Surface) blowdown containing MODERATE water withdrawal and discharge

dissolved solids. Discharge and characteristics of surface

would be regulated by the water body.

State. Decreased water

withdrawal from the Cape

Fear River.

Water Use and SMALL Existing well would likely SMALL to Impacts would be site dependent.

Quality continue to be used. MODERATE

(Groundwater)

Air Quality MODERATE SO, 149 tons/yr MODERATE Same emissions as BSEP site.

NO, 478 tons/yr

CO 99 tons/yr

PM10 83 tons/yr

Some hazardous air

pollutants

Waste SMALL The only significant solid SMALL The only significant solid waste

waste would be spent SCR - would be spent SCR catalyst

catalyst used for control of used for control of NO. emissions.

NO. emissions.

Human Health SMALL Impacts considered to be SMALL Impacts considered to be minor.

minor.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-24 April 2006
Alternatives

Table 8-4. (contd)

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Socioeconomics MODERATE The peak construction work MODERATE Construction Impacts depend on

force would be up to 1200. location, but could be significant If

Most workers likely to plant is located in a rural area.

commute from the Brunswick County would

Wilmington area. After experience loss of BSEP tax base

construction, the current and employment. Impacts during

BSEP work force of 1060 operation would be small.

would be reduced to 55 for Transportation Impacts

the completed plant. Tax associated with construction

base preserved. workers could be significant.

Aesthetics MODERATE Exhaust stacks, cooling MODERATE to Impacts would depend on the site

towers, and cooling tower LARGE selected and the surrounding land

plumes would be visible features. Exhaust stacks, cooling

from offsite locations. Noise towers, and cooling tower plumes

would be detectable from would be visible from offsite

offsite locations. locations. If needed, a new

transmission line could have

significant aesthetic impacts.

Noise would be detectable from

offsite locations.

Historic and SMALL Any potential impacts can SMALL Any potential Impacts can likely

Archaeological likely be effectively be effectively mitigated.

Resources mitigated.

Environmental SMALL to Impacts on minority and SMALL to Impacts at an alternate site would

Justice MODERATE low-income communities MODERATE vary depending on population

should be similar to those distribution and makeup at site.

experienced by the Brunswick County would lose tax

population as a whole. revenue, which could Impact

Some Impacts on housing minority and low-income

may occur during populations.

construction; loss of

operating jobs at BSEP

could reduce employment

prospects for minority and

low-income populations.

* Land Use

For siting at the BSEP site, the staff assumed that the existing facilities and infrastructure

would be used to the extent practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would

April 2006 8-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

be required. Specifically, the staff assumed that the natural gas combined-cycle

replacement plant alternative would use the existing switchyard, offices, and transmission

line rights-of-way. At the BSEP site, approximately 122 ac would be needed for the plant

and associated infrastructure (CP&L 2004). There would be an additional land use impact

on approximately 1382 ac for construction of a new natural gas pipeline to the BSEP site

(CP&L 2004).

For construction at an alternate site, the staff assumed that approximately 200 ac would be

needed for the plant and associated infrastructure (NRC 1996). Additional land could be

impacted for construction of a transmission line and/or natural gas pipeline to serve the

plant. For any new natural gas combined-cycle power plant, additional land would be

required for natural gas wells and collection stations. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that

approximately 3600 ac would be needed for a 1000 MW(e) plant (NRC 1996).

Proportionately more land would be needed for a natural gas-fired plant replacing the

1909 MW(e) generated by BSEP. Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would

be the elimination of the need for uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for BSEP.

The NRC staff states in the GEIS (NRC 1996) that approximately 1000 ac would be affected

for mining the uranium and processing it during the operating life of a 1000 MW(e) nuclear

power plant.

Overall, the staff concludes that land use impacts at the BSEP site would be MODERATE,

and at an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE.

Ecology

At the BSEP site, there would be ecological land-related, impacts for siting of the natural

gas-fired plant. There would also be ecological impacts associated with bringing a new

underground gas pipeline to the site. Ecological impacts at an alternate site would depend

on the nature of the land converted for the plant and on the possible need for a new

transmission line and/or gas pipeline. Construction of a transmission line and a gas pipeline

to serve the plant would be expected to have temporary ecological impacts. Ecological

impacts to the plant site and utility easements could include impacts on threatened or

endangered species, wildlife habitat loss and reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation,

and a local reduction in biological diversity. At an alternate site, the cooling makeup water

intake and discharge could have impacts on aquatic resources. Some impacts to terrestrial

ecology from cooling tower drift could occur at the BSEP or an alternate site. Overall, the

staff concludes that ecological impacts would be MODERATE at the BSEP site and

MODERATE to LARGE at an alternate site.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-26 April 2006
Alternatives

* Water Use and Quality

Surface Water. Closed-cycle cooling with cooling water withdrawn from the existing intake

canal connecting to the Cape Fear River is assumed. Blowdown would be discharged to

the existing discharge canal that connects to the Atlantic Ocean. The staff assumed that an

alternative natural gas-fired plant located at the BSEP site would follow the current practice

of obtaining potable, process, and fire-protection water from the Brunswick County Public

Utilities Department (CP&L 2004). Some erosion and sedimentation would likely occur

during construction (NRC 1996). Overall, the staff concludes that surface water use and

quality impacts would be SMALL.

For a natural gas combined-cycle power plant located at an alternate site, the staff assumes

a surface water body will be used to withdraw cooling water. The impacts on surface water

would depend on the discharge volume and on the characteristics of the receiving body of

water. Intake from and discharge to any surface body of water would be regulated by the

State. The staff concludes that impacts on surface water use and quality would be SMALL

to MODERATE.

Groundwater. An alternative coal-fired plant located at the BSEP site would likely continue

to use the groundwater well that currently supplies water to the biology laboratory. The staff

concludes that groundwater Impacts would be SMALL; the impacts would be sufficiently

minor that they would not noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

Groundwater withdrawal at an alternate site could require a permit; in addition, groundwater

use would likely be equivalent or similar to current groundwater use at BSEP. The impacts

of groundwater withdrawal would be site specific and would depend on the characteristics of

the site and the amount of groundwater used. Overall, the staff concludes that groundwater

use and quality impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

* Air Quality

Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. The gas-fired alternative would release similar

types of emissions, but In lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative.

A new natural gas combined-cycle generating plant located at the BSEP site would likely

need a PSD permit issued under Title I Part C of the Clean Air Act and an operating permit

issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act. A new natural gas power plant would also be

subject to the new source performance standards for such units at 40 CFR Part 60,

Subparts Da and GG. These regulations establish emission limits for particulates, opacity,

SO2, and NO,.

April 2006 8-27 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart P, including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in

an area designated as attainment or unclassified under the Clean Air Act. Brunswick

County is classified at attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future and

remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

impairment is from air pollution resulting from human activities. In addition, EPA issued a

new regional haze rule in 1999 (64 FR 35714). The rule specifies that for each mandatory

Class I Federal area located within a state, the state must establish goals that provide for

reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable

progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days over

the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the leastimpaired days over the same period [40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)]. If a new natural gas-fired

power station were located close to a mandatory Class I area, additional air pollution control

requirements could be imposed. The mandatory Class I Federal area closest to the

BSEP site is the Cape Romain Wilderness, located approximately 100 mi southwest

(40 CFR 81.426).

In 1998, EPA issued a rule requiring 22 eastern states, including North Carolina, to revise

their state implementation plans to reduce NO, emissions. The NO, emissions contribute to

violations of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone (40 CFR 50.9). The total

amount of NO, that can be emitted by each of the 22 states in the year 2007 ozone season

(May 1 through September 30) is set out at 40 CFR 51.121 (e). For North Carolina, the

amount is 165,306 tons. Any new natural gas-fired plant sited in North Carolina would be

subject to these limitations.

EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in May 2005 (70 FR 25162). CAIR

provides a Federal framework requiring certain states to reduce emissions of S and NO,.

EPA anticipates that states will achieve this reduction primarily by limiting emissions from

the power generation sector. CAIR covers 28 eastern states. Any new fossil-fired power

plant sited in North Carolina would be subject to the CAIR limitations.

CP&L projects the following emissions for the natural gas-fired alternative (CP&L 2004):

* SO, - 149 tons/yr

* NO. - 478 tons/yr

* Co - 99 tons/yr

* PM,0 particulates - 83 tons/yr.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-28 April 2006
Alternatives

A natural gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

contribute to global warming.

Construction activities would result in temporary fugitive dust. Exhaust emissions would

also come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process.

Siting a natural gas combined-cycle generation plant at a site other than the BSEP site

would not significantly change air quality impacts, although it could result in installing more

or less stringent pollution control equipment to meet applicable local requirements. The

plant would be required to meet applicable new source performance standards. Siting in an

area that is in compliance with national ambient air quality standards would likely require a

PSD permit. Siting in an area not in attainment with national ambient air quality standards

would likely require a nonattainment permit under Title I Part D of the Clean Air Act. An air

operating permit would likely be needed at either type of location.

Overall, the staff concludes that the air quality impacts of a natural gas combined-cycle

power plant at the BSEP site or at an alternate site would be MODERATE.

Waste

In the GEIS, the staff concluded that waste generation from natural gas-fired technology

would be minimal (NRC 1996). The only significant solid waste generated at a new natural

gas combined-cycle power plant would be spent SCR catalyst. SCR catalyst is used for

control of NO, emissions. The spent catalyst would be regenerated or disposed of offsite.

Gas firing results in very few combustion byproducts because of the clean nature of the fuel.

Other than spent SCR catalyst, waste generation at an operating natural gas combinedcycle power plant would be largely limited to typical office wastes; impacts would be so

minor that they would not noticeably alter any important resource attribute. Constructionrelated debris would be generated during construction activities.

In the winter, it may become necessary for a replacement baseload natural gas-fired plant

to operate on fuel oil because of scarce gas supplies. Combustion of No. 2 fuel oil

generates minimal waste products.

Overall, the staff concludes that the solid waste impacts associated with a natural gas

combined-cycle power plant at the BSEP site or at an alternate site would be SMALL.

April 2006 8-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

* Human Health

In the GEIS, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks from

natural gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NO, emissions that

contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contribute to health risks. NOX emissions from

any plant would be regulated. For a plant sited in North Carolina, NO, emissions would be

regulated by the NCDENR. Human health effects are expected to be non-detectable or

sufficiently minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important

attribute of the resource. Overall, the staff concludes that the impacts on human health of a

new natural gas combined-cycle power plant sited at BSEP or at an alternate site would be

SMALL.

* Socioeconomics

Construction of an alternative natural gas combined-cycle power plant would take

approximately 30 months (Duke 2001). Peak employment could be up to 1200 workers.

The staff assumed that construction would take place while BSEP continues operation and

would be completed by the time it permanently ceases operations. During construction, the

communities Immediately surrounding the BSEP site would experience demands on

housing and public services. It is likely that most workers would commute from the

Wilmington area. After construction, Wilmington and other nearby communities would be

impacted by the loss of jobs. The current BSEP work force (1060 workers) would decline

through a decommissioning period to a minimal maintenance size. The new natural gas

combined-cycle plant would replace the BSEP tax base or provide a new tax base at an

alternate site and provide approximately 55 permanent jobs.

In the GEIS, the staff concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a natural

gas-fired plant would not be noticeable and that the small operational work force would have

the lowest socioeconomic impacts of any nonrenewable technology (NRC 1996).

Compared to the coal-fired and new nuclear alternatives, the smaller size of the

construction work force, the shorter construction time frame, and the smaller size of the

operations work force would mitigate socioeconomic impacts.

Transportation impacts associated with construction personnel commuting to the plant site

would depend on the population density and transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of

the site. Impacts associated with operating personnel commuting to the plant site would be

low.

Overall, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction of a

natural gas combined-cycle power plant at the BSEP site or at an alternate site would be

MODERATE.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-30 April 2006
Alternatives

* Aesthetics

The turbine buildings, stacks (approximately 200 ft tall), cooling towers, and cooling tower

plumes would be visible from offsite during daylight hours. The gas pipeline compressors

also would be visible. Noise and light from the plant would be detectable offsite. At the

BSEP site, the staff concludes that these impacts would result in MODERATE aesthetic

impacts.

At an alternate site, the buildings, stacks, cooling towers, and cooling tower plumes would

likely be visible offsite. If a new transmission line is needed, the aesthetic impacts could be

significant. Aesthetic impacts would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial

area adjacent to other power plants. Overall, the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts

associated with a replacement natural gas combined-cycle power plant at an alternate site

would be MODERATE to LARGE, with site-specific factors determining the final

categorization.

* Historic and Archaeological Resources

At the BSEP site or an alternate site, new construction could impact previously undeveloped

land. Before construction at the BSEP site or at an alternate site, studies would likely be

needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant

construction on cultural resources. These studies would likely be needed for all areas of

potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new

construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission line rights-of-way, rail lines, or other

rights-of-way). The impact on historic and archaeological resources could be greater at an

alternate site because more undeveloped land would likely be disturbed. However,

construction activities at any site can generally be effectively managed under current laws

and regulations to prevent significant adverse historic and archaeological resource impacts.

Therefore, the staff concludes that historic and archaeological resource impacts would be

SMALL at BSEP or at an alternate site.

* Environmental Justice

No environmental pathways or locations have been identified that would result in

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income

populations if a replacement natural gas-fired plant were built at the BSEP site. Some

impacts on housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Closure of BSEP would

result in a decrease in employment of approximately 1005 operating employees. Resulting

April 2006 8-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income

populations. Overall, the staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Impacts at an alternate site would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

distribution. If a replacement natural gas-fired plant were constructed at an alternate site,

Brunswick County would experience a loss of property tax revenue, which could affect its

ability to provide services and programs. Overall, the staff concludes that impacts to

minority and low-income populations would also be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a natural gas combined-cycle generation plant at the

BSEP site using once-through cooling are similar to the impacts for a natural gas combinedcycle plant using closed-cycle cooling. However, there are some environmental differences

between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-5 summarizes the

incremental differences.

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Generation

Using Once-Through Cooling at the BSEP Site

Inmeat Clateonrv Imnaet

Land Use

Ecology

Surface Water Use and Quality

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

SMALL

Change In Impacts from

Closed-Cycle Cooling System

Less land required because cooling towers and

associated infrastructure would not be needed.

Impacts would depend on ecology at the site. No

impacts to terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift.

Increased water withdrawal with possible greater

Impacts to aquatic ecology.

No discharge of cooling water blowdown. Increased

water withdrawal and increased thermal load on

receiving body of water.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

Less aesthetic impact because cooling towers would

not be used.

Less land Impacted.

Groundwater Use and Quality

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

Historic and Archaeological

Resources

Environmental Justice

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

No change

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-32 April 2006
Alternatives

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation

Since 1997, the NRC has certified four new standard designs for nuclear power plants under

10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B. These designs are the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

(10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix B), the

AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix C), and the AP1000 Design (10 CFR Part 52,

Appendix D). All of these plants are light-water reactors. Although no applications for

a construction permit or a combined license based on these certified designs have been

submitted to the NRC, the submission of the design certification applications indicates

continuing interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants. In addition, NRC is

processing three applications for an early site permit under the procedures in 10 CFR Part 52

(NRC 2005b).

CP&L did not consider new nuclear generation as an alternative to replacement of baseline

power, but, for the preceding reasons, construction of a new nuclear power plant at the BSEP

site and at an alternate site is considered in this section. The staff assumed that the new

nuclear plant would have a 40-year lifetime.

The NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in

Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are representative of the

impacts that would be associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the

certified designs at the BSEP site or at an alternate site. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are

for a 1 000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be adjusted to reflect impacts of 1909 MW(e) of

new nuclear power (CP&L 2004). The environmental impacts associated with transporting fuel

and waste to and from a light-water cooled nuclear power reactor are summarized in Table S-4

of 10 CFR Part 51.52. The summary of NRC's findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of

nuclear power plants in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, is also relevant,

although not directly applicable, for consideration of environmental impacts associated with the

operation of a replacement nuclear power plant.

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The staff assumed that a new nuclear plant located at the BSEP site would use a closed-cycle

cooling system with natural draft or mechanical draft cooling towers instead of the existing

once-through cooling system used for BSEP. Closed-cycle cooling is also assumed for an

alternate site. The overall impacts are discussed in the following sections and summarized in

Table 8-6. The extent of impacts at an alternate site would depend on the location of the

particular site. For comparison, Section 8.2.3.2 discusses impacts if a once-through cooling

system were used.

April 2006 8-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

* Land Use

The staff assumed that the existing facilities and infrastructure at the BSEP site would be

used to the extent practicable, limiting the amount of new construction that would be

required. Specifically, the staff assumed that a replacement nuclear power plant would use

the existing switchyard, offices, and transmission line rights-of-way. Because this existing

infrastructure could be used, a replacement nuclear power plant at the BSEP site would

require approximately 250 ac, some of which may be previously undeveloped land.

There would be no net change in land needed for uranium mining because land needed to

supply fuel for the new nuclear plant would offset land needed to supply uranium for fuel for

the existing BSEP.

Overall, the staff concludes that the land use impacts of a replacement nuclear generating

plant at the BSEP site would be SMALL to MODERATE. The impacts would be greater

than the alternative of renewing the BSEP OLs.

Land-use requirements at an alternate site would be approximately 500 ac plus the possible

need for a new electric power transmission line (NRC 1996). In addition, it may be

necessary to construct a rail spur to an alternate site to bring in equipment during

construction. Depending particularly on transmission line routing, the staff concludes that

siting a new nuclear plant at an alternate site could result in MODERATE to LARGE land

use impacts.

* Ecology

Locating a replacement nuclear power plant at the BSEP site would alter ecological

resources because of the need to convert land to an industrial use. Most of this land,

however, would have been previously disturbed. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss,

reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity.

Some impacts to terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift could occur. The staff

concludes that siting at the BSEP site would have SMALL to MODERATE ecological

impacts that would be greater than renewal of the BSEP OLs.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-34 April 2006
Alternatives

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the BSEP Site and an Alternate Site

Brunswick Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use SMALL to

MODERATE

Requires approximately 250 ac

of undeveloped land at the BSEP

site.

Uses undeveloped areas at the

BSEP site. Potential habitat loss

and fragmentation and reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

MODERATE to

LARGE

MODERATE to

LARGE Ecology SMALL to

MODERATE

Water Use and

Quality (Surface)

Water Use and

Quality

(Groundwater)

Air Quality

Waste

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

Discharge of cooling tower SMALL to

blowdown containing dissolved MODERATE

solids. Discharge would be

regulated by the State.

Decreased water withdrawal

from the Cape Fear River.

Existing well would likely SMALL to

continue to be used. MODERATE

Fugitive emissions and SMALL

emissions from vehicles and

equipment during construction.

Small amounts of emissions from

diesel generators and possibly

other sources during operation.

Waste Impacts for an operating SMALL

nuclear power plant are set out

at 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1. Debris

would be generated and

removed during construction.

Requires approximately

500 ac. Possible

additional land If a new

transmission line is

needed.

Impacts depend on

location and ecology of

the site, surface water

body used for intake and

discharge, and

transmission line route;

potential habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

Impacts will depend on

the volume of water

withdrawn and discharged

and the characteristics of

the surface water body.

Impacts will depend on

the volume of water

withdrawn and discharged

and the characteristics of

the aquifer.

Same Impacts as the

BSEP site.

Same Impacts as the

BSEP site.

Apnl 2006 8-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Table 8-6. (contd)

Brunswick Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Human Health SMALL Human health Impacts for an

operating nuclear power plant

are set out at 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1.

SMALL Same impacts as the

BSEP site.

Socloeconomics

Aesthetics

MODERATE

MODERATE

The peak construction work force MODERATE to

could be as many as 3000 LARGE

workers. Construction period of

3 years. Most workers likely to

commute from the Wilmington

area. Operating work force

assumed to be similar to BSEP.

Brunswick County tax base

preserved. Transportation

Impacts associated with

commuting construction workers

would be noticeable.

Transportation impacts during

operation would be small.

Containment buildings, the off- MODERATE to

gas stack, and cooling towers LARGE

and associated plumes would be

visible offsite. Daytime visual

impact could be mitigated by

landscaping and appropriate

color selection for buildings.

Visual Impact at night could be

mitigated by reduced use of

lighting and appropriate

shielding. Noise Impacts would

be relatively small and could be

mitigated.

Construction Impacts

depend on location, but

could be significant if plant

is located in a rural area.

Brunswick County would

experience loss of tax

base and employment.

Transportation Impacts

associated with

commuting construction

workers would be

noticeable.

Transportation Impacts

during operation would be

small.

Similar to impacts at the

BSEP site. Aesthetic

Impacts would be

significant if a new

transmission line is

needed.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Some construction could affect

previously undeveloped parts of

BSEP site; cultural resource

Inventory would be needed to

minimize any Impacts on

undeveloped lands.

SMALL Alternate location would

necessitate cultural

resource studies. Impacts

can likely be mitigated.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-36 April 2006
Alternatives

Table 8-6. (contd)

Brunswick Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Environmental SMALL to Impacts on minority and low- SMALL to Impacts at alternate site

Justice MODERATE income communities should be MODERATE would vary depending on

similar to those experienced by population distribution and

the population as a whole. makeup at site.

Some impacts on housing may Brunswick County would

occur during construction. Loss lose tax revenue, which

of operating Jobs at BSEP could could have an impact on

reduce employment prospects minority and low-income

for minority and low-income populations.

populations.

At an alternate site, there would be construction impacts and new incremental operational

impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the impacts could alter the

ecology. Use of cooling water from a nearby surface water body could have adverse

aquatic resource impacts. Some impacts to terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift may

occur. If needed, construction and maintenance of the transmission line rights-of-way

would have ecological impacts. Overall, the staff concludes that ecological impacts at an

alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water. Closed cycle cooling with cooling water withdrawn from the existing intake

canal connecting to the Cape Fear River is assumed. Blowdown would be discharged to

the existing discharge canal that connects to the Atlantic Ocean. Discharges would be

regulated by the NCDENR. The staff assumed that an alternative new nuclear plant located

at the BSEP site would follow the current practice of obtaining potable, process, and

fire-protection water from the Brunswick County Public Utilities Department (CP&L 2004).

Some erosion and sedimentation would likely occur during construction (NRC 1996).

Overall, the staff concludes that surface water use and quality impacts would be SMALL.

For a new nuclear plant located at an alternate site the staff assumes a surface water body

will be used to withdraw cooling water. Impacts on surface water would depend on the

discharge volume and the characteristics of the receiving body of water. Intake from and

discharge to any surface body of water would be regulated by the State. The staff

concludes that impacts on surface water use and quality would be SMALL to MODERATE.

April 2006 8-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Groundwater. An alternative new nuclear plant located at the BSEP site would likely

continue to use the groundwater well that currently supplies water to the biology laboratory.

The staff concludes that groundwater impacts would be SMALL.

Groundwater withdrawal at an alternate site could require a permit; in addition, groundwater

use would likely be equivalent or similar to current groundwater use at BSEP. The impacts

of groundwater withdrawal would be site specific, and will depend on the volume of water

withdrawn and discharged and the characteristics of the aquifer. Overall, the staff

concludes that groundwater use and quality impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

Air Quality

Construction of a new nuclear plant at the BSEP site or an alternate site would result in

fugitive emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions would also come

from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process. An operating

nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel generators, auxiliary

heating boilers, portable self-powered devices such as pumps and generators, and some

types of welding and heat treatment equipment. Overall, the staff concludes that emissions

and associated impacts would be SMALL at the BSEP site or at an alternate site.

* Waste

The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant are set out in

Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. In addition to the impacts shown in

Table B-1, construction-related debris would be generated during construction activities and

removed to an appropriate disposal site. Overall, the staff concludes that waste impacts

would be SMALL at the BSEP site or at an alternate site.

* Human Health

Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant are set out in 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. Overall, the staff concludes that human health impacts

would be SMALL at the BSEP site or at an alternate site.

* Socloeconomics

Information on the socioeconomic impacts of two new Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at

the Tennessee Valley Authority's Bellefonte nuclear plant site in Alabama is included in

Section 8.2.4 of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant SEIS (NRC 2005a). This information is

used to estimate socioeconomic impacts for two new nuclear units sited at the BSEP site

and at an alternate site. The staff assumed a construction period of 2 years and a peak

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-38 April 2006
Alternatives

work force of up to 3000. The staff also assumed that construction would take place while

BSEP continues operation and would be completed by the time Unit 1 permanently ceases

operations (NRC 2005a).

During construction, the communities surrounding the BSEP site would experience

demands on housing and public services that would have noticeable impacts. These

impacts would be expected to be mitigated by construction workers commuting to the site

from Wilmington and other communities. After construction, the communities would be

impacted by the loss of the construction jobs.

The replacement nuclear plant is assumed to have an operating work force comparable to

the 1060 workers currently working at BSEP. The replacement nuclear plant would provide

a new tax base to offset the loss of tax base associated with decommissioning of BSEP.

During the construction period, the addition of the construction workers to the existing BSEP

workers could place significant traffic loads on existing highways, particularly those leading

to the BSEP site.

Construction of a replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate site would be expected to

relocate some socioeconomic impacts, but would not eliminate them. The communities

around the BSEP site would experience the impact of BSEP operational job loss and the

loss of tax base. The communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of

a large, temporary work force and a permanent work force of approximately 1060 workers.

In the GEIS, the staff noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger

than at an urban site because more of the peak construction work force would need to

move to the area to work (NRC 1996). Alternate sites would need to be analyzed on a

case-by-case basis.

Overall, the staff concludes that socioeconomic impacts would be MODERATE at the BSEP

site and MODERATE to LARGE at an alternate site.

Aesthetics

The containment buildings for a replacement nuclear power plant sited at the BSEP site and

other associated buildings would likely be visible from offsite. Visual impacts could be

mitigated by landscaping and selecting a color for buildings that is consistent with the

environment. The off-gas stack would also likely visible from offsite.

Cooling towers and associated plumes would be visible from offsite. Natural draft cooling

towers could be up to 520 ft high. Mechanical draft cooling towers could be up to 100 ft

high and also have an associated noise impact from operation of the motors and fans.

April 2006 8-39 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

The plant and associated stacks and towers would also be visible at night from offsite

because of outside lighting and aircraft warning lights. The FAA generally requires that all

structures exceeding an overall height of 200 ft above ground level have markings and/or

lighting so as not to impair aviation safety (FAA 2000).

Noise from operation of a replacement nuclear power plant would potentially be audible

offsite in calm wind conditions or when the wind is blowing in the direction of the listener.

Mitigation measures, such as reduced or no use of outside loudspeakers, could be

employed to reduce noise level.

At an alternate site, there would be aesthetic impacts from the buildings, off-gas stack, and

cooling towers and associated plumes. There would also be a significant aesthetic impact if

a new transmission line were needed. Noise and light from the plant would be detectable

offsite. The impact of noise and light would be mitigated if the plant is located in an

industrial area adjacent to other power plants.

Overall, the staff concludes that the aesthetic impacts associated with a new nuclear plant

would be MODERATE at the BSEP site and MODERATE to LARGE at an alternate site.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

At the BSEP site or an alternate site, new construction could impact previously undeveloped

land. Before construction at the BSEP site or at an alternate site, studies would likely be

needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant

construction on cultural resources. These studies would likely be needed for all areas of

potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated corridors where new

construction would occur (e.g., roads, transmission line rights-of-way, rail lines, or other

rights-of-way). The impact on historic and archaeological resources could be greater at an

alternate site because more undeveloped land would likely be disturbed. However,

construction activities at any site can generally be effectively managed under current laws

and regulations to prevent significant adverse historic and archaeological resource impacts.

Therefore, the staff concludes that historic and archaeological resource impacts would be

SMALL at BSEP or at an alternate site.

* Environmental Justice

No environmental pathways or locations have been identified that would result in

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority and low-income

populations if a replacement nuclear plant were built at the BSEP site. Some impacts on

housing availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. After completion of

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-40 April 2006
Alternatives

construction, it is possible that the ability of the local government to maintain social services

could be reduced at the same time as diminished economic conditions reduce employment

prospects for minority and low-income populations.

Impacts at an alternate site would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby population

distribution. If a replacement nuclear plant were constructed at an alternate site, Brunswick

County would experience a loss of property tax revenue, which could affect its ability to

provide services and programs.

Overall, environmental justice impacts are expected to be SMALL to MODERATE at the

BSEP site or at an alternate site.

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a new nuclear generating plant at the BSEP site

using once-through cooling are essentially the same as the impacts for a plant using closedcycle cooling with wet cooling towers. However, there are some environmental differences

between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-7 summarizes the

incremental differences.

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power

If available, purchased power from other sources could potentially obviate the need to renew

the BSEP OLs. CP&L currently purchases electric power from other generators (CP&L 2004).

If power to replace the BSEP generating capacity were to be purchased from sources within the

United States or from a foreign country, the generating technology likely would be one of those

described in this SEIS and in the GEIS (probably coal, natural gas, or nuclear). The

descriptions of the environmental impacts of other technologies in Chapter 8 of the GEIS and in

Chapter 8 of this SEIS are representative of the environmental impacts associated with the

purchased electrical power alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs. Under the purchased

power alternative, the environmental impacts of power generation would still occur, but they

would be located elsewhere within the region, the United States, or another country.

8.2.5 Other Alternatives

Other generation alternatives are discussed in the following subsections.

April 2006 8-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant Using

Once-Through Cooling at the BSEP Site

Impact Category

Land Use

Ecology

Impact

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

Change In Impacts from

Closed-Cycle Cooling System

Less land required because cooling towers and

associated Infrastructure would not be needed.

Impacts would depend on ecology at the site. No

impacts to terrestrial ecology from cooling tower drift.

Increased water withdrawal with possible greater

Impacts to aquatic ecology.

Surface Water Use and Quality

Groundwater Use and Quality

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

SMALL

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL

SMALL to

MODERATE

No discharge of cooling water blowdown. Increased

water withdrawal and Increased thermal load on

receiving body of water.

No change

No change

No change

No change

No change

Less aesthetic Impact because cooling towers would not

be used.

Less land impacted.

No change

Historic and Archaeological

Resources

Environmental Justice

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation

The EIA projects that because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies, oil-fired power plants

will not provide new power generation capacity in the United States through the year 2025,

except for limited industrial combined heat and power applications (DOE/EIA 2005a). Oil-fired

generation is more expensive than either the nuclear or coal-fired generation options. In

addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired generation increasingly

more expensive than coal-fired generation. The high cost of oil has resulted in a decline in its

use for electricity generation. In addition, in Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS, the staff estimated that

construction of a 1000 MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 120 ac of land (NRC 1996).

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that an oil-fired power plant at or in the vicinity of

the BSEP site would not be a reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-42 April 2006
Alternatives

8.2.5.2 Wind Power

The DOE states that North Carolina has excellent wind resources in portions of the state

(DOE 2005a). DOE estimates that if the wind energy potential in North Carolina were

developed with utility-scale wind turbines, the power produced each year would equal

approximately 1.9 million megawatt-hours, or approximately 2 percent of the state's electricity

consumption (DOE 2005a). This is much less power than needed to replace the baseline

loads produced by BSEP. By contrast, the two units at BSEP produced approximately

14.7 million megawatt-hours in 2003 (DOE/EIA 2005b). For the preceding reasons, the staff

concludes that a wind energy facility at or in the vicinity of the BSEP site would not be a

reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

8.2.5.3 Solar Power

Solar technologies use energy and light from the sun to provide heating and cooling, light, hot

water, and electricity for consumers. Solar power technologies (both photovoltaic and thermal)

cannot currently compete with conventional nuclear and fossil-fueled technologies in gridconnected applications because of solar power's higher capital cost per kilowatt of capacity

(Hamrin and Rader 1993). Energy storage requirements also limit the use of solar energy

systems as baseload electricity supply. In the GEIS, the staff determined that the average

capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent, and the capacity factor for solar

thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996).

DOE states that for flat-plate collectors, North Carolina has useful resources throughout the

State (DOE 2005b). However, a photovoltaic array with a collector area equal to the size of a

football field in one of the State's better locations would produce approximately 961 megawatthours per year (DOE 2005b). By contrast, the two units at BSEP produced approximately

14.7 million megawatt-hours in 2003 (DOE/EIA 2005b).

For solar concentrating collectors, DOE states that North Carolina could pursue some types of

technologies, but that thermal electricity systems would not be effective with this resource

(DOE 2005b). DOE states that a solar concentrator system with a collector area of 200,000 m2

in the State's best areas could produce about 34,215 megawatt-hours per year (DOE 2005b),

much less than needed to replace the baseline loads produced by BSEP. The two units at

BSEP produced approximately 14.7 million megawatt-hours in 2003 (DOE/EIA 2005b).

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a solar energy facility at or in the vicinity of

the BSEP site would not be a reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

April 2006 8-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

8.2.5.4 Hydropower

North Carolina could produce approximately 8 million megawatt-hours per year from

hydropower (DOE 2005c). This amount is less than needed to replace the two BSEP units,

which produced approximately 14.7 million megawatt-hours in 2003 (DOE/EIA 2005b). As

stated in Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS, the percentage of U.S. generating capacity supplied by

hydropower is expected to decline, because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to site

as a result of public concerns about flooding, destruction of natural habitat, and alteration of

natural river courses. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that land requirements for hydroelectric

power are approximately 1 million ac per 1000 MW(e) (NRC 1996). Because of the amount of

undeveloped hydropower resource in North Carolina and the large land-use and related

environmental and ecological resource impacts associated with siting hydroelectric facilities

large enough to produce 1909 MW(e), the staff concludes that local hydropower is not a

feasible alternative to renewal of the SEP OLs.

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy

Two types of geothermal resources are being tapped commercially: hydrothermal fluid

resources and earth energy (DOE 2005d). Hydrothermal fluid resources (reservoirs of steam or

very hot water) are well suited for electricity generation. Earth energy, the heat contained in soil

and rocks at shallow depths, is excellent for direct use and geothermal heat pumps. Direct-use

applications require moderate temperatures; geothermal heat pumps can operate with

low-temperature resources. The DOE states that North Carolina has low- to-moderatetemperature resources that can be tapped for direct heat or for hydrothermal fluid resources.

However, geothermal resources in North Carolina are not available for electricity generation.

The most valuable resources for geothermal electricity generation are located in the western

parts of the US. For this reason, the staff concludes that a geothermal energy facility at or in

the vicinity of the BSEP site would not be a reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs

(DOE 2005d).

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste

In the GEIS, the staff determined that a wood-burning facility can provide baseload power and

operate with an average annual capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to

25 percent efficiency (NRC 1996). The fuels required are variable and site-specific.

A significant impediment to the use of wood waste to generate electricity is the high cost of fuel

delivery and high construction cost per megawatt of generating capacity. The larger woodwaste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in the GEIS suggest that the

overall level of construction impacts per megawatt of installed capacity would be approximately

the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for fuel would be

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-44 April 2006
Alternatives

Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a

baseload power plant, the ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion and

loss of wildlife habitat), and relatively low efficiency, the staff concludes that wood waste would

not be a reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid-waste combustors incinerate the waste and use the resultant heat to produce

steam, hot water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up

to 90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2005). Municipal waste

combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived

fuel (DOE/EIA 2001). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United

States. This group of technologies processes raw municipal solid waste "as is," with little or no

sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. In the GEIS, the staff determined that the

initial capital cost for municipal solid-waste plants is greater than for comparable steam-turbine

technology at wood-waste facilities because of the need for specialized waste-separation and

waste-handling equipment for municipal solid waste (NRC 1996).

Municipal solid waste combustors generate an ash residue that is buried in landfills. The ash

residue Is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash refers to that portion of the

unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly ash represents the small

particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process. Fly ash is generally

removed from flue gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers (DOEIEIA 2001).

Currently, approximately 102 waste-to-energy plants are operating in the United States. These

plants generate approximately 2500 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e) per

plant, much less than needed to replace 1909 MW(e) of BSEP (IWSA 2004). For this reason,

the staff concludes that generating electricity from municipal solid waste would not be a

reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuel, several other biomass-derived fuels are

available for fueling electric generators, including burning crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel

such as ethanol, and gasifying crops (including wood waste). In the GEIS, the staff determined

that none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large

scale or of being reliable enough to replace a large baseload plant (NRC 1996). For these

reasons, the staff concludes that such fuels do not offer a reasonable alternative to renewal of

the BSEP OLs.

April 2006 8-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is

produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode,

and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts are heat, water, and carbon

dioxide. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by subjecting them

to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of hydrogen.

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. Highertemperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher fuel-to-electricity and thermal

efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved efficiencies and give the secondgeneration fuel cells the capability to generate steam for cogeneration and combined-cycle

operations.

During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical

and affordable fuel cell designs for stationary power applications, but progress has been slow

(DOE 2004). Currently, the most widely marketed fuel cells cost about $4500 per kWh of

installed capacity. By contrast, a diesel generator costs $800 to $1500 per kWh of installed

capacity, and a natural gas turbine can cost even less (DOE 2004).

DOE initiated a program - the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance - to bring about dramatic

reductions in fuel cell cost. DOE's goal is to cut costs to as low as $400 per kWh of installed

capacity by the end of this decade, which would make fuel cells competitive for virtually every

type of power application (DOE 2004).

The staff concludes that, at the present time, fuel cells are not economically or technologically

competitive with other alternatives for baseload electricity generation. Future gains in cost

competitiveness for fuels cells compared to other fuels are speculative.

For the preceding reasons, the staff concludes that a fuel cell energy facility located at or in the

vicinity of the BSEP site would not be a reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement

It is possible that delayed retirement of other CP&L generating units could replace the power

generated by BSEP. However, CP&L has no plans for retiring any of its generating plants

(CP&L 2004). For this reason, the staff concludes that delayed retirement of existing CP&L

generating plants would not be a reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-46 April 2006
Alternatives

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation

Electric utilities can meet increases in customer's electricity demands using supply-side

management or demand-side management. The principal supply-side management tool is

construction of new power plants. Demand-side management (DSM) attempts to reduce the

demand for electricity or to shift it to times away from the system peak, so that the need for

additional generation capacity is minimized (NCSEO 2005). DSM programs are voluntary in

North Carolina (NCUC 2004). Typical DSM programs that have been offered in North Carolina

have included (NCSEO 2005):

* thermal efficiency in new and existing homes

* residential high-efficiency heat pumps

* interruptible residential central air conditioners/water heaters

* commercial energy-efficient lighting, heating, and air conditioning in new and existing

buildings

* commercial thermal energy storage

* high-efficiency off-street security lighting

* industrial energy audits with incentives for efficiency improvements

* industrial time-of-use rates

* large-load curtailment during peak load periods

* remote-controlled voltage reduction.

Using DSM programs, CP&L expected to achieve a summer peak load reduction of 372 MW in

2004 and expects to achieve a reduction of 384 MW in 2013 (NCUC 2004). However, there

has been a decline in DSM programs offered by North Carolina utilities for the following

reasons: (1) electric utility restructuring appeared imminent, so to increase their competitive

edge, many utilities sought to lower costs; (2) the cost of peak power plants, such as gas

turbines, has become so low that they are less expensive than reductions in peak demand from

DSM programs; and (3) some DSM programs were not able to provide the peak demand

savings projected (NCSEO 2005).

April 2006 8-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

CP&L's energy savings attributable to DSM are part of its long-range plan for meeting projected

demand and, thus, are not available offsets for the generating capacity of BSEP.

Although DSM programs are an important part of CP&L's energy portfolio, the staff concludes

that additional DSM, by itself, would not be sufficient to replace the BSEP capacity and that it is,

therefore, not a reasonable alternative to renewal of the BSEP OLs.

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives

Even though individual alternatives might not be sufficient on their own to replace the BSEP

capacity due to the small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities, it is

conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost-effective.

BSEP has a total generating capacity of 1909 MW(e). There are many possible combinations

of alternatives to replace this capacity. Table 8-8 contains a summary of the environmental

impacts of an assumed combination of alternatives consisting of 1460 MW(e) (four net

365 MW(e) units) plants of natural gas combined-cycle generation using mechanical draft

cooling towers, 300 MW(e) purchased from other generators, and 149 MW(e) gained from

additional DSM measures. The impacts associated with the natural gas combined-cycle units

are based on the discussion in Section 8.2.2, adjusted for the reduced generating capacity.

While the DSM measures would have few environmental impacts, operation of the new natural

gas combined-cycle plants would result in increased emissions and other environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts associated with power purchased from other generators

would still occur, but would be located elsewhere within the region as discussed in Section

8.2.4. The environmental impacts associated with purchased power are not shown in Table

8-8. The staff concludes that it is unlikely that the environmental impacts of any reasonable

combination of generating and conservation options could be reduced to the level of impacts

associated with renewal of the BSEP OLs.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-48 April 2006
Alternatives

Table 8-8. Summary of Environmental Impacts of an 1460(6) of Natural Gas-Fired

Generation, 300 MW(e) from Purchased Power and 149 MW(e) from DemandSide Management Measures

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Land Use MODERATE 98 ac for powerblock,

roads, and parking areas.

Up to 1382 ac Impacted by

construction of an

underground gas pipeline.

MODERATE to

LARGE

160 ac for powerblock,

offices, roads, switchyard,

and parking areas. Additional

land possibly Impacted for

transmission line and/or

natural gas pipeline.

Ecology MODERATE Uses undeveloped areas

at the BSEP site plus land

for a new gas pipeline.

MODERATE to

LARGE

Impact depends on location

and ecology of the site,

surface water body used for

intake and discharge, and

possible transmission and

pipeline routes; potential

habitat loss and

fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

Water Use and

Quality (Surface)

Water Use and

Quality

(Groundwater)

SMALL

SMALL

Discharge of cooling tower

blowdown containing

dissolved solids.

Discharge would be

regulated by the State.

Decreased water

withdrawal from the Cape

Fear River.

Existing well would likely

continue to be used.

SMALL to

MODERATE

SMALL to

MODERATE

Impact depends on volume of

water withdrawal and

discharge and characteristics

of surface water body.

Impacts will depend on the

volume of water withdrawn

and discharged and the

characteristics of the aquifer.

April 2006 8-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

Table 8-8. (contd)

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Air Quality MODERATE SO, 119 tons/yr

NO,, 382 tons/yr

CO 79 tons/yr

PM10 66 tons/yr

Some hazardous air

pollutants

MODERATE Same emissions as BSEP

site.

Waste SMALL

Human Health SMALL

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

SMALL to

MODERATE

MODERATE

The only significant solid

waste would be spent SCR

catalyst used for control of

NO, emissions.

Impacts considered to be

minor.

The peak construction

work force would be up to

1200. Most workers likely

to commute from the

Wilmington area. After

construction, the current

BSEP work force of 1060

would be reduced to

approximately 50 for the

completed plant. Tax

base preserved.

Exhaust stacks, cooling

towers, and cooling tower

plumes would be visible

from offsite locations.

SMALL

SMALL

The only significant solid

waste would be spent SCR

catalyst used for control of

NO. emissions.

Impacts considered to be

minor.

MODERATE Construction impacts depend

on location, but could be

significant if plant is located In

a rural area. Brunswick

County would experience loss

of BSEP tax base and

employment. Impacts during

operation would be small.

Transportation impacts

associated with construction

workers could be significant.

MODERATE to

LARGE

Impacts would depend on the

site selected and the

surrounding land features.

Exhaust stacks, cooling

towers, and cooling tower

plumes would be visible from

offsite locations. If needed, a

new transmission line could

have significant aesthetic

impacts.

Same as BSEP site; any

potential impacts can likely

be effectively mitigated.

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

SMALL Any potential impacts can

likely be effectively

mitigated.

SMALL

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 8-50 April 2006
Alternatives

Table 8-8. (contd)

BSEP Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comment Impact Comment

Environmental SMALL to Impacts on minority and SMALL to Impacts at an alternate site

Justice MODERATE low-income communities MODERATE would vary depending on

should be similar to those population distribution and

experienced by the makeup at site. Brunswick

population as a whole. County would lose tax

Some Impacts on housing revenue, which could Impact

may occur during minority and low-income

construction; loss of populations.

operating jobs at BSEP

could reduce employment

prospects for minority and

low-income populations.

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered

The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the BSEP OLs, are SMALL for all

impact categories, except for collective offsite radiological Impacts from the fuel cycle and from

HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not assigned. The

following alternative actions were considered: the no-action alternative (discussed in

Section 8.1); new generation alternatives from coal-fired generation, natural gas-fired

generation, and new nuclear (discussed in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.3, respectively);

purchased electrical power (discussed in Section 8.2.4); alternative technologies (discussed in

Section 8.2.5); and the combination of alternatives (discussed in Section 8.2.6).

The no-action alternative would require replacing electrical generating capacity by (1) DSM and

energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other electricity providers, (3) generating

alternatives other than BSEP, or (4) some combination of these options, and would result in

decommissioning BSEP. For each of the new generation alternatives (coal-fired, natural gasfired, and new nuclear), the environmental impacts would not be less than the impacts of

license renewal. For example, the land-disturbance impacts resulting from construction of any

new facility would be greater than the impacts of continued operation of BSEP. The impacts of

purchased electrical power would still occur, but would occur elsewhere. Alternative

technologies are not considered feasible at this time, and it is unlikely that the environmental

impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and conservation options could be

reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the BSEP.

April 2006 8-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

The staff concludes that the alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may have

environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or LARGE

significance.

8.4 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Early Site Permits;

Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50,

"National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards."

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,

"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

"Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources."

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

63 FR 49453. September 16, 1998. "Revision of Standards of Performance for Nitrogen Oxide

Emissions From New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units; Revisions to Reporting

Requirements for Standards of Performance for New Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generating Units,

Final Rule." Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

64 FR 35714. July 1, 1999. "Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule." Federal Register.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

65 FR 32214. May 22,2000. "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels." Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-52 April 2006
Alternatives

70 FR 28606. May 18, 2005. "Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

70 FR 25162. May 12,2005. "Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule)." Federal Register. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos.

50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina

Clean Air Act (also know as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 42 USC 7401 et seq.

Duke Energy Corporation (Duke). 2001. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage, McGuire Nuclear Station. Charlotte, North Carolina.

Gabbard, A. 1993. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger," Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Summer/Fall

1993. Accessed at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html on

June 10, 2005.

Hamrin, J., and N. Rader, Investing in the Future: A Regulator's Guide to Renewables, National

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Washington, D.C., February 1993.

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2004. uAbout Waste-to-Energy." Accessed at

http:J/www.wte.org/waste.html on June 10,2005.

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

North Carolina State Energy Office (NCSEO). 2005. "North Carolina State Energy Plan."

Accessed at http://www.energync.net/sep/docs/sep-12-04.pdf on June 10,2005.

North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC). 2004. "Annual Report Regarding Long Range

Needs for Expansion of Electric Generation Facilities for Service in North Carolina." Accessed

at http://www.ncuc.commerce.state.nc.us/reports/ir2004rpt.pdf on June 10, 2005.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended. 42 USC 6901, et seq.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001. "Renewable

Energy 2000: Issues and Trends." DOE/EIA-0628(2000). Washington, D.C. Accessed at

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf on June 10, 2005.

April 2006 8-53 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Alternatives

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2005a. "Annual

Energy Outlook 2005 with Projections to 2025." DOE/EIA-0383(2005). Washington, D.C.

Accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeolpdf/0383(2005).pdf on June 10, 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2005b.

UU.S. Nuclear Plants." Accessed at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at.a-glance/reactors/brunswick.html on

June 10, 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. "Future Fuel Cells Research and Development."

Accessed at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/ on June 10, 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005a. "North Carolina Wind Resources." Accessed at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state-energy/tech_wind.cfm?state=NC on June 10, 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005b. "North Carolina Solar Resources." Accessed at

http//www.eere.energy.gov/state-energy/techsolar.cfm?state=NC on June 10, 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005c. "North Carolina Hydropower Resources."

Accessed at http://www.eere.energy.gov/state-energy/tech-hydropower.cfm?state=NC on June

10,2005.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005d. "North Carolina Geothermal Resources."

Accessed at httpJ/www.eere.energy.gov/state-energy/tech-geothermal.cfm?state=NC on June

10, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. "Municipal Solid Waste Disposal."

Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpVdisposal.htm on June 10, 2005.

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. "Obstruction Marking and Lighting."

Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1 K. Accessed at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/aVcircV.pdf on

June 10, 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report. 'Section 6.3-Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 8-54 April 2006
Alternatives

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities - Supplement 1 Regarding the Decommissioning of

Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586 Supplement 1, Washington, D.C. Accessed at

httpi/www.nrc.gov/reading-mi/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/srO586/ on June 10, 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 21 Regarding Browns Ferry

Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3. NUREG-1437, Supplement 21. Accessed at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rmVdoc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1 437/supplement2l / on July 12,

2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. 'Early Site Permits - Licensing Reviews."

Accessed at http:l/www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp.html on June 10, 2005.

April 2006 8-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25

9.0 Summary and Conclusions

On October 18, 2004, the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), now doing business as

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses (OLs) for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,

Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), for an additional 20-year period. If the OLs are renewed, State

regulatory agencies and CP&L will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to operate,

based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the jurisdiction of the State

or the purview of the owners. If the OLs are not renewed, then the plants must be shut down at

or before the expiration of the current OLs, which expire on September 8, 2016, for Unit 1, and

on December 27, 2014, for Unit 2.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA 1969) (42 United States

Code 4321) requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) for major Federal actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented Section

102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. Part 51 identifies

licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission

requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL; 10 CFR

51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GElS),

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,1999).(")

Upon acceptance of the CP&L application, the NRC began the environmental review process

described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing, on January 12, 2005, (70 FR 2188) a notice of

intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping meetings. The staff visited the BSEP site in

January 2005 and held public scoping meetings on January 27, 2005, in Southport, North

Carolina (NRC 2005). The staff reviewed the CP&L Environmental Report (ER) (CP&L 2004)

and compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, and conducted an independent

review of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, the

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1:

Operating License Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff also considered the public comments

received during the scoping process for preparation of this supplemental environmental impact

statement (SEIS) for BSEP. The public comments received during the scoping process are

provided in Appendix A, Part I, of this SEIS.

The staff held two public meetings in Southport, North Carolina, on October 18,2005, to

describe the results of the NRC environmental review and to answer questions in order to

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

references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2006 9-1 A 0 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Summary and Conclusions

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

this SEIS. All the comments received on the draft SEIS were considered by the staff in

developing this final SEIS. These comments are presented and addressed in Appendix A,

Part II.

This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considered and weighed the environmental

effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action,

and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. This SEIS also

includes the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The NRC has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from

the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal

(other than NRC) decisionmakers.

The evaluation criterion for the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)

and the GEIS, is to determine

... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great

that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would

be unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OLs.

NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage

need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 9-2 Apri 2006
Summary and Conclusions

action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility

within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in accordance with

§ 51.23(b).(a)

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing

an OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates

92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance - SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE - developed using Council on Environmental Quality guidelines. The

following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

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

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

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

important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 Issues considered in the GEIS, the staff analysis in the GEIS shows the

following:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective off site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

(a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 Is 'Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel after Cessation of Reactor Operations

- Generic Determination of No Significant Environmental lmpact."

April 2006 9-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Summary and Conclusions

These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

the GEIS for issues designated Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B.

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis In a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized.

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plantspecific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields

was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

This SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues considered in the

GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal with the alternatives. The

alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

renewing the OLs for BSEP) and alternative methods of power generation. These alternatives

were evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the

BSEP site or some other unspecified greenfield location.

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action - License

Renewal

CP&L and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither

CP&L nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to

Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither

the scoping process, CP&L, nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to BSEP that

has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of the

GEIS for all Category 1 issues that are applicable to BSEP.

CP&L's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are

applicable to BSEP, as well as of environmental justice and chronic effects from

electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed the CP&L analysis for each issue and has

conducted an independent review of each issue. Six Category 2 issues are not applicable

because they are related to plant design features or site characteristics not found at BSEP.

Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS because they are specifically related to

refurbishment. CP&L (2004) has stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as

required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or

modifications as necessary to support the continued operation of BSEPfor the license renewal

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 9-4 April2006
Summary and Conclusions

period. In addition, any replacement of components or additional inspection activities are within

the bounds of normal plant component replacement and, therefore, are not expected to affect

the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in the Final

Environmental Statement Related to Continued Construction and Proposed Issuance of an

Operating License for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2 (AEC 1974).

Ten Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are

discussed in detail in this SEIS. Four of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply

both to refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term and are only discussed in this

SEIS in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 10 Category 2 issues and

environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of SMALL

significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS. In addition, the staff

determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus on the

existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further

evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the

staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate

SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs and the individual plant examination of external

events report for BSEP and the plant improvements already made, CP&L identified 12

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. CP&L has committed to further evaluate these 12 SAMAs.

The staff concludes that three additional SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial. However, none

of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified relate to adequately managing the effects of

aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as

part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable

commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the

environment and long-term productivity.

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review

conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license

renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts

associated with the initial construction have been avoided, have been mitigated, or have

April 2006 9-5 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Summary and Conclusions

already occurred. The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those

associated with refurbishment and continued operation during the renewal term.

The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL

significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The

adverse impacts of likely alternatives if BSEP ceases operation at or before the expiration of the

current OLs will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of this unit, and

they may be greater for some impact categories in some locations.

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of BSEP during the current

license period was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments to be

considered in this SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an additional

20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for plant maintenance

and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent offsite storage

space for the spent fuel assemblies.

The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the renewal term are

the fuel and the permanent HLW storage space. BSEP replaces approximately one-third of the

fuel assemblies in each of the two units during every refueling outage, which occurs on a

24-month cycle.

The likely power generation alternatives if BSEP ceases operation on or before the expiration of

the current OLs will require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement

plants as well as for fuel to run the plants.

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the

BSEP site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is now

well established. Renewal of the OLs for BSEP and continued operation of the plants will not

alter the existing balance but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial of

the application to renew the OLs will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the balance in a

manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental

consequences of turning the BSEP site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 9-6 ApriI2006
Summary and Conclusions

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of

License Renewal and Alternatives

The proposed action is renewal of the OLs for BSEP, Units 1 and 2. Chapter 2 describes the

site, the power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3,

no refurbishment and no refurbishment impacts are expected at BSEP. Chapters 4 through 7

discuss environmental issues associated with renewal of the OLs. Environmental issues

associated with the no-action alternative and alternatives involving power generation and use

reduction are discussed in Chapter 8.

The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the

application for renewal of the OLs for Unit 1 and 2 ), the no-action alternative (denial of the

application), alternatives involving nuclear or coal- or gas-fired generation of power at the BSEP

site and an unspecified alternate site, and a combination of altematives are compared in

Table 9-1. Impact levels assume closed-cycle cooling. Because once-through cooling may be

possible for facilities located at the BSEP site, impacts using this method of heat dissipation

were also evaluated. In those cases in which the impact levels using once-through cooling

would differ from impacts using closed-cycle cooling, such differences are noted.

Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental impacts of the proposed action are

SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not

assigned [see Chapter 6]). The alternative actions, including the no-action alternative, may

have environmental impacts in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or

LARGE significance.

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996, 1999); (2) the CP&L ER (2004);

(3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review;

and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the

Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for BSEP are

not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers

would be unreasonable.

April 2006 9-7 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
C: Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative

I Methods of Generation Using Closed-Cycle Cooling Except as Otherwise Specified 3

Proposed No-Action Coal-Fired New Nuclear Combination of

Action Alternative Generation Natural-Ga-ired Generation Generation Alternatives D)

Cn Impact License Dental of Alternate Brunewick Alternate Brunswick Alternate Brunswick Alternate Q

Category Renewal Renewal Brunswick Site Site Site Site'( Shte SHe Site Site C)

CD Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE to SMALL to MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE to in

3LURGE LARGE MODERATE" LARGE LARGE o

Water Use and SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to

Ouality- MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE

Groundwater

Waste SMALL SMALL MODERATE MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Soclo- SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE to SMALL to MODERATE

CD economics MODERATE LARLE ARGE MODERATE

do _l _ 4

Historic and SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Archaeological

Resources

(a) Except for collectve oftste radilogl Impacs from the uel cycle and from high-level waste and spent-fel disposal, forwhch a snficance level was not assigned. See Chapter 6 for details.

(b) Impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE wfih oncehrugh coolng.

(c) Impacts would be MODERATE with once-through cooling.

_.

0

0

0)
Summary and Conclusions

9.4 References

1 0 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 1 0, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

1 0 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 1 0, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

70 FR 2188. January 12, 2005 "Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and

Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. Docket No. 50-324 and

50-325, Southport, North Carolina.

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

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. Final Environmental Statement related to the

operation of Brunswick Steam-Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. Docket No. 50-261, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report, "Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1 Summary

of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final Report."

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

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

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

Process: Summary Report - Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units I and 2, Southport, North

Carolina. Washington, D.C.

April 2006 9-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I - Comments Received During Scoping

On January 12, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a notice of

intent in the Federal Register (70 FR 2188) to notify the public of the staff's intent to prepare a

plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the renewal application

for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) operating license and to conduct

scoping. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS has been prepared in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 51. As outlined by Part 51, the NRC initiated the scoping process with

the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and

local government agencies; Native American tribal organizations, local organizations; and

individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at scheduled public

meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than March 11, 2005.

The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at Southport

City Hall In Southport, North Carolina, on January 27, 2005. Approximately 40 people attended

the meetings. Each session began with NRC staff members providing brief overviews of the

license renewal process and the NEPA process. After the NRC's prepared statements, the

meetings were open for public comments. Seven attendees provided oral statements that were

recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. The meeting transcripts are an

attachment to the Scoping Meeting Summary (ML050730184) dated March 11, 2005.

No additional comments were received by the NRC.

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractors reviewed the

transcripts to identify specific comments and issues. Each set of comments from a given

commenter was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID) so the comments could be traced

back to the original transcript containing the comment. Specific comments were numbered

sequentially within each comment set.

Table A.1 identifies the individuals who provided comments applicable to the environmental

review and the Commenter ID number associated with each set of comments. Individuals who

spoke at the scoping meetings are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting.

To maintain consistency with the Brunswick Scoping Summary Report dated May 24, 2005, the

unique identifier used in that report for each set of comments Is retained in this report.

April 2006 A-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period

Commenter

ID Commenter Affiliation (If Stated) Comment Source

A Norman Holden Mayor, City of Southport Afternoon Scoping Meeting

B Paul Fisher Alderman, City of Southport Afternoon Scoping Meeting

C Mike Reaves President, Brunswick Community Afternoon Scoping Meeting

College

D Connie MaJure- Greater Wilmington Chamber of Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Rhett Commerce

E Karen Sphar Southport-Oak Island Chamber of Afternoon Scoping Meeting

Commerce

F May Moore Brunswick County Commissioner Evening Scoping Meeting

G Cynthia Tart Director of Communities and Evening Scoping Meeting

Schools in Brunswick County,

Chairman of County Parks and

Recreation Board

Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific

objectives were combined to capture the common essential Issues raised by the commenters.

The comments fall into one of the following general groups::

* Specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC

environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address

Category 1 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They

also address alternatives and related Federal actions.

* General comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license renewal or

(2) on the renewal process, the NRC's regulations, and the regulatory process. These

comments may or may not be specifically related to the BSEP license renewal

application.

* Questions that do not provide new information.

* Specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically excluded

from the purview of NRC environmental regulations. These comments typically address

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 A-2 April 2006
Appendix A

issues such as the need for power, emergency preparedness, current operational safety

issues, and safety issues related to operation during the renewal period.

Each comment received during this scoping process is summarized in the Brunswick Scoping

Summary Report. The ADAMS accession number for the summary report is ML051440479.

This accession number Is provided to facilitate access to the document through the Public

Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) at httpi/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

The following pages summarize the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping

process and discuss the disposition of the comments and suggestions. The parenthetical

alpha-numeric identifier after each comment refers to the comment set (Commenter ID) and the

comment number.

Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

A.1.1. General Support of Nuclear Power

A.1.2. Questions about the License Renewal Process

A.1.3. General Support of License Renewal at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

A.1.4. Comments Concerning the Environment

A.1.5. Comments Concerning Socioeconomics

A.1.6. Comments Concerning Plant Operations and Safety

A.1.7. Comments Concerning Waste Management

A.1 Comments and Responses

A-1.1. General Support of Nuclear Power

Comment: I firmly believe that the future generation of electricity should be geared towards

nuclear plants. (B-5)

Response: This comment Is supportive of nuclear power and is general in nature. The

comment provides no new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

A.11.2. Questions about the License Renewal Process

Comment: I think the one question that we all would ask is assuming that the license is

renewed in 14 and 16, 20 years down the road, what happens next? Do you renew again, or do

you have to mothball this plant? And I think the area would be very concerned about where that

would leave us. (F-4)

April 2006 A-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

Response: If the licensee desires, based on a variety of economic and structural factors,

current regulations do allow the opportunity to renew the operating license again for another 20

years. The decision to apply would be up to the licensee, and could be made up to 20 years

before the end of the license, which in this situation would be around 2014 and 2016 if the

current licenses are renewed This comment requests information about the license renewal

process and provide no new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

A.1.3. General Support of License Renewal at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,

Units 1 and 2

Comment: The plant means so much to the City of Southport, and we really need to see it

relicensed. ...But ladies and gentlemen, you are the ones that make the decision. I'm up here,

and I would get on my knees if I could get back up, to beg for you to please relicense the

Brunswick nuclear plant. (A-1)

Comment: I strongly recommend that you renew the license for the Brunswick plant. By doing

that, I think you'll go into a win-win situation. (B-4)

Comment: I'm here today to support the Brunswick nuclear plant and their application for

license renewal. ... strongly encourage you to support their [Brunswick] application. (C-1)

Comment: On behalf of the 1650 companies that are members of the Greater Wilmington

Chamber of Commerce, I would like to voice my very strong support for the processes,

products and people of Progress Energy's Brunswick Nuclear Plant. ...Without a doubt, this

facility and this company is an impressive one. Relicensing should be an obvious outcome of

your work. (D-1)

Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to speak favorably about the license renewal

application for Progress Energy's Brunswick plant. ...We are grateful to have the plant and

Progress Energy as part of our community. We encourage the NRC to look favorably on this

license renewal. (E-1)

Response: These comments are supportive of license renewal for BSEP and are general in

nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated

further.

A.1.4. Comments Concerning the Environment

Comment: Environmentally, the plant has contributed to the ongoing study of marine life in our

area, and they take great pride in the protection of that marine life. (E-3)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 A-4 April 2006
Appendix A

Comment: The nuclear power plant is environmentally clean. ...We have good fish. We have

good birds. We have clean water. We have clean air. We'd like to keep it that way, and we

feel that Progress Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have worked to make this

happen for us, and it's been a big help for us. (F-4)

Response: These comments are supportive of BSEP's impact on the environment and are

general in nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be

evaluated further.

A.1.5. Comments Concerning Socloeconomics

Comment: [The plant means so much]...not only to Southport, southeastern North Carolina,

but for the whole state of North Carolina because all of you are aware of the economy. ...But

when the nuclear plant came to Southport, things really began to prosper. (A-2)

Comment: This plant has a huge impact on our local economy - $901 million in 2003,

14 percent of our region's economic output. Economies don't start and stop at county lines, but

if you go a few miles up the river to New Hanover County where my office is, the impact is still

huge. ...Then there are the contributions this company makes that are harder to quantify but

equally valuable to this region. (D-3)

Comment: [T]he plant has an overwhelming economic Impact on the economy of our area.

...Not only has the plant been good for the economy, the employees of the plant are active in

our community. (E-2)

Comment: This plant provides stable and excellent paying jobs to that workforce. (E-4)

Comment: They have done an enormous thing for our tax base since the '70s when the power

plant began being constructed. ...lt's not as an enormous a part of our tax base as it was in

1970 or 75, obviously, but it's still quite a large part of the money that both the town of

Southport and the County of Brunswick counts on, so that is an issue. (F-2)

Response: These comments are supportive of BSEP's impact on the local economy and are

general in nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be

evaluated further.

Comment: And we have a great relationship with Progress Energy and the Brunswick plant

here for community relations. ...lt's a definite asset to the community. We have an outstanding

relationship, in my opinion, with the plant out there and Progress Energy. (B-2)

April 2006 A-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

Comment: They have been and continue to be a good corporate partner with the college.

...We also in the past have had a wonderful relationship with them in providing education, both

there on the site as well as having students from there coming on our campus. (C-2)

Comment: Without a doubt, Progress Energy is among the best corporate citizens I have ever

had the pleasure of working with. But as important as that is, the human capital invested in our

region by employees of Progress Energy. ...Our community is better because of these

corporate and individual efforts. (D-4)

Comment: I'm delighted to be here on behalf of Progress Energy. They've been a wonderful

corporate neighbor in Brunswick County. ...They've worked with us on fire and rescue and

security, which Is Important. ...Progress Energy lets us use their media center. They work with

us on school programs. They're a source of employment of many friends and neighbors of

mine, so it's been an excellent neighbor and a great addition to the county. (F-1)

Comment: In a partnership with a lease agreement with Progress Energy, we now have a park

here in the Southport/Oak Island area, and without the partnership with Progress Energy, that

would not be possible. (G-2)

Response: These comments are supportive of CP&L's relationship with the community and

are general In nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be

evaluated further.

Comment: They [CP&L] have enabled vast improvement to our school system. (F-3)

Comment: I've been here for 35 years, and I've seen, as May has said, what an impact the

company has had on the community, the jobs it's provided, the educational resources it's

provided in the schools. (G-1)

Comment: And if I could mention something as a plea ...The plant sitting here has so many

resources as far as education for our children, and they are our future...41Jf we had some of

those resources in the schools working with our science teachers, you know, what could we be

teaching our children, our future, about nuclear plants in their area, about their future, about

jobs that are there? So I would encourage just the connection there, to -- to work on it and to

strengthen it to better educate our children and just join forces with 'em. (G-3)

Response: These comments refer to CP&L's supportive relationship with the local schools,

encourages additional support, and are general in nature. The comments provide no new

information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 A-6 April 2006
Appendix A

A.1.6. Comments Concerning Plant Operations and Safety

Comment: I think if you look at the operations of the Brunswick plant, you'll find why we talk

about operations. It's always something nice to talk about because it's always way up here.

They are the world leaders and that's documented. (B-1)

Comment: In the City of Southport we're very comfortable with the nuclear plant out here, and

we're proud of their operating record and safety record. (B-3)

Comment: I have personally visited the plant on several occasions and have confidence in the

personnel that work there. ...l view the Brunswick nuclear plant as a clean and safe industry,

one that is sensitive to the environment. They do an excellent job of keeping the public

informed about drills and other safety issues. (C-3)

Comment: The plant is a safe, well-run, efficient facility. (D-2)

Response: These comments address BSEP's operational safety record and are general in

nature. The comments provide no new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated

further.

A.1.7. Comments Concerning Waste Management

Comment: I am completely comfortable with the safety of how we store spent fuel. However,

I urge the federal government to get along with the YUCCA mountain project. (B-6)

Response: This comment is in support of how spent fuel is handled at BSEP, and encourages

completion of a permanent high-level waste storage facility. The comment provides no new

information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.

April 2006 A-7 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

Part 11. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1

and 2, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25, referred to as the draft SEIS)

to Federal, State, Native American Tribal, and local government agencies as well as interested

members of the public. As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the

staff:

* placed a copy of the draft SEIS in the NRC's electronic Public Document Room, its

license renewal website, and at the William Madison Randall Library in Wilmington,

North Carolina,

* sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant, members of the public who requested

copies, and certain Federal, State, Native American Tribal, and local agencies,

* published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Registeron

September 7, 2005, (70 FR 53257),

* issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and

postings In public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS,

* announced and held public meetings in Southport, North Carolina, on October 18, 2005,

to describe the results of the environmental review and answer related questions,

* issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of

the draft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft

SEIS,

* established an e-mail address to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the

Internet.

During the draft SEIS comment period, the staff received a total of three comment letters from

reviewing agencies. No commenters spoke during the public meetings. The staff reviewed the

public meeting transcripts and the comment letters that are part of the docket file for the

application, all of which are available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access

Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The ADAMS accession number for the public meeting summary, which

includes the complete meeting transcripts, is ML053320483. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.2,

contains a summary of the comments and the staff's responses. Appendix A, Part II, Section

A.3, contains the comment letters.

Each comment identified by the staff was assigned a specific alpha-numeric identifier (marker).

That identifier is typed in the margin of the letter at the beginning of the discussion of the

comment. A cross-reference of the alpha-numeric identifiers, the author of the comment, the

page where the comment can be found, and the section(s) of this report in which the comment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 A-8 Apriil 2006
Appendix A

is addressed is provided in Table A-2. Comments were identified in two of the three comment

letters. These comment letters are identified by the letters A and B. The accession number is

provided for the written comments after the letter date to facilitate access to the document

through ADAMS.

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

Commenter Commenter Comment Source and Page of Section(s) Where

ID ADAMS Accession Letter with Addressed

Number _Comment

D-A-1 Heinz Mueller, Letter, A-14 A.2.1

EPA Reclon IV ML0534301 110 _

D-A-2 Heinz Mueller, Letter, A-15 A.2.2

EPA Realon IV ML0534301 110

D-B-1 Edward O'Neil, Letter, A-18 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330

D-B-2 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-1 8 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330 __.

D-B-3 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-18 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330

D-B-4 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-18 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330 _

D-B-5 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-18 A.2.3

Progress Energy ML0533604330

D-B-B Edward O'Nell Letter, A-18 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330

D-B-7 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-18 A.2.1

Proaress Enermv ML0533604330

D-B-8 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-18 A.2.3

Progress Enerav ML0533604330

D-B-9 Edward O'Nell Letter, A-19 A.2.1

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330

D-B-1 0 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-19 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330 _

D-B-1 1 Edward O'Nell Letter, A-19 A.2.3

Progress Enerav ML0533604330

D-B-12 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-1 9 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330 _

D-B-1 3 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-19 A.2.3

Progress Enerav ML0533604330 -

D-B-14 Edward O'NeDi Letter, A-19 A.2.3

Proaress Enerav ML0533604330

D-B-15 Edward O'Nell Letter, A-20 A.2.3

Progress Energy ML0533604330

D-B-16 Edward O'Neil Letter, A-21 A.2.3

Progress Enerrav ML0533604330

April 2006 A-9 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

A.2 Comments and Responses

Comments in this section are grouped in the following categories:

A.2.1 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology

A.2.2 Comments Concerning Human Health and Radiological Impact

A.2.3 Comments Concerning Socioeconomics

A.2.4 Editorial Comments

A.2.1 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology

Comment: Protecting the environment involves...continuing measures to limit

bioentrainment and other impacts to aquatic species from surface water withdrawals andi

discharges. D-A-1

Response: The BSEP's cooling system is described in Section 2.1.3 of this SEIS. Sections

2.2.2 and 2.2.3 describe how the NPDES permit, issued by NCDNER with oversight by US EPA

and renewedperiodically, ensures protection of aquatic resources. Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and

4.1.3 evaluate the potential impacts associated with continued operation of the intake and

discharge. With regards to the intake, the NPDES permit limits are designed to minimize

impingement and entrainment of organisms at the plant. In addition, based on the new EPA

regulations for cooling water intakes (Section 316b of the Clean Water Act), BSEP is in

consultation with NCDENR to determine if any additional requirements are necessary for

compliance with the new regulation's performance standards. Regarding the discharge, the

facility, through its NPDES permit, is required to regulate all aspects of its discharge, including

the chemical concentration, thermal characteristics, and the flow regime. Oversight of the

facility's compliance with its permit requirements is conducted by NCDENR. It should also be

noted that all aspects of the facility's discharge were evaluated as part of this SEIS for the

BSEP and that no additional environmental impacts were identified beyond those identified

herein.

Comment: Page 2-28, lines 35-36: It is requested that the last sentence be re-worded to

state 'No shortnose sturgeon have been collected at BSEP (CP&L 2004a)." This is consistent

with information presented in the license renewal application (i.e., page 2-12 of the

Environmental Report). D-B-7

Response: The last sentence will be revised as stated.

A.2.2 Comments Concerning Human Health and Radiological Impact

Comment: The EIS should discuss a scenario that addresses the impact of a release from a

spent fuel storage cask, and the resulting implications of a dose to plant personnel and the

public. The resulting effective dose equivalent at the exclusion area boundary and in the low

population zone should be calculated. The document does not address the consequences of a

breach on this facility and the resulting consequences to the public. In addition, since

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 A-1 0 April 2006
Appendix A

Brunswick is located on the Atlantic Coast, additional contingencies may need to be considered

to secure fuel stored in casks onsite during category 4 or 5 hurricanes. D-A-2

Response: This comment by EPA relates to potential impacts from dry cask storage of spent

fuel. On-site spent fuel storage facilities are licensed separately from the reactor license

renewal process. The NRC authorizes the storage of spent nuclear fuel at an independent

spent fuel storage facility (ISFSI) under two licensing options: a site-specific license or a

general license.

Under the site-specific license option, the NRC performs a technical review of the safety

aspects of the proposed ISFSI following the receipt of a license application. If the application is

approved, the NRC issues a site-specific spent fuel storage license that specifies the technical

requirements and operating conditions (fuel specifications, cask leak testing, surveillance, and

other requirements). This license is valid for 20 years and is a stand-alone license, independent

of the NRC license to possess and operate a nuclear power facility.

Under the general license option, a nuclear plant licensee is authorized to store spent fuel in

NRC-approved casks that have been demonstrated to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part

72 and have been issued a Certificate of Compliance for use at an existing site that is licensed

for operating a nuclear power reactor under 10 CRF Part 50. Prior to such use, the licensee is

required to perform evaluations that demonstrate to the NRC that their site is adequate for

storing spent fuel In dry casks by showing that the conditions and technical specifications in

cask's Certificate of Compliance can be met. The licensee also must review its programs for

security, emergencies, quality assurance, training, and radiation protection and must make the

necessary changes to incorporate the ISFSI at its reactor site. The NRC performs on-site

inspections to verify that the ISFSI is operated in accordance with the relevant specifications

and requirements.

Under either of the above licensing options, the site-specific safety aspects of the selected dry

cask spent fuel storage facility will be reviewed and approved by the NRC, and that review will

include the assessment of the potential consequences of an accident affecting the cask. This

comment provides no new significant information and will not be further evaluated. No change

was made to the SEIS to address this comment.

A.2.3 Comments Concerning Socloeconomics

Comment: Page 2-49, lines 26-29: This section discusses erosion at Caswell Beach and

speculation that the BSEP cooling water outfall may be a contribution factor.

On page 3 of the July 2003 issue of the "Caswell Beach Sandpiper," published by the Town of

Caswell Beach, there is discussion of investigation of beach erosion funded by the Town. The

article states:

April 2006 A-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

... although an obvious erosion hot spot exists in the area extending from just east of the

pumping station, this area experienced significant rates of erosion even before the pumping

station was built. In fact, erosion rates in this area were considerably greater 'before

construction" compared to "after construction."

Additionally, in an article in the April 16, 2003 edition of 'The State Port Pilot," newspaper,

entitled "Erosion not fault of outfall," the investigator is quoted as telling the town

commissioners:

There is nothing in the history of shoreline changes that would indicate that the pumping

station has had any impact on shoreline changes along Caswell Beach and the east end of

Oak Island.

It is requested that this section be re-written to acknowledge the Town of Caswell Beach

Investigation. D-B-9

Response: Section 2.2.8.4 has been revised to address the issue of beach erosion.

A.2.4 Editorial Comments

Comment: Page xii, line 15; Page 2-7, line 3; Page 2-14, line 21; Page 2-48, line 21:

"BESP" should be "BSEP". D-B-1

Comment: Page 1-8, line 2: The license renewal application was submitted by letter dated

October 18,2004. D-B-2

Comment: Page 2-23, line 30: "king fish" should be "Southern kingfish". D-B-3

Comment: Page 2-23, line 31: "Mentaicirrhus" should be "Menticirrhusr. D-B-4

Comment: Page 2-25, lines 6-8: Atlantic sturgeon's scientific name should be "Acipenser

oxyrhynchus versus "Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus". D-B-5

Comment: Page 2-39, line 36: 'Witherspoon" should be "Weatherspoon". D-B-6

Comment: Page 4-31, line 9: "procedures" should be "a guideline". D-B-8

Comment: Page 4-31, lines 10 and 11: It is requested that the last sentence be re-written to

state: "This guideline provides that cultural resource assessments be performed for certain

land-disturbing activities and provides guidance on inadvertent discoveries of graves or

archaeological sites." D-B-1 0

Comment: Page 4-36, line 27: "licenserenewar should be "license renewal". D-B-1 1

Comment: Page 4-39, line 16: "Military Ocean Port Sunny Point" should be "Military Ocean

Terminal Sunny Point". D-B-12

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 A-12 April 2006
Appendix A

Comment: Page 4-39, line 27: It is requested that the words "and tracks" be removed from

the sentence. The current wording overstates CP&L's activities regarding terrestrial species.

D-B-1 3

Comment: Page 8-50, line 26: UBFN" should be "BSEP". D-B-14

Response: The text will be edited accordingly.

Comment: Page 2-23, lines 14 and 32: Symphurus plagiusa Is referred to as blackcheek

tonguefish on line 14, and as sole on line 32. D-B-15

Response: "sole" on line 32 has been changed to "blackcheek tonguefish"'

Comment: The current maximum dependable capacity is 938 MW(e) for Unit 1 and 900

MW(e) for Unit 2. The value of 1006 MW(e) was used for conservatism. D-B-1 6

Response: The text has been revised to reflect the comment. Revised text on page G-28

(first sentence after the equation for RPC) now reads: "... which conservatively bounds the

maximum dependable capacity of 938 MW(e) for Unit I and 900 MW(e) for Unit 2.'

The word 'Therefore" was deleted from the next sentence.

April 2006 A-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 4

IV AATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER

61 FORSYTH STREET

Z =ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30a3034

December 2,2005

Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch

U.S. NucleanRegulatory CommtissionJlt ) .5"

Mail StopT6-D59

Washington, D.C. 20555-;0001 , 5j Y Z.r

RE: EPA RePiew and Comments on o9

Draft Generic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Gi

License Renewal of Nutdear Plants, Supplement 25

Regrding Bnwck St- Electrie Plant, UnIts 1 and 2

CEQ No. 20050362

Dear Sir.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 reviewed the Draft Generic

Supplemental Environmental Inpact Statement (DGSEIS), pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean

Air Act, and Section 102 (2XC) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The purpose

of this letter is to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with EPA'S comments

regarding potential Impacts of the proposed rnewal of the Operating Licenses (OLa) for

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units I and 2.

Tbe Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) submitted an application to renew the

OperatingLicenses (OLA) for the Brunswick SteamElectric Plant Units 1 and 2 for an additional

20 years. lhe proposed action (license renewal) would provide for continued operation and

maintenance of existing facilities and transmission lines. The facility uscs water from the Cape

Fear River Esuary for plant cooling, and discharges wastewater through underwater pipes into

the Atlantic Ocean 2000 ft offshore.

Based on the review of the DOSEIS, the document received an EC-1 rating. meaning

that environmental concerns exist regarding some aspects of the proposed project. Specifically,

prtecting the envitonment involves the continuing need for appropriate storage and ultimate

disposition of radioactive wastes generated on-site, as well as continuing measures to limit

bioentrainment and other Impacts to aquatic species from surface water withdrawals and

discharges.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program

authorizes the discharge of pollutants from certain facilities to waters of the United States.

Administration of the NPDES permit program In North Carolina is delegated by EPA to the

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' (NCDENR') Division of

Water Quality. The Bnrnswickc Steam Electric Plant has an NPDES Permit issued by the

Division of Water Quality. Mmhe NPDES Permitlimits specified pollutant discharges from the

ScXss ,JF bbnw WfwwP&9* -Ab 

-A61mIS ;W pg,>V-0.3

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 A-14 April 2006
Appendix A

plant, requires monitoring of discharges, and regulates the flow and thermal impacts of

discharges. The NPDES permittee has operated and is operating In compliance with the NPDES

permit requirements.

Consistent with most of the Environmental Impact Statements that the NRC is approving

from utilities requesting license renewals, the NRC is not requiring that utilities plan for the

possibility of having to store spent nuclear fuel onsite. This DSGQES does state that spent fue is

temporarily stored onsite in spent fuel pools, or is shipped offuite for storage in spent fuel pools

at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The document states that the applicant is considering

construction of an independent spent fuel storage installation for storage of spent fuel In dry D-A-2

storage casks at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.

The BIS should discuss a scenario that addresses the impact of a release from a spent fuel

storage cask, and the resulting Implications of a dose to plant personnel and the public. The

resulting effective dose equivalent at the exclusion area boundary and in the low population zone

should be calculated. The document does not address the consequences of a breach on this

facility and the resulting consequences to the public. In addition, since Brunswick is located on

the Atlantic Coast, additional contingencies may need to be considered to secure fuel stored in

casks onsite during category 4 or 5 hurricanes.

The DGSEIS acknowledges that OL renewal of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant will

require continuing radiological monitoring of all plant effluents. Appropriate storage of spent

fuel assemblies and radioactive wastes on-site is required, In order to prevent impacts. In the

Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 5123).the Commission generically determined that the spent

fuel generated by any reactor can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed

operating life of the reactor. Ultimately, long4-rim radioactive waste disposition will require

transportation of wastes to a permitted repository site. We note the information in the DGSEIS

regarding the expected availability of Yucca Mountain as a geological repository for spent

nuclear fuel and high-level waste.

In conclusion, the document states that the OL renewal would result in fewer

environmental impacts than the feasible alternatives for generating power, and the NRC

considers impacts of OL renewal to be small. Overall, the Impacts as defined in the DGSEIS

appear to be within acceptable limits. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this

document. If we can be of fther assistance, please contact Ramona McConney of my staff at

(404) 562-9615.

Sincerely

Heinz J. Mueller, Chief

Office of Environmental Assessment

April 2006 A-15 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

-* a

I I comninissj0 n

Serwces 

Of!ice

''RUS RDS DGTl

Wf30 tY 

IN 8H 51

O RECEIVED

OfAd 

on

V land DPR-62

fC46460)

to the U. S 1ttnw or

beris 36 X04306)

I

I ^atnce: 

e Creis.

-- gick 

Letter 

in., bb

OPetatis2 hoeresa! 

a

0ddlAUbn.t (st,~

COM - FLU gs

/

tionEs ,, c land 2."

, 

my queatje, 

.* -- - 'w, -

-- ugA

. s se R e se w ale r 

(9 1 0) 5 7C 8 7 hE

I:12- ,' *- -

JUREG 1437, Supplement 

25

S*lferwy,

Id 

02Jd Owe 

caticpt 

I

a =-X:) 

-~

G-, Air Age

A-16

April 2006
Appendix A

BSEP MS0143

Enclosure

Page I of 3

Comnents on Dnrft NUREO-1437:Suonlement 25

On October 1I, , CarolinaPower & light Company (CP&L). now doing business as

Progress Energy Cuolinas, nc.. requested the renewal of the operating licenses for Bnmswick

Steam Electric Plat (BSEP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, to extend the tms of their operating lces an

additional 20 years beyond the cunrent expiration daes.

On Septenber 9,2005. the ttRC published. for comment. NUREG-1437, 'Generic

Envinmrental Impact Statement for Ucmse Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 25.

Regarding BEnnswick StamElectric Plant. Units I and 2.' be following table providcs

CP&L's comments on this supplement.

Page xii, line 15 'BESr houldbeBSEP

Page 2-7. Une 3

Page 2-14. line 21

PaVe 2-48. line 21

Page 1-8. line 2 The license renewal appication was vubmitted by letter

dated October 18. 2004.

Pae 2-23, lines 14 and 32 Sinphasnpicgfiuaa Is referred to as blackcheek

tonguefish on line 14, and as sole on line 32.

Page 2-23. line 30 _ kngfish' should be _Soutern kingfih

Page 2-23. line 31 "Mtnzaiainrhuzz should be 'Mentkicirrl

Page 2-25. lines 6 - 8 Atlantic sturgeon's scientific name should be 'Acwpeser

oxyrhynchus' versus 'Acpewr aryrhynchw

myrhynch-s

Page 2-28. lne 35 - 36 It is reqpested that the last sentence be re-worded to stte:

No shortnose sturgeon have been collected at BSEP

(CP&L2004a).

This is consistent with information presented in the

license renewal applicaion (i e., page 2-12 of the

Environmental Report).

Page 2.39, line 36 Witherspaoon should be 'Weathespooe

D-B-I

D-B-2

D-B-3

D-B-4

D-B-5

D-B-6

D-B-7

D-B-8

April 2006 A-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

BSEP0540143

EnclosUr

Page 2 of 3

_ =! v !

L-.111-L2 ' %klllll  i

Page 249. lines 26 .29 This section discusses erosion at Caswell Beach and

speculation that the BSEP cooling water outfall may be a

contribution factor.

On pagc 3 of the luly 2003 issue of the 'Caswel Beach

Sandpiper," publided by the Towe of Caswell Beach,

t is dision of investigation of beach erosion

funded by the Town. The article states:

... although an obviout erosion bot spot exists in the

rea extending fromijust east of the pamping station,

this uea experienced significant rates of erosion even

before the pumping station was built. In fact, erosion

rates in this area were considerably greater "before

construesion" compared to afterconstruction.'

Additionally, In an article in the AprD1 16,2003 edition of

'The Staue PortPilot,' newspper, entitled Erosion not

fault of outfa.' the Investigator is quoted as telling the

town cbrssionen:

lhere is nothing In the history of shoreline changes that

would indicate that the punping station tas had any

Impt on shoreline changes along Caswell Beach and

the east end of Oak Island.

It is requested that this section be o-written to

acknowledge the Town of Caswell Beach investigation.

0-510;

I

.

D-B-11

D-B-120

D-B-131

D-B 14

Page 4-31. line 9 procedurs should be 'a guidcline"

Page 4-31,lines 10 and 11 It is requested that the last sentence be re-written to state:

This guideline provides that cultural resource

assesanents be performed for certain landdisturbing

activities and provides guidance on Inadvertent

discoveries of gras or archaeological dites.

Page 4-36, line 27 "Iicenscrenewal' should be 'license renewal'

Page 439, line t CMilitary Ocean Port Sunny Point" should be 'Military

OceanTeminal SunnyPoint'

Page 4.39. line 27 It Is requested that the words and tracks' be eoved

from the sentence. ITe curent wording overstates

CP&L's activities regarding terrestrial species.

.E,

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 A-18 April 2006
Appendix A

BSEP 05-0143

Enclosure

Page 3 of3

0 - wm

Page 8-50. line 26 LBFN* should be OBSEP

Pae 0-28, line 38 - 39 The cimmt maximum dependable capacity is 938 MWe

for Unit 1 and 900 MWe for Unit 2. Ibe value of

1006 MWe was used for conservatism.

D-B-1S

D-B-16

April 2006 A-1 9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix A

Jan 13 as 10t31a

United States Department ofthe Interior 4

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Ofieof EnTirnmental Policy W~ ComUPiarc .TAK PRIEW

-r1W 8. RalmnFO&W -AMERICA.

73 Sprig Sf. SW.

M3 G3

~R05fl9s

ER osngt

December 13.2005

het. Rulen Review and dimctivcu Branch

U.S. Nucicar Regulatoy Commition;

Malt Stop T6-D59

Wauhngton DC 20555-0001

RE: Dnft SupphG 25 to ih GcnezicEnvhcnmletImp St Sten for tbe Licre

Renewal of Carolina PowefvW Llgln CompLn, Brunswick SteamElecric Plam, Unts I

Wd 2 (NUREG-1437, draft Supplement 2S)

he Depan of the tnu r ha no cowneet o provide for pur couideraiaon ao the

Tfthrc EIS z ft 4me. If you nilud bav any quesio= you can rach e 404-331-

4524.

Sincertly.

Retgona Environtentl Officer

CC.

FWS R4

OEPCMWASO

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 A-20 April 2006
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The statement was

prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from other

NRC organizations, Earth Tech, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Argonne National

Laboratory, and Information Systems Laboratories.

I

I

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Alicia Williamson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

Richard Emch Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager/Radiation Protection

Andrew Kugler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief

Rani Franovich Nuclear Reactor Regulation Branch Chief

Cristina Guerrero Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

Samuel Hemandez Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management Support

James Wilson Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ecology/Water Issues

Jennifer Davis Nuclear Reactor Regulation Cultural Resources

Barry Zalcman Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Monitor

Robert Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation

Altematives

Robert Schaaf Nuclear Reactor Regulation Program Management

Anissa Coates Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

Nina Bamett Nuclear Reactor Regulation Administrative Support

EArTH TECH

John Szeligowski Technical Team Leader

Roberta Hurley Contract Manager

Kathleen Garvin Project Coordinator

Stephen Duda Aquatic/Terrestrial Ecology

Edward Kaczmarczyk Air Quality

Andrew Parker Socioeconomics

Charles Flynn Radiation Protection

Michael Pappalardo Cultural Resources

Bonnie Freeman Document Production

Stephen Dillard Aquatic Ecology

Susan Provenzano Land Use

Sarah Wesberry Technical Editor/Document

Production Lead

April 2006 B-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix B

Name

Mary Ann Parkhurst

Beverly Miller

Van Ramsdell

Dave Anderson

Susan Sargeant

Amanda Stegen

Mike Sackschewsky

Ellen Prendergast-Kennedy

Darby Stapp

Paul Hendrickson

Affiliation Function or Expertise

PACIFiC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY(

Task Leader

Deputy Task Leader

Air Ouality

Socioeconomics

Aquatic Ecology

Terrestrial Ecology

Terrestrial Ecology

Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources

Land Use, Related Federal Programs,

Alternatives

Water Use, Hydrology

Technical Editor

Publications Assistant

Document Production Lead

Document Production

Document Production

Document Production

-

Lance Vail

Cary Counts

Barbara Wilson

Debbie Schulz

Michael Parker

Susan Tackett

Rose Urbina

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORYm

Fred Monette Radiation Protection

INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORIES

Kim Green - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial

Institute.

(b) Argonne National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of Chicago.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 B-2 April 2006
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Carolina Power & Light Company's

Application for License Renewal of

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2

Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Carolina Power & Light Company's

Application for License Renewal of

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units 1 and 2

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) and other

correspondence related to the NRC staff's environmental review, under 1 0 CFR Part 51, of

CP&L application for renewal of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) operating license.

All documents, with the exception of those containing proprietary information, have been placed

in the Commission's Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, MD, and are available electronically from the Public Electronic Reading

Room found on the Internet at the following web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

From this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and

Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides text and Image files of NRC's public

documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of ADAMS. The ADAMS

accession numbers for each document are Included below.

I

October 18, 2004

October 18, 2004

October 21, 2004

October 25, 2004

November 4, 2004

Brunswick Units 1 and 2, Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage (Accession No. ML043060413)

BSEP Units 1 and 2, License Renewal Application

(Accession No. ML043060411)

Note-to-file regarding forthcoming public information session for the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to describe its license

renewal process (Accession No. ML042950307)

NRC press release No. 04-134, "NRC Announces Availability of License

Renewal Application for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2"

(Accession No. ML042990359)

Letter from Mr. Stephen Rynas, North Carolina Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), to NRC regarding

Federal Consistency Certification for license renewal of BSEP

(Accession No. ML043150301)

April 2006 C-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix C

November 9, 2004

November 10, 2004

1 December 6,2004

December 29, 2004

December 29, 2004

December 30, 2004

December 30, 2004

December 30, 2004

Letter from NRC to Ms. Ilene Brown, University of North Carolina at

Wilmington, regarding maintenance of reference material at the William

Madison Randall Library at the BSEP, Units 1 and 2 License Renewal

Application (Accession No. ML043170648)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, CP&L, regarding the receipt

and availability of the license renewal application for BSEP

(Accession No. ML043170248)

Federal Register Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application

and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding the Renewal of Facility

Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for an Additional 20-Year

Period (69 FR 70471)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, Regional Director, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS), requesting a list of protected species within

the area under evaluation for the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal

(Accession No. ML043650001)

Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries,

requesting a list of protected species within the area under evaluation for

the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal

(Accession No. ML043650002)

Letter from NRC to The Honorable Leon Jacobs, Tribal Council of the

Lumbee Tribe, Tribal Administrator, seeking input for its environmental

review to renew the operating licenses for the BSEP, Units 1 and 2

(Accession No. ML050050565)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Archie Ray Jacobs, Travel Chairman,

Development Association Executive Director, Waccamaw Siouan,

seeking input for its environmental review to renew the operating licenses

for the BSEP, Units I and 2 (Accession No. ML050050566)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Don Klima, Director, Office of Federal Agency

Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, seeking input for its

environmental review to renew the operating licenses for the BSEP,

Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML050050567)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 -2 April 2006
Appendix C

December 30, 2004

January 4,2005

January 12, 2005

January 12, 2005

February 2, 2005

February 2, 2004

February 3, 2005

February 4, 2005

February 4, 2005

Letter from NRC to Dr. Jeffrey Crow, Deputy Secretary of Archives and

History, State Historic Preservation Officer, seeking input for its

environmental review to renew the operating licenses for the BSEP,

Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML050050490)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Comelius J. Gannon, Vice President, BSEP,

CP&L, Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

and Conduct Scoping Process for License Renewal for the BSEP,

Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML050050568)

NRC meeting notice announcing public meeting in Southport, North

Carolina on January 27, 2005 , to discuss the environmental scoping

process for the application for the license renewal of BSEP

(Accession No. ML050130438)

Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process regarding the application for

license renewal of Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (70 FR 2188)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #13

(Accession No. ML051220559)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up list

(Accession No. ML051220533)

Letter from Mr. Pete Benjamin, Ecological Services Supervisor,

U.S. Department of Interior, FWS, to Mr. Pao-Tsin Kuo, NRC, regarding

a list of all Federally protected endangered and threatened species in the

area under review for license renewal at BSEP

(Accession No. ML050600244)

Letter from Ms. Teletha Griffin, Administrative Support Assistant,

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, to NRC, regarding a list of

Federally protected species in the area under review for license renewal

at BSEP (Accession No. ML050600259)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #19

(Accession No. ML051220465)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #11

(Accession No. ML051220423)

February 4, 2005

April 2006 C-3 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix C

February 4, 2005

February 4,2005

February 4, 2005

February 4, 2005

February 4,2005

February 4, 2005

February 4, 2005

February 4,2005

February 4, 2005

February 4,2005

February 4, 2005

February 7, 2005

February 8,2005

February 8, 2005

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #10

(Accession No. ML051220417)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #5

(Accession No. ML051220404)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #4

(Accession No. ML051220391)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #13

(Accession No. ML051220559)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #14

(Accession No. ML051220522)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #3

(Accession No. ML051220478)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #6

(Accession No. ML051220449)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #18

(Accession No. ML051220438)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #15

(Accession No. ML051220474)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #20

(Accession No. ML051220466)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #12

(Accession No. ML051230196)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #2

(Accession No. ML051220562)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #7

(Accession No. ML051220444)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #8

(Accession No. ML051220424)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 C-4 April 2006
Appendix C

February 17, 2005

February 17, 2005

February 17, 2005

February 18,2005

February 18, 2005

February 24, 2005

March 11, 2005

March 11, 2005

March 11, 2005

March 14, 2005

March 15, 2005

March 16, 2005

Note-to-file regarding docketing of Draft Request for Additional

Information Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis in

Support of the Environmental Review of CP&L License Renewal

Application for BSEP, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML050490382)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #16

(Accession No. ML051220408)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #17

(Accession No. ML051220377)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #1

(Accession No. ML051220368)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L, regarding Site Audit follow-up #9

(Accession No. ML051220358)

Letter to Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, CP&L, from NRC, regarding Request

for Additional Information (RAI) regarding severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs) for BSEP, Units 1 and 2

(Accession No. ML050550262)

Note-to-file regarding Summary of Public Scoping Meetings Conducted to

Support the review of the BSEP, Units'1 and 2 License Renewal

Application (Accession No. ML050730200)

E-mail from Richard Emch, NRC, regarding additional requests on RAls

(Accession No. ML051220351)

E-mail from Richard Emch, NRC, regarding FWS Letter

(Accession No. ML051220343)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, regarding the BSEP Offsite Dose

Calculation Manual (Accession No. ML051230090)

Note-to-file regarding Summary of Teleconference conducted on

February 28, 2005, with CP&L, to discuss SAMA RAls for BSEP, Units 1

and 2 (Accession No. ML050750572)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, regarding Site Audit right-of-way

specifications (Accession No. ML051220567)

April 2006 -5 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix C

March 16, 2005

March 17, 2005

March 18, 2005

March 20, 2005

March 30, 2005

March 30, 2005

March 30, 2005

March 30, 2005

April 6, 2005

April 6, 2005

April 14,2005

April18, 2005

April 21, 2005

E-mail from Richard Emch, NRC, regarding shock analysis for Whitevilleto-Fayetteville transmission line (Accession No. ML051220336)

Letter to Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, from NRC regarding amended request for

list of protected species within the area under evaluation for BSEP

(Accession No. ML0508005181)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, regarding endangered species

(Accession No. ML051220303)

Note-to-file regarding Summary of Site Audit to support review of license

renewal application for BSEP, Units 1 and 2

(Accession No. ML050880508)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC regarding transmission lines

(Accession No. ML051220256)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC regarding transmission lines

Whiteville to Fayetteville (Accession No. ML051220140)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC regarding draft SAMA responses

(Accession No. ML051220176)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC regarding transmission lines

(Accession No. ML051220182)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing SAMA draft responses

(Accession No. ML051220515).

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, regarding draft SAMA responses

(Accession No. ML051230064)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing SAMA draft RAI 8

responses (Accession No. ML051220137)

E-mail from Robert Palla, NRC, regarding SAMA RAI 8

(Accession No. ML051220131)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing responses to SAMA

RAIs (Accession No. ML051220545)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 C-6 April 2006
Appendix C

April 29, 2005

May 4, 2005

May 4, 2005

May 5, 2005

May 13, 2005

May 16, 2005

May 16, 2005

May 23, 2005

May 24, 2005

June 1, 2005

June 17, 2005

June 18,2005

Note-to-file regarding summary of teleconference conducted on

March 31, 2005, with CP&L to discuss the SAMA RAls for BSEP,

Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML051190231)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing a proposed addendum

to the response to BSEP SAMA RAI 8 (Accession No. ML051680188)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing a proposed addendum

to the response to BSEP) SAMA RAI 8 (Accession No. ML051680176)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing responses to SAMA

RAls (Accession No. ML051680167)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing responses to SAMA

follow-up questions (Accession No. ML051680156)

Note-to-file regarding summary of teleconference conducted on

April 7, 2005, with CP&L, to discuss SAMA RAls for BSEP, Units 1 and 2

(Accession No. ML051370282)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing supplemental

information for SAMA RAI 8 (Accession No. ML051 680147)

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L, to NRC providing information on cooling

towers (Accession No. ML051680095)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, CP&L, regarding Issuance

of Environmental Scoping Summary Report Associated with the Staff's

Review of the Applications by CP&L for Renewal of the Operating

Licenses for BSEP, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML051440479)

Letter from Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, CP&L, to NRC providing SAMA

RAls 1-8 (Accession No. ML051640476)

E-mail from Tom Thompson, CP&L, to NRC providing requested

information regarding BSEP, Units 1 and 2

(Accession No. ML052030260)

E-mail from Dave Anderson, PNNL to NRC, submitting BSEP Units 1

and 2 Site Audit trip report regarding socloeconomics and land use topics

(Accession No. ML052030237)

April 2006 C-7 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix C

June 22, 2005

July 7, 2005

July 8, 2005

August 8, 2005

August 9, 2005

September 19,2005

November 22,2005

December 2, 2005

December 13, 2005

E-mail from Jan Kozyra, CP&L to NRC, regarding cooling towers at

BSEP, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML051930208)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L to NRC regarding Swain Gravesites at

BSEP, Units 1 and 2 (Accession No. ML051930221)

E-mail from Paul Snead, CP&L to NRC providing further information

regarding license renewal of threatened and endangered species

(Accession No. ML051930223)

Letter from NRC to Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, Regional Director, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (FWS), providing Biological Assessment for

evaluation and concurrence by FWS for the BSEP, Units 1 and 2,

License Renewal (Accession No. ML052200600)

Letter from NRC to Mr. David Bemhart, Assistant Regional Administrator

for Protected Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),

providing Biological Assessment for evaluation and concurrence by

NMFS for the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, License Renewal

(Accession No. ML052200644)

Letter from Mr. Roy E. Crabtree, Regional Administrator, NOAA, to NRC,

Regarding biological assessment for evaluation and concurrence by

NMFS for BSEP, Units 1 and 2, license renewal

(Accession No. 0602400452)

Letter from Mr. Edward T. O'Neil, Manager-Support Services, Progress

Energy, to NRC, regarding comments on Draft NUREG-1437,

Supplement 25 (Accession No. ML053360433)

Letter from Mr. Heinz J. Mueller, Chief Office of Environmental

Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to NRC, regarding

review and comments on Draft NUREG-1437, Supplement 25

(Accession No. ML0534301 11)

Letter from Mr. Gregory Hogue, Regional Environmental Officer, U.S.

Department of the Interior, to NRC, regarding comments on Draft

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 (Accession No. ML060180223)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 C-8 April 2006
Appendix C

January 4, 2006

January 4, 2006

Letter from NRC to Mr. Cornelius J. Gannon, Vice President, Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, regarding project manager change for the license

renewal environmental review for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

(Accession No. ML060090282)

NRC Trip Report Visit to BSEP for the Essential Fish Habitat Meeting and

Tour (Accession No. ML060100399)

April 2006 C-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25

Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

During the course of the staff's independent review of environmental impacts from operations

during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were

contacted:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Office of Federal Agency Programs

Brunswick Family Assistance Agency

Brunswick County Center of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

Brunswick County Schools

Brunswick County Chamber of Commerce

Brunswick County Economic Development Commission

Brunswick County Planning Department

Cape Fear Council of Governments

City of Southport

City of Boiling Spring Lakes

Lumbee Tribal Nation

Margaret Rudd & Associates, Inc. Realtors

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries

Habitat Conservation Division

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries |

Protected Resources Division

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Historical Resources, Underwater

Archaeology Fort Fisher, Office of State Archaeology

April 2006 D-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix D

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality

North Carolina Department of Transportation

North Carolina State Archives, Archives and Records Section of the Office of Archives and

History and the Department of Cultural Resources

Southport Maritime Museum

State Historic Preservation Office, Department of Archives and History Survey and Planning

Branch, Lewis-Smith House, Survey File Room in Archives and History Building

Town of Oak Island

Town of Caswell Beach & Brunswick Beaches Consortium

Waccamaw Siouan Tribal Nation

University of North Carolina at Wilmington

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 D-2 April 2006
Appendix E

Carolina Power & Light Company's Compliance Status and

Consultation Correspondence

Appendix E

Carolina Power & Light Company's Compliance Status and

Consultation Correspondence

Correspondence between Federal and State Agencies and Carolina Power & Light Company

(CP&L), currently operating as Progress Energy Carolina, Inc., and between the U.S. Nuclear

Energy Commission (NRC) during the evaluation process of the application for renewal of the

operating licenses (OLs) for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) is listed

in Table E-1. Copies of the correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

Federal permits, licenses, approvals, and other entitlements which must be obtained for

renewal of the BSEP OLs are listed in Table E-2.

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence Regarding License Renewal for BSEP Units 1 and 2

Source RecipIent Date of Letter Page

No.

North Carolina Department of Environment CP&L May 21, 2003 E-4

and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division (Edward T. O'Neil)

of Parks and Recreation

(Harry E. LeGrand, Jr.)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) CP&L July 15, 2003 E-6

(Dr. Garland Pardue) (Edward T. O'Neil)

NCDENR, Division of Coastal Management NRC December 7, 2004 E-8

(Doug Huggett) (Richard Emch)

NRC FWS December 29, 2004 E-23

(Pao-Tsin Kuo) (Sam D. Hamilton)

NRC NOAA Fisheries December 29, 2004 E-27

(Pao-Tsin Kuo) (Patricia A. Kurkul)

NRC State Historic December 30, 2004 E-29

(Pao-Tsin Kuo) Preservation Office

(Dr. Jeffrey Crow)

April 2006 E-1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Source

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

FWS

(Pete Benjamin)

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Table E-1. (contd)

Recipient

Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation

(Don Klima)

Tribal Council of

Lumbee Tribe

(Leon Jacobs)

Waccamaw Siouan

(Archie Ray Jacobs)

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

FWS

(Sam D. Hamilton)

FWS

(Sam D. Hamilton)

NOA's National

Marine Fisheries

Service

(David Bemhart)

NRC

(Pao-Tsin Kuo)

Date of Letter Page

No.

December 30,2004 E-33

December 30, 2004 E-34

December 30, 2004 E-37

February 3, 2005 E-40

March 17,2005 E-44

August 8, 2005 E-47

August 9,2005 E-81

I NOAA (NMFS) September 19, 2005 E-1 03

I (Roy E. Crabtree) .

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-2 April 2006
N, M .

0

0)

Table E-2. Federal Permits, Licenses, and Other Entitlements Related to Renewal of the BSEP OLs

Agency Authority Requirement Remarks

NRC

.Mn

6W

FWS; National

Oceanic and

Atmospheric

Administration

(NOAA) Fisheries

NRC; NCDENR

NRC; NCDENR,

North Carolina

Division of Coastal

Management

NRC; North Carolina

Department of

Cultural Resources

Atomic Energy Act

(42 USC 2011 et seq.); 10

CFR Parts 2, 50, and 51

Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act;

16 USC 1536

Section 401 of the Clean

Water Act; 33 USC 1341

Section 307 of the

Coastal Zone

Management Act; 16 USC

1456

Section 106 of the

National Historic

Preservation Act; 16 USC

470f; 36 CFR 800

Requirements for submitting license renewal

applications

Requires a Federal agency to ensure that Its

actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any endangered or threatened

species of any critical habitat for such species.

Applicants for a Federal license to conduct an

activity which may result In discharges to navigable

waters are to provide the licensing agency a

certification from the state that the discharge will

comply with the Clean Water Act.

Applicants for a Federal license to conduct an

activity In a coastal zone are to provide a

certification to the licensing agency that the activity

will be conducted consistently with the State's

coastal zone program. The State is to notify the

federal agency if it concurs with the certification.

Prior to issuing a license, a Federal agency Is to

take into account effects on historic properties.

The Federal agency Is to consult with the state

historic preservation officer.

Consultation correspondence with the FWS

and NOAA Fisheries Is included in this

Appendix E.

Section 4.2.1.1 of the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement states that

Issuance of an National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit by a

state water quality agency implies

certification under section 401 of the Clean

Water Act. CP&L holds an NPDES permit

(permit number NC0007064) for BSEP

Issued by NCDENR.

Correspondence related to the CP&L

certification Is Included in this Appendix E.

Correspondence related to the consultation

process Is Included In this Appendix E.

CD

Cx

m

The CP&L application is online at

http:/Avww.nrc.gov/reactors/operatingAlcensi

ng/renewaVapplicatlons/brunswick.html.

z

C:

m

G)

-t.4

14

cn

ED2

'aCD

3

Cn al
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Parks and Recreation

Michael F. Ealey, Govcrmor William 0. Ross, Jr, Secretary Philip IC. McKnelly, Director

May 21. 2003

Mr. Edward T. O'Neil

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

P.O. Box 10429

Southport. NC 28461

Subject: License Renewal for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southpor, Brunswick County

Dear Mr. O'Neil:

The Natural Heritage Program has only one record of rare species on the Brunswick Plant site at

Southport. The Carolina diamondback terrapin (Malacemys terapin cenrata), a Federal

Species of Concern. has been reported from the canal near the plant This species is typically

found along estuarine shores, however.

Although our maps do not show records of other natural heritage elements in the electric plant

project area, it does not necessarily mean that they are not present. It may simply mean that the

area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted

for actual field surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species,

significant natural communities, or priority natral areas.

On the other hand, our Program has many dozens of rare species locations, mostly plants, within

the powerline corridors in the overall project area, which extends in a 50-mile radius from the

electric plant. Getting that r material to Progress Ernergy is beyond the capabilities of our

Program. The State's Center for Geographic Information and Analysis is best suited for such a

large-area information request, and CGIA _vn.ciziastate.nc.us> has the Natural Heritage data

layer on rare species locations. They also have a data layer on protected orotherNatural

Heritage sites.

Your letter mentions several natural areas along PEC powerline corridors in the study ar It is

also worth mentioning that in summer 2002. a biologist for a consulting firm, perhaps hired by

PEC, found several new populations of the Federally Endangered golden sedge (Carar IWma) and

rough-leaf looscstrife (Lysimachla asperullfolla) and numerous new populations of the Federal

Species of Concern Venus flytrap (Dionaca muscipula) in the powerline on lands owned by The

Nature Conservancy, north and east of Holly Shelter Game Land. Some of these lands are being

inspected for potential acquisition by the Division of Parks and Recreation for a future state park

1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. Nonh Carolina 27699-1615

Phone: 919-73341 SI \ Fax: 919-715-3085 I nternet: %vww.ncsparkls.nce

An Equal Opponunity % Afilsmfive Action Enplove. 5a@,; Rccycled % 10; Po3 Consumne Pamc

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-4 April 2006
Appendix E

unit. Thus, it is important the PEC continue its level and type of powerline maintenance, such as

mowing/bush-hogging during the non-growing season on a roughly 3-year cycle, and avoid

usage of herbicides or other chemicals to kill or retard vegetation in such sensitive biological

areas.

You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at

<www.ncsoarks.netlnho/search.htm> for a listing of rate plants and animals and significant

natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to

contact me at 919-715-8687 if you have questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist

Natural Heritage Program

HEIJheI

April2006 E-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

1 United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDUFE SEtVICE

bWcigh PdMOMce

Post Office Box 33m

Raligh. Nonh CaroiNta 276.3728

July 15,2003

Edward T. O'Neil

Carolina Power and Light

Brunswick Nuclear Plant

P.O. Box 10429

Southport,NC 28461

Dear Mr. O'Neil:

Thank you for your May 12, 2003 letter requesting information from the U.S. Fish and wildlife

Service (Service) concerning the proposed license renewal for the Brnswick Steam Electric

Plant (Unit Numbers I and 2). The Brunswick Steam Electric Plant is located near Southport in

Brunswick County, North Carolina. Transmission lines radiate from the plant in Southport to

various points in Columbus, Robeson, Pender, New Hanover and Onslow Counties. Our

comments are provided pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act).

The Service is aware of various populations of federally protected plant species that occur in

transmission line rights-of-way in southeastern North Carolina. Specifically, populations of

rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia), Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi),

and golden sedge (Carex lutea) are known to occur in various CP&L power line rights-of-way in

the counties mentioned above and specifically in the Jacksonville transmission line. Currently,

there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (dated March 19, 1993) between Carolina

Power and Light and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program that addresses the

management of these sites in order to protect the rare species that occur in them. In this MOU,

CP&L agreed to "preserve and protect the special elements of natural diversity and natural areas

which best exemplify the state's natural heritage which occur on their power line rights-of-wayr

by mowing only during the non-growing season and avoiding impact to the soil and hydrologic

components of the natural area. The MOU states that herbicides will only be used selectively to

supplement mechanical maintenance when woody or invasive species threaten the rare species or

natural communities. In addition, CP&L agreed to notify the Natural Heritage Program when an

emergency or operation has occurred which impacts a site. CP&L also agreed to notify the

Natural Heritage Program if the right-of-way is sold or transferred, if threats to the natural area

are observed by CP&L staff, or if management changes are anticipated.

Based on the information provided in your letter and the existing MOU, the Service believes that

as long as CP&L continues to be an active participant in this MOU, the renewal of the license for

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-6 April 2006
Appendix E

the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (Unit Numbers 1 and 2) is not likely to adversely affect any

federally-listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat, or

species currently proposed for listing under the Act We believe that the requirements of section

7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under section 7

consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified

action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a mae not previously considered; (2)

this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review-, or, (3) a

new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.

Thank you for your cooperation with our agency in protecting federally listed species. If you

have any questions about our comments on this project, please contact Mr. Dales Suiter at (919)

856-4520, extension 18, or via email at Dale Suiter&Ws.gov.

Sincerely,

Dr. Garland Pardue

Ecological Secvies Supervisor

enclosure: Memorandum of Understanding

cc: North CaroHna Natural Heritage Program (ame Amoroso)

April 2006 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Mchael F. Easley. Govemor Charles S. Jones, Director WHilan G. Ros Jr., Seetary

December 7,2004

Richard L. Emch

Senior Project Manager

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

One White Flint North

11555 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

SUBJECT: Consistency Concurrence for Nuclear Plant License Renewal with the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dear Mr. Ernch:

The Division of Coastal Management received (Oct. 20,2004) from Progress Energy (Carolina

Power & Light Company) a consistency certification that the proposed license renewal from the

U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission to authorize continued operation of Units 1 and 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant is consistent with the enforceable polices ofNorth Carolina's

coastal management program. Additionally Progress Energy has certified that it will conduct its

activities consistent with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's coastal management

program. To support this certification, Progress Energy submitted an environmental report

evaluating the impacts ofthe proposed license renewal on the environment and with the State's

coastal program. According to the environmental assessment, the continued operation of Units I

and 2 will not have any new or previously unevaluated environmental effects that would

adversely affect consistency with the State's coastal program since the proposed action will be a

license renewal to authorize continuation of the existing operation.

To solicit public comments, Division of Coastal Management (DCM) published a public

notice in the `BrwnswickBeacon" on October 28,2004 and circulated a description of the

proposed project to State agencies that would have a regulatory interest in the proposed

development. No comments asserting that the proposed license renewal would be

inconsistent with the State's coastal program were received. Comments received have been

-attached to this letter.

1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638

Phone: 919-733.2293 \FAX: 919-733-1495 1intemet wwr.nccoastalmanagementrnet

An EquW Oppub A&WeAcfmHEzoer- y 50%P R/dedl 10%PostComwiwPpru

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-8 April 2006
Appendix E

The Division of Coastal Management has reviewed the submitted information pursuant to

Title 15A of Chapter 7 of North Carolina's Administrative Code and concurs with the

applicant's consistency certification that the proposed license renewal is consistent and will

be conducted in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of North Carolina's coastal

management program.

Should the project be modified, a revised consistency certification could be necessary. This

might take the form of either a supplemental consistency certification pursuant to 15 CFR

930.66, or a new consistency certification pursuant to 15 CFR 930.57. Likewise, should

additional project assessments disclose environmental impacts not previously considered, a

supplemental consistency certification might be required. If you have any questions, please

contact Stephen Rynas at 252-808-2808. Thank you for your consideration of the North

Carolina Coastal Management Program.

Sincerely,

DougHggett

Manager, MajorPermits and Consistency Unit

Anr. Opa M M= of Couta Mawgunmt c.OsMlaOMP EaV

April 2006 E-9 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

ZNA

.NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

WMhael F. A, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director wham G. Ross Ji Ea*s J., Secretary

MEMOOR

TO:

FROM

Stephen Rynas

Federal Consistency Coordinato

DCM - Morehead City Office

151-B Hwy. 24

Hestron Plaza II

Morehead City, NC 28557

LNDUM

November

NOV 1 8.2004,

Mlorehead City DCM

... .I

. Z

Melissa Carle, Wetlands Specialist . :

SUBJECT: Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units 1 and 2 of the Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear Area, Brunswick County

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this projecC Based on the consistency

determination, the proposed action does not appear to include direct impacts to coastal wetlands.

I particularly appreciate Progress Energy's efforts to mange transmission corridors for wildlife

habitat and to work with the NC Natural Heritage Program to relocate threatened and endangered

species found in the transmission corridors. This benefits adjacent ecological communities,

including wetlands, by minimizing the impact of the 6orridors.on wildlife movement. Overall,

this project appears to be consistent wvith the goals of CAMA with regards to coastal iwetlands.

1638 Mail Service Cenler, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638

Phone: 919-733-2293\ FAX: 919-733-1495\ Intemet: wwi.nccoastalmanagernent.net

Mn EqualOppowttyaliAMmWilw Acltb Enfployer-5O% Recyidsd 10% Post ConsumerPaper

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-10 April 2006
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael V. Govemor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ros F. Easler as Jr., Secretary

TO:

FROM:

Melissa Carle

Coastal Wetlands

DCM - Raleigh Office

1638 Mail Service Cen

RAleiar NC 27699-16

MEMORANDUM

October 26,2004 RECEIVED

OCT 2 8,2004

I., NOV I 8 2004 niR JA 4TAUAJWZT As.

i38 VI W.W.- kbdif -

-Morehead City DCM

Stephen Rynas, AICP; Federal Consistency Coordinator

SUBJECT: * Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units 1 & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County;North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19,2004. This document is available online at:

httpl/www.nrc.gov/reactors/operaeig/licensinglrenewal/applications/brunswick.btml. -Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or e-mail me at:

"stephen.rynasenemail.net".

REPLY

No Corment.

V This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached.

s oice objts to the project as proposed.

Signed: : _ _ _ _ _ _ Date:

CORRECTIONS

Please identify aty corrections, additions, or deletions that shouldbe mde& iaterms of contact iafonmation.

RETURN COMPLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

Hestron Plaza IL, 5lEB Hwy. 24

Morehead City. NC 28557-2518

April 2006 E-11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

NCDENR $.-1.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

y. Gover Charles S. Jones, Director Wiliamn G. Ros

OCT 28 !} -z

Ntliel F. Easle us Jr.. Seetacy

TO:

ME MO Y /4;

ReneeGledhill-Early

Archives and History Building 2004

NC Division of Archives and Hilt*

4617 Mail Seice Center orehead Clty- lCM!

Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 Let

rnnqA. MRUM: Stepnen Kynas, ANT; reoeral .onsmsency Cooromator

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units I & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, BnmswicCounty, North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at:

httpl/www.nrc.gov/reactors/operatingflicensing/renewal/applicationsltunswick.html. -Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 ore-mail me at:

1

stephen.zynassncinailnet".

Nw RECEIVED

No Comment. NOV 1 7 2004

This office supports the project as proposed. * 1.0FC^s'XWNAGaEx

Comments to this project are attached. PAM

This office objectstoth rojectas proposed.

Signed: \Ct-..o & Date: l tlS t

CORRtMCTONS

please ideni any corrections, addiftons, a ddetios Wt shonld be mude in leruo of cod ink i

RETURN COMPLETED FORM

RECEIVED to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Managernent

NOV 0° 3 004 HestronPlazaMIS15BHVy.24

Momehead City NC 28557-2518

NOV 0. cg

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-12 April 2006
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael F. Easle, yr Govemor Charles S. Jones, Director _jjil-rtMG. Ros

MEMORANDUM

October 26,2004 OCT 2 6 2004

TO:

* FROM:

Town of Sunset Beach

* 220 ShorelineDriveWest

* SunsetBeach,NC 28459-4418

Stephen Rynas, AICP; Federal Consistency Coordinator

Morehead City DCM

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units 1 & 2 of the

*Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at

httpJ/www nrc.gov/reactors/operatingAicensinglrinewal/applications'brunswickhtml. Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conformto your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessaryto bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact ne at 252-808-2808 or e-mail me at:

"stephen.rynassncrnail.net".

REPLY

No Comment

This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached.

This office objects to the project as proposed.

D ate: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CORRECTIONS

Please identitfy any corrections, additions, or deletions that should be made in terms ofcontact infamatio.

RETURN COMPLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

Hestron Plaza IL, 151B Hwy. 24

Morehead City, NC 28557-2518

I

April 2006 E-13 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michad F. EasleYr, Gavernor CharlesS. Jones,Director . Wiliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary

MEMORANDUM . _... October26, 2004 F | * .'I

TO: . WI

FROM:

Town of Soutbport

201 East Moore Street

Southport, NC 28461-3900 fg

Stephen Rynas, AICP; .Federal Consistcicy'Coordinator

Tehead City DOIM

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units 1 & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATIONS Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina:

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at:

httpJ/lwww.nrc.gov/reactors/operatingtlicensinglrenewal/applications/brunswickhtml. Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conform toyour requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or e-mail me at

"stephen.rynasgncmail net".

REPLY

No Comment.

This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached.

Eoffie objecothe proIct as l cc to the

Date: / v/ 2. .Ax o

Please identify any corrections, addition, or deletions that should be made in term of contact infomation.

RETURN COMPLETED FORM

.to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

HestronPlaza II 151B Hwy. 24

Morehead City. NC 28557-2518

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-14 April 2006
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael , Governor Charles S. Jones, Director Wlliam G. Ros F. Easley s Jr., Secretary

MEMORANDUM

October 26, 2004

TO:

TVillage of Bald Head

* P.O. Box 3009

* Bald THead TIland wN 29461 -7f0f0

, , at".

OCT 2 9 2034

* FROM: Stephen Rynas, AICP; Federal Consistency Coordinator M rha i C

SUBJECT: * Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units 1 & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at:

http:/lwwwnrc.gov/reactors/operatinglicensing/renewal/applications/bmnswickjitml. Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or c-mail me at:

"stephensrynasncnmail.net".

REPLY

No Comment.

This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached.

Thi1 offiqe objects to the project as proposed.

Signed: d Date: At 2

CORRECTQINS

Plea= identify any corrections, additions, or deletions that sould be made in terms otcontact inoamtion.

)RETURN COMPLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

HestronPlaza II, 15IB Hwy. 24

Morehead City, NC 28557-2518

April 2006 E-1A5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael F. Easle,jy Govenor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr., SeceLar

* TO:

* FROM:

MEMORANDUM ' October 26, 2004 .

County of Brunswick

P.O. Box 249 OCT 2 1h2004

Bolivia, NC 28422-0249

Morehea ci ity DcM

Stephen R~ynas, AICP; Federal Consistency Coordinator

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Reneval of Units 1 & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progresi Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina I

Please review and comment byNovernber 19,2004. This document is available online at:

bttpJ/www.nrc.gov/reactorsloperating/icensinglrenewal/applications/brunswick.html. Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you h~ive any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or e-mail me at:

"stephen.rynassncmail.net".

REPLY

No Comment

V' This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached.

This office obje4t to the project as proposed.

Signed: r4 VI -11e BIe6- Date: /b-1 Zo7-

CORRYCTIONS

Please identify any corections, additions, or deletions that should be made in tam of contact informadon.

RETURN COMPLETED ;ORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Fedeml Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Mianageet

Hestron Plaza D, 151B Hwy. 24

Morehead City. NC 28557-25 18

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-16 April 2006
Appendix E

aOCT 2 7 2004

NCDENR 1

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural =

Division of Coastal Management

Michael F. Easley, Govemor Charles S. Jones, Director W illiam G. Ross Jr., Secretary

MEMORANDUM

October26, 2004 -

TO:

FROM:

Dan Sams

NCDENR -Divison of Land Resources

127 Cardinal Drive ExtensionWilmington, NC 28405-5406

*Stephen Rynas, AICP; Federal Consistency Coordinator.

z -

>@f1" 4d'

Mi 0 4 ZQ4

MoreIGad City DClM

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units I & 2 oftde

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina.

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at:

htp://llw%-vx.rc.gov/rcactors/operaticensing/renewallapplications/bnllD ~ick.html. Your responses .%ill

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, .please identify the

measures that would be necessaryto bring the proposed project Tto conformnance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or e-mail me at

"stephen.xynasencmail.net".

REPLy. ; ; -s

No Comment. REPLY. .*

Thisofficesupportstheprojectasproposed. j C*,. ) A

Comments to this project are attached. =-- pt:t.> .k 1 I-c

This office objects to the project as proposed.

Signed: i Date: ot. l LV-4

CORRECTIONS

Pleose identify nay corrections, additions, or deletions that should'be made in terms of contact informaticiL

RETURN COMPLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

HestronPIazaL, 15ilB Hwy. 24

Morehead City, NC 28557-2518

April 2006 E-1 7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael F. Easlel r, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director Willian G. Ross Jr., Secetay

TO:

FROM:

MEMORANDUM

October 26, 2004

Town of Calabash

P.O. Box 4967

Calabash, NC 28467-9820

Stephen Rynas, AICP, Federal Consistency Coordinator

IISaIVE

NoV 1.0 tO0,4

Mzoretead Q~City DCM

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewil of Units 1 & 2 of the

brunswick Steam Electric Plant, ProgressEnergy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at:

.http://wwwnrc.gov/reactorstoperating/licensing/renewal/applications/bmnswick~html. Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the, proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conformio your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or e-mail me at

"steph'enrynasancmailnet'.

REPLY

No Comment.

This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached.

office objects to the roject as proposed.

Signed:4 Pa is A Dae il- °

CORRECMIONS

Please idntif any corrections, additons, or deletions tit should be made in tears of contact ifornatiolL

RETURN COMPLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

Hestron Plaza II, 1S5B Hlwy. 24

Morehead City, NC 28557-2515

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-18 April 2006
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael F. Easle)r, Govemor Charles S. Jones, Director Wilian G. Ross Jr., Secetary

MEMORANDUM 262004

October 26, 20041

TO: . .

NIOV I 6 2004

* Town of Ocean Isle Beach

O West ca Third Stret

* Ocean Isle'Beach, NC 28469-7506 Morehead City DOM

FROM:

SUBJECT:

;

Stephen Rynas, AlCP; Federal Consistency Coordinator

Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units 1 & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at:

httpi/vww.nrc.gov/reactors/operatig/licensing/renewalapplications/blnmswickihtlfl. Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Management Program. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or e-mail me at:

"stephen iynasgncmailinet".

*. REPLY

V No Comment

This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached.

This office obj c to the project as proposed.

Signed: 56tt5 +Date: 1lJn

CORRIECITIONS

Please identify any corrections, additions, or deletions ftt sbould be made in terrs of contact information.

RETURN COMPLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

HestronPiazaI 151B Hwy. 24

Morehead City, NC 28557-2518 4 -

April 2006 April2006NURE NUREG-W47, -1 43 , Supplement Su plem nt 252
Appendix E

No NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Marine Fisheries Preston P. Pate Jr.. Director

Wiliram G. Ross Jr., Secretary . , . . , _ .

MEMORANDUM

TO: Stephan Rynas

Federal Consistency Coordinator

FROM: Mike Street

DATE: Novembe 23,2004

. ..

-Mor~ehe~ City tDCM

SUBJECT: NRC License Renewal of Units 1 and 2 of Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

Brunswick County

Attached Is the Divisions' reply for the above

questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

referenced project. If -you have any

MSISw

3441 Arendell Street, P.O. Box 769. Morehead City, North Carolina 28557

Phone: 252 728-7021 I FAX: 252 727-5127 1 nternet: ww.ncdmf.net

An Eel 0PpwtuyIAtM-4 Actki Emntoyer-SO% PRcyded% 10 post CwaUf PAW

iNporthCarolina

Aaturally

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-20 April 2006
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael F. Easle) r, Govemor Charles S. Jones, Director wlriam G. Ross Jr., Secretary

TO:

FROM:

MEMORANDUM

October 26, 2004

Mike Street

NCDENR - Division of Marine Fisheries

P.O. Box 769

Morehead City, NC 28557-0769

Stephen Rynas, AICP; Federal Consistency Coordinator

o t 2 . S

IJ ;,T2.

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units 1 & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy *

LOCATION: Cape Fear area, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at

http://wwwnrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/rehewal/applications/brunswick.btml. Your responses will

assist us in determining whether the proposed project would be consistent with the State's Coastal -

Manaement Program. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposedproject into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 252-808-2808 or c-mail me at:

"sbephen.rynasbncmail.net".

REPLY ( ~

No Comment I94a

This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attached. D M F-HABJ TAT

This office objects to the project as proposed.

Signed: Date:

CORRECTIONS

Please idertify any corrcions, additions, or deletions tt should be made in tcrs of contact information.

RETURN CQMPLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Consistency Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal Management

Hestron Plazall, 151B Hwy. 24

Morehead City, NC 28557.2518

April 2006 E-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Coastal Management

Michael F. Eas e)y, GArM Charles S. Jones, Director Wiflan G. Roa sJr..Secrtary

MEMORANDUM October26,2004 i6W Itaf

TO: BennettWynne DEC o I

Division of Inland Fisheries, Habitat ConservationProgram 6

NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Mo

901 Laroque . ci7c ~reh DCM

Kinston, NC 28501-3519 DCM

FROM: Stephen Rynas, AICP; Federal Consistency Coordinator

SUBJECT: Consistency Review for the Proposed NRC License Renewal of Units I & 2 of the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Progress Energy

LOCATION: Cape Fear arca, Brunswick County, North Carolina

Please review and comment by November 19, 2004. This document is available online at

htp://wwwnrc.gov/reactoo n/ icensing/xnewallappios/bnmswic L Your responses will

assist us in deermiing whether the prdposcd project would be consistent with the State's Coastal

Mana8ement Progran. If the proposed project does not conform to your requirements, please identify the

measures that would be necessary to bring the proposed project into conformance. If you have any

additional questions regarding the proposed project you may contact me at 2S2-808-2808 or e-mail me at

stephen.rynasncmaitlnet".

/ REPLY

No Comment

This office supports the project as proposed.

Comments to this project are attaphed.

This office objects to the project as propoA

Signed:ao e* Datc: fot-i>eL

CORR}!C7ONS

p it= w acratiy anycmetims *MiQS, ddedow thim dwuld be nmd inI= of rtact WM=ion

BETURN COIMLETED FORM

to

Stephen Rynas, Federal Constcy Coordinator

NC Division of Coastal MN i _eneflt

HestronPlaza 11,l15lB THy. 24

Morehead City, NC 28557-2518

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-22 April 2006
Appendix E

-F.At UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 205350001

December 29, 2004

Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, Regional Director

Southeast Regional Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1875 Century Boulevard Northeast. Suite 400

Atlanta, Georgia 30345

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LIST.OF PROTECTED SPECIES WiTHIN THE AREA UNDER

EVALUATION FOR THIE BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNITS 1

AND 2, UCENSE RENEWAL

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Is reviewIng applicatlons submitted by

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas,

Inc.. for the renewal of the operating licenses for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1

and 2 (BSEP). BSEP Is located In Brunswick County In southeastern North Carolina, near the

mouth of the Cape Fear River. As part of the review of the wcense renewal applications, the

NRC Is preparing a Supplernental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under tet provisions

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 19869, as amended, which Includes an

analysis of pertinent environmental Issues, Induding endangered or threatened species and

Impacts to fish and wildlife. This letter Is being subrnitted under the provisions of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of

1934, as amended.

The proposed action would Include the use and continued maintenance of existing plant

facilties and transmission lines. BSEP Is situated on approximately i1200 acres of land;

130 acres are occupied by generating facilities, support facilities, warehouses, parldng areas,

construction laydown areas, equipment storage areas, and roads. The remaining acreage

consists of woodlands, open fields. wetlands and marshlands. The area Inmediately

surrounding the plant Is a mix of agricultural lands, woodlands, swamps, and marshes.

The BSEP circulating water system is a once-through heat dissipation system. Cooling water Is

drawn from the Cape Fear River byway of a three-mile long Intake canal. The circulating water

system Includes the Intake canal, intake structure, condensers, discharge canal, Caswell Beach

pumping station, and the discharge pipes that move the heated effluent into the Atlantic Ocean.

BSEP transmission corridors are approximately 220 miles long and occupy 4,000 acres. These

transmission line corridors are being evaluated as part of the SEIS process. The corridors pass

through low population areas that are primarilyforest. farm, and swamp lands. The lines cross

numerous U.S. and State highways, the Cape Fear River, and Interstate 40. Four lines In a

single 31D-foot corridor make a short crossing of the Orton Plantation Waterfowl Impoundment,

and the Jacksonville line makes a short crossing of the Holly Shelter Game Land. Corridors

that pass through farm lands generally continue to be used as farm land. The transmission line

corridors traverse Brunswick, Columbus, Biaden, Robeson, New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow

April 2006 E-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

S. Hamilton -2-

counties In North Carolina. The transmission lines and site boundary are identified in

Endosures I end 2. To support the environmental impact statement preparation process and

to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NRC requests a list of

species and Information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and crttical habitat that

may be In the vicinity of BSEP and Its associated transmission fines. The NRC has requested

the same Information and list 6f species from NOAA Fisheries. In addition, please provide any

Information you consider appropriate under the provisions of the Fish and Wildllfe Coordination

Act.

On January 25-26, 2005. the NRC staff plans to conduct a site audit at the BSEP site. In

addition, NRC staff plans to hold two public NEPA scoping meetings on January 27, 2005, at

the Southport City Hall, 201 E. Moore Street, Southport, North Carolina 28461. Your staff Is

Invited to attend both the site audit and the public meetings. The NRC staff will also forward to

your office a copy of the draft SEIS along with a request for comments.

If you have any questions concerning BSEP, the Dcense renewal applIcation, or other aspects

of this project, please contact Richard L Emch. Jr., Senior Project Manager, at 301-415-1590

or by e-mall at rieqnrc.gov.

Sinoerely,

y§; Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

Ucense Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Dh/lsion of Regulatory improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-324 and 50-325

Enclosures: As stated

ccwlencds.: See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-24 April 2006
C) m

Gn

co20

3i

en.

CD

a- m
Appendix E

NSUq

E cimb

23 VSubstabo

5 - O t 160 15. '20 Vim1 DI 0 10 is .20 2s WO 25 g00Otom~l

Li coutl Bwrad

BRUNSWICK STEAM

. ELECTRIC P.ANr

FIGURE 3-2

; Transmission Un. Usap

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-26 April2006
Appendix E

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-00

December 29, 2004

Ms. Patridca A. Kurkul. Regional Administrator

NOAA Fisheries

Northeast RegIonal Offce

One Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 09130-2298

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE AREA UNDER

EVALUATION FOR THE BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS I

AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL

DearMs. Kurkul:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon (NRC) Is reviewing appicatlons submitted by

Carolina Power& Light Company (CP&L), now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas,

Inc., for the renewal of the operating licenses for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units I

and 2 (BSEP). BSEP Is located In Bwnswlck County In southeastern North Carorina, near tMe

mouth of the Cape Fear River. As part of the review of te Icense renewal appilcations, the

NRC Is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEiS) under the provisions

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, which Includes an

analysis of pertinent environmental Issues, Induding endangered or threatened spedes and

Impacts to fish and wildlife. This letter Is being submitted under the provisIons of the

Endangered Spedes Act of 1973. as amended. and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of

1934, as amended.

The proposed action would Indude the use and continued maintenance of existing plant

facilities and transmission Ones. BSEP Is situated on approxAmately 1,200 acres of land;

130 acres are occupied by generating facilIties, support facilities, warehouses, parking areas,

construction laydown areas, equipment storage areas, and roads. The remaining acreage

consists of woodlands, open fields, wetlands and marshlands. The area Irnmediately

surrounding the plant Is a mix of agricultural lands, woodlands, swamps, and marshes.

The BSEP circulating water system Is a once-through heat dissipation system. Cooling water Is

drawn from the Cape Fear River by way of a three-mie long Intake canal. The circulating water

system includes the Intake canaL intake structure, condensers, discharge canal, Casweil Beach

pumping station, and the discharge pipes that move the heated effluent Into the Atlantic Ocean.

BSEP transmission corridors are approximately 220 miles long and occupy 4.000 acres. These

transmission Une corridors are being evaluated as part of the S-iS process. The corridors pass

through low population areas that are primarily forest, farm, and swamp lands. The ines cross

numerous U.S. and State highways, the Cape Fear River. and Interstate 40. Four Ines In a

single 310-foot corridor make a short crossing of the Orton Plantation Waterfowl Impoundment

and the Jacksonville line makes a short crossing of the Holly Shelter Game Land. Corridors

that pass through farm lands generally continue to be used as farm land. The transmission lne

corridors traverse Brunswick, Columbus. Bladen. Robeson, New Hanover, Pander, and Onsiow

April 2006 E-27 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

P. Kurkul -2-

counties In North Carolina. The transmission lines and site boundary are Identified In

Enclosures 1 and 2. To support the environmental Impact statement preparation process and

to ensure compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NRC requests a list of

species and Information on protected, proposed, and candidate specdeb and critical habitat that

may be in the vicinity of BSEP and Its associated transmission lines. The NRC has requested

the same Information and list of species from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

* On January 25-26, 2005, the NRC staff plans to conduct a site audit at the BSEP site. In

addition, NRC staff plans to hold two public NEPA scoping meetings on January 27, 2005, at

the Southport City Hall, 201 E. Moore Street, Southport, North CarolIna 28461. Your staff Is

Invited to attend both the site audit and the public meetings. The NRC staff will also forward to

your office a copy of the draft SEIS along with a request for commernts.

if you have any questions concerning BSEP, the license renewal application, or other aspects

of this project, pease contact Richard L. Emch, Jr., Senior Project Manager, at 301- 415-1590

or by e-mall at RLE@nrr-gov.

Sincerely,

7a ao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

UTcense Renewal and Environmental Impacts

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nudear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50.324 and 50-325

Enclosures: As stated

cc w~encds.* See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-28 April 2006
Appendix E

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. D.C. 2OSSS-Moo

December 30, 2004

Dr. Jeffrey Crow

Deputy Secretary of Archives and History

State Historic Preservation Officer

4610 MalI Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-4610

SUBJECT: BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS I AND 2 LICENSE

RENEWAL REVIEW

Dear Mr. Crow.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnisslon (NRC) staff Is reviewing applications to renew the

operating licenses for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units I and 2 (BSEP), which Is located In

Brunswick County In southeastern North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The

city limits of the nearest major metropolitan area, Wilmington, North Carolma, are approximately

15 miles north of the BSEP site. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, a major regional tourist

destination, lies approximately 50 miles to the southwest BSEP Is operated by Carolina

Power & Light Company (CP&L), now doing buslness as Progress Energy Carolinas. Inc. The

applications for renewal were submitted by CP&L on October20, 2004, pursuant to NRC

requirements at flUe 10 of the Code of Federal Reguatons Part 54(10 CFR Part 54). The

NRC has established that, as part of the staff review of any nuclear power plant license renewal

action, a site-specific Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to Its Generlc

Environmental Impact Statement for Ucense Renewal of Nuclear Plants* (GEIS).

NUREG-1437, will be prepared under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 51. the NRC regulation

that Implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with

36 CFR 800.8, the SEIS wil Include analyses of potential Impacts to historic and archaeological

resources.

In the context of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1968, as amended, the NRC staff has

determined that the area of potential effect (APE) for a license renewal action Is the area at the

power plant site and Its Immediate environs that may be Impacted by post-license renewal

land-disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities associated with the proposed

action. The APE may extend beyond the Immediate environs In those Instances where postlicense renewal land-disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities, specifically

related to license renewal. may potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites.

This determination Is made Irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of Interest.

While preparing Its application, CP&L contacted your office by letter dated May 12,2003. In

* that letter, CP&L stated there are no plans to significantly alter current operations over the

license renewal period. CP&L further stated that no expansion of existing facilities Is planned,

and no major structural modifications have been Identified for the purpose of supporting license

renewal. In addition, no land-disturbing activities are anticipated beyond those required for

routine maintenance and repairs.

Apnil 2006 E-29 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

J. Crow -2-

On January 27,2005. the NRC will conduct two public NEPA scoping meetings at the Southport

City Hall 201 E. Moore Street, Southport, North Carolina 28401. You and your staff are Invited

to attend. Your office will receive a copy of the draft SEIS aong with a request for comments.

The anticipated publication date for the draft SEIS Is September 2005. If you have any

questions or require additional Information, please contact Mr. Richard L Emtch, Jr.. Senior

Project Manager at 301-41-5-1590 or RLEkTnrc.oov.

Sincerely,

79VPao-Tsln Kuo, Programn Director

ttcense Renewal and Environmental Impacts Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50-324

Enclosures: As stated

cow/end.: See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-30 .April 2006
'a

a)mzCm3

G)

en

-A.

CO,

:'4

U)

-D

CDm
Appendix E

* -

4

Al 2 Kv SddteAn

"J M ICcwtyS -meftw

I I 6 S w gzg Z038Xb

TmrumnAssim Una VAp

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-32 April 2006
Appendix E

"A ,UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

wAsmNGTOw, o.c. 20osss5-01

December 30, 2004

Mr. Don Klima. Director

Office of Federal Agency Programs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Old Post Office Building

1100 Pennsylvanla Avenue. NW. Suite 809

Washington, DC 20004

SUBJECT: BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNITS I AND 2 LICENSE

RENEWAL REVIEW

Dear Mr. iilrne:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrnmission (NRC) staff IS reviewing applications to renew the

operating Dcense for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units I and 2 (BSEP), wtdch Is iocated in

Brunswick County hI southeastem North Caronna, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. The

city dmits o the nearest major metropoitan area, Wilmington, North Carolina, amr approximately

15 miles north of the BSEP site. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, a major regional tourist

destination, fes approximately 50 miles to tihe soutiwest. BSEP Is operated by Carofina

Power & Light Company (CP&L), now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. The

applications for renewal were submitted by CP&L on October 20, 2004, pursuant to NRC

requirements at TItul 1 of the Code of Federal Regula fons Part 54(10 CFR Part 54). The

NRC has established that. as part of the staff review of any nuclear power plant license renewal

action, a site-spectfic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to its 'Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for Ucense Renewal of Nuclear Plants' (GEIS).

NUREG-1437, will be prepared under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC regulation

that Implements the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In accordance with

38 CFR 800.8, the SEIS will Include analyses of potential impacts to historic and cultural

resources. A draft SEIS Is scheduled for publication In September of 2005, and will be provided

to you for review and comment

If you have any questions or require additional Inforrnation, pleaso contact Senior Project

Manager, Mr. Richard L Emnch. Jr., at 301-415-1590 or RLE~nrc.gov.

Sincerely.

7~Pao-Tsh, Kuo, Program Director

icense Renewal and Enronmental Impacts

DMislon of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulton

Docket Nos.: 50-325 and 50-324

cc See next page

April 2006 E-33 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

UNIED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20653-001

December 30, 2004

Tribal Council of the Lumbee Tribe

The Honorable Leon Jacobs

Tribal Administrator

P.O. Box 2709

707 Union Chapel Rd

Pembroke, NC 28372

SUBJECT: U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF BRUNSWICK

STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 UCENSE RENEWAL

APPLICATIONS

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Is seeking Input for its environmental review

of applications from the CarolIna Power & Light Company (CP&L). now doing business as

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., to renew the operating licenses for the Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Units I and 2 (BSEP). BSEP Is located In Brunswick County In southeastern

North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. As descrIbed below, the NRC process

Includes an opportunity for public and Inter-governmental participation In the environmental

review. We want to ensure that you are aware of our efforts and, pursuant to Title 10 Code of

the Federal ReFatbions Part 51.28(b) (10 CFR 51.28(b)), the NRC Invites the LumbeeTribal

Nation to provide Input to the scoping process relating to the NRCs environmental review of the

application. In addlfWon. as outlined In 38 CFR 800.8, the NRC plans to coordinate compllance

with Section 108 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1988 through the requirements of

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nudear power plant is Issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years I NRC requirements

are met The current operating licenses for BSEP Units 1 and 2 wWl expire In September 2016

and December2014, respectively. CP&L submitted its application for renewal of the BSEP

operating licenses on October 20, 2004.

The NRC Is gathering Information for a BSEP-spectfic supplement to its -Genertc

Environmental Impact Statement for Ucense Renewal of Nuclear Plants' (GEIS).

NUREG-1437. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the environmental

Impacts on the area surrounding the BSEP she that are related to terrestrial ecology, aquatic

ecology, hydrology, historic and archaeological resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

The NRC will hold two public scoping meetings for the BSEP license renewal supplement to the

GEIS on January 27, 2005, at the Southport City Hall, 201 E. Moore Street, Southport.

North CarolIna 28461. There will be two sessions to accommodate Interested parties. The first

session will convene at 1:30 p.m. and will contnue until 4:30 pm., as necessary. The second

session will convene at 7:00 p.m.. with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-34 April 2006
Appendix E

The Honorable Mr. Jacobs - 2 -

continue until 10:00 p.m., as necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host Informal

discussions one hour before the start of each session. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. No formal comments on the

proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during Informal discussions.

The application is electronically available for Inspection from the Publicly Available Records

component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

under Accession Number ML043060413. ADAMS is sacessible at htto:Ihwv.nrc.gov/

reading-rmDadams.html which provides access through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading

Room (PERR) link. If you do not have access to ADAMS or f there are problems In accessing

the documents located In ADAMS, contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) Reference

staff at 1-800-397-4209, 1-301-415-4737, orbye-mall at pdrenrc.gov. In addition, the

application can be viewed on the Internet at httoJ/Aw.nrc.oov/reactors/ooeratinanllcensinac

renewal/aoplicatlons.htmi.

A paper copy of the application can be viewed at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Fiint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852-2738 and the

William Madison Randall Ubrary, located at 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-

5618. The GEIS, which assesses the scope and Impact of environmental effects that would be

associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site, can also be found on the

NRC's website or at httn:Ilwww.nrc.oov/readino-mIdr.lhtml NRCs PDR.

Please submit arny written comments that the LumbeeTrIbal Nation may have to offer on the

scope of the environmental review by March 11, 2005. Comments should be submitted by mail

to the Chief. Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Mail Stop

T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. 20555-0001, or by e-mall to

BrunswIckElS~nrc.gov. At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a

summary of the significant Issues Identified and the conclusions reached and will mail a copy to

you.

The NRC will Issue the draft supplemental environmental Impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment (anticipated publication date, September 2005), and will hold another set of public

meetings in the site vicinity to solicit comments on the draft A copy of the draft SEIS will be

sent to you for your review and comment. After consideration of public comments received on

the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The Issuance of a final SEIS for BSEP is planned

April 2006 E-35 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

The Honorable Mr. Jacobs -3-

for April 2006. If you need additional Information regarding the environmental review process,

please contact Mr. Richard L Emch, Jr., Senior Project Manager, at 301415-1590 or by small

at RLEnrc.gov.

Sincerely,

Pr r Irector

Uicense Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nudear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 60-324 and 50-325

cc: See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-36 April 2006
Appendix E

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHIINGTON, D.C. 20555401

December 30, 2004

Mr. Archie Ray Jacobs, Travel Chairman

Development Association Executive Director

Waccamaw Siouan

P.O. Box 69

Bolton, NC 28423

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF BRUNSWICK

STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS I AND 2 LUCENSE RENEWAL

APPLICATIONS

Dear Chairman Jacobs:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking Input for Its environmental review

of applications from the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), now doing business as

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.. to renew the operating licenses for the Bnxswick Steam

Electric Plant, Units I and 2 (BSEP). BSEP Is located In Brunswick County In southeastern

North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River. As described below, the NRC process

Includes an opportunity for public and Inter-governmental participatIon In the environmental

review. We want to ensure that you are aware o our efforts and, pursuant to Tie 10 Code of

the FederalRegulatlons Part 51.28(b) (10 CFR 51.28(b)), the NRC Invites the Waccamaw

Slouan Tribal Nation to provide Input to the scoping process relating to the NRC's

environmental review of the application. In addltion, as outlined In 36 CFR 800.8. the NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with Section 106 of the National Hstoric Preservation Act of

1966 through the requirements of the National Environmental PoticyAct of 1969.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant Is Issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an addcitional 20 years If NRC requirements

are met. The current operating licenses for BSEP Units 1 and 2 will expire In September 2016

and December 2014, respectively. CP&L submitted Its application for renewal of the BSEP

operating licenses on October 20,2004.

The NRC Is gathering information for a BSEP-specific supplernent to Its 'Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),

NUREG-1437. The supplement ill contain the results of the review of the environmental

Impacts on the area surrounding the BSEP site that are related to terrestrial ecology, aquatic

ecology, hydrology, historic and archaeological resources, and socioeconomic Issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptabilty of the

license renewal actio

The NRC will hold two public scoping meetings for the BSEP license renewal supplement to the

GEIS on January 27, 2005, at the Southport City Hall, 201 E. Moore Street, Southport,

North Carolina 28461. There will be two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first

session will convene at 1:30 p.m. and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second

session will convene at 7:00 p.m., with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will

April 2006 E-37 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

A. Jacobs -2-

continue until 10:00 p.m.. as necessary. Add iWonafly, the NRC staff will host Informal

discussions one hour before the start of each session. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed pubflc meetings or In wridng. No formal comments on the

proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS will be accepted during Informal discussions.

The application is electronically available for Inspection from the Publidy Available Records

component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

under Accession Number ML043060413. ADAMS Is accessible at httv:/fW.wnrc.gzov

readIng-rmladams.html which provides access through the NRCs Pubflc Electronic Reading

Room (PERR) link. if you do not have access to ADAMS or If there are problems In accessing

the documents located In ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference

staff at 1-800-397.4209, 1-301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the

application can be viewed on the Internet at http:Thw.nrc.aov/reactorsloperatinallicensina/

renewaltapolications.html.

A paper copy of the application can be viewed at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (firstfloor). Rockvlle, Maryland, 20852-2738 and the

William Madison Randall Ubrary, located at 601 S. Colege Road, Wilmington, N.C. 28403-

581B. The GEIS, which assesses the scope and Impact of envrkonmental effects that would be

associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site, can also be found on the

NRC's website or at httn:/mwwwnrc.-ov/readino-rmndr.htir NRC!s PDR.

Please submit any written comments that the Waccamaw Slouan Tribal Nation may have to

offer on the scope of the environmental review by March 11. 2005. Comments should be

submitted by manl to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative

Services, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. 20555-

0001, or by e-mail to BrunswlckES@nrcgov. At the concluslon of the scoping process, the

NRC staff will prepare a summary of the significant Issues Identified and the conclusions

reached and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will issue the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment (anticipated publication date, September 2005), and will hold another set of public

meetings In the site vicinity to solidt comments on the draft. A copy of the draft SEIS will be

sent to you for your review and comment. After consideration of public comments received on

the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The issuance of a final SEIS for BSEP Is planned

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-38 April 2006
Appendix E

A. Jacobs -3-

for April 2006. If you need additional Information regarding the environmental review process,

please contact the NRC Senior Project Manager, Mr. Richard L. Emch, Jr., at 301-415-1590, or

via emafl at rleODnrc.gov.

Sincerely,

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts

Division of Regulatory improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-324 and 504325

cc See next page

April 2006 E-39 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Raleigh Field Office

Post Ofice Box 33726

Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

Febrmary 3, 2005

Pao-Tsi Kno

Office of Nuciear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Wadhington, D.C. 20555-0001

DIa Mr. Kuo:

Thnk you for your December 29.2004 lette rgarding Progress EnerW Carolinas, Inc.

reques for reneral of the operating licenses for the Brinawick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1

and 2 (BSEP). The BSBP is located near Southprt in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

In addition to the 1,200 acre faclity near Southport, the BSEP includes 220 miles of

transmision corridors in Brunsick, Columbus, BladeM , Robeson, New Hanover, Pender

and Onslow counties. This letterprovides the U.S. Fish and Vrildlife Srvce's (Sevice)

response puruant to section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.) (Act).

A list of all fedcrally-protected endangered and threatened species with known occurrences

in North Carolina is available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) web page at

<htp:/nc-es.fWs.gov/cs>. Our web page also contains habitat information for all of the

endngered and threatened species known from North Carolina. Section 7of the Act

requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal representative), in

consultion with the Scrvice, insure that any action federally aufhorized, funded, or carried

our by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued eistence of any federally-listed

endangered or thratemed species. If the proposed project contains suitable habitat for any of

the federally-listed species known to be present within the county where the project occurs,

the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those species. As such, we

recommend that suveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence within

the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural Heritage program dsta should not be

substituted for actual field surveys.

If it is determined that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not

likely to adverscly affcrt) a federally-protted species, you should notify this ofice with

your detcrmination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the

effects of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If it is

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-40 April 2006
Appendix E

determined that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct

or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you arc not required to contact our office

for concurrence (unless an Bnvironmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you

should maintain a complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your

detertmintion of effect, the qualified personnel conducting the assessment, habitat

conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.

On March 19, 1993, Carolina Power and Light Company (now Progress Energy Carolinas,

Inc.) and the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (now the N.C.

Department of Erivironment and Natural Resources) entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MO) that is intended to "preserve and protect the special elements of

natural diversity and natural areas which best exemplify the state's natural heritage which

occur on ...powerline rights of way." As of January 1, 2001 the N.C. Natural Heritage

Program listed 21 sites located within Carolina Power and Light rights of way that contain 22

state and f*derally listed rare plant species. Recent conversations with the N.C. Natural

Heritage Program indicate that they are aware of additional sites on Progress Energy

Carolinas, Inc. rights of way that arm also in need of protection. The Service strongly

recommends that Progress Encrgy Carolinas, Inc. discuss these sites with the N.C. Natural

Heritage Program and incorporate as many of them as possible into their right of way

management program In addition, we also recommend that, as part of the license renewal

process, Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. revisit the original 21 sites listed in the January 1,

2001 memo and provide the Service and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program with updates on

the size and/or number of stems and general health of those populations.

Thank you for the oppouity to review and provide comments on this project. If you have

any questions or comments regarding our response, please contact Mr. Dale W. Suiter of this

officc at (919) 8564520, Ext 18 or Dale Suiter~fW.gov.

Ecological Service Supcvsor

cc: N.C. Natural Heritage Program nda Pearsall, Director)

April 2006 E-41 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

UNMTE STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

i 1 Natinl Oceanic and Atmosphas Adrrlnletrstlon

4Tf IONAL MMINE FPISERES ERMCE

Southeut Regional Office

9721 Executive Center Drive North

SL Petersburg, FL 33702

(727) 570-5312, FAX 570-5517

bttp:l/lsoamfs.no.pgov

Dear Colleague: FEB -.4 2

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fihberies) Protected Rcsurces Division has reviewed

your lette pursuant to section 7(aX2) of the Endangered Species Act (BSA) concerning Brunwick Steam

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, License Renewil

lTher are no ESAlsited sp"des or designated critical habita under our purview In the action

_ We cannot deterufne impacts to threatened or endangered species, or designated critical habitat.

underNOAA Fisheries' purview beamuse the letter lacks sufficient lformatioa to evaluMte the project

Endosed are guidelines to conduct a proper blological evaluation.

.Yflease provide a latter from the lead federal action agency designating you to conduct ESA

section 7 consultation with this offie

_Eadwed Is a list of federally-prateeted species under thejurisdiction af NOAA Pishezies for the

state of North Carolim Biological infornation on federsly protected species and candidate species can

be found at the following websitt addresses: http:/iwww fs.noaaov•L protoresabotl;

hflt:/odde ~fws.gnv "/~lSleatunnifo htm);btrpi/endangslftvw~lf tlEei1

http:Jww.cm-ocean.org/man.php3; htz :/Wflordaosevdoni~ psm/atrnlcsne.htrn

htt://obis env.duke.edu/daWsp..rofilks.php; wwsnmotc.org/-cotina/SswfWshSawfiahHomePage html;

wwx~flxianhcom wwwsmn u~fedlshisarks/Newssawpropwhtm;.Gulf sturgeon critical

kabitat sule and maps _: htt/w.ccc or;.

2ZJIs NO" Fheries opinion that the project will have rio effect an listed species or critical

habitat protected by the ESA under NOAA Fisheries' puriew. No further consultation with NOAA

Fisherles pursuant to section 7Ca)(2) of the ESA is required unless the project description changes.

Consultation with NOAA Fuseries, Habiut Conservation Division (1CD), pursuant to the Magnuson.

Stevens Fiey Consratlon and M agement Act's requiretoents for essential fish habitat consultation

may be requirod. Plase contactCD at (727) 75317. If you have any ESA questions, please contact

our ESA section 7 coodinator, Eric Hawk. at (727) 570-5312, or by e-mail at eic.hawlkfoua.gov.

-Otber.

Teletha Griffin

Administrative Support Assistant

* Protected Resottrces Division

Encloernre

File:1514-22.b

*O0)

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-42 April 2006
Appendix E

Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats

under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service

North Carolina

Listed Species Scientifc Name Status Date Usted

Marine Mammals

blue whale Balaenoptera muscubs Endangered 12170

frnbark whale Balaenoplera physahls Endangered 12102170

humpback whale Mgaplera novaeangllaa Endangered 121D2170

right whale Eubalaena gincas Endangered 121O2/70

sol whale Balnenoptera boreal-s Endangered 12102O70

sperm whale Physeterimaccephakn Endangered 12270

Turtles

green sea turale Chehla mydas Threalened' 07/22U78

hawksbUl sea turtle Erelmodelys knbdta Endangered 06/02/70

Kemps ridleysea turtle Lep;docheos kempft Endangered 12102170

leatherbkack sea turtle Demriche's codacea Endangered 0027

logerhead sea turtle Careita caretta Threatened 07128178

Fish

shortnosa sturgeon Ac~penserbreositnr Endangered 03/11fi7

Species Proposed for Usting None

Designated Critical Habitat

None

Proposed Critical Habitat

None

Candidate Specles' Scientific Name

Fish

dusky shark Carvhlrhlus obscuvns

sandtlgershark Odontasps taunis

night shark CdMhaarus s78 ats

Atlantic sturgeon Adpenseroyrftynchitxyu a rtyh us

speckled hind Ep elus dwmnmrdhayf

Warsaw grouper Epholphelus nious

1. Cbate spedces areot pred te naerWLd Sped Adct~b ecms uboiLihek uskxta tnUtttyn may

wannt s h the gmMum FedeWat agences And go pL acm mncomaged b consider thse species ding project psrlm** 50

tI Mure Ibhngs may be avoided.

I Green tMjs ere gsted AS ftreatned. eScept for bt f popLIatbs of preen SW 3s In Rora ard on the Padfic

Coast of Msco. d~ are listed as endangend.

e~loruiadsil (VI{sed 104V14

April 2006 E-43 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

UNTED STATES

p ;NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASM4INGTON, D.C. 2055-0001

March 17, 2005

Mr. Sam D. Hamilton. Regional Director

Southeast Regional Office

* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1875 Century Boulevard Northeast, Suite 400

Atlanta, Georgia 30345

SUBJECT: AMENDED REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE

AREA UNDER EVALUATION FOR THE BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC

PLANT, UNITS I AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL

Dear Mr Hamlton: *

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon (NRC) sent the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service a

letter, dated December 29. 2004, requesting a list of protected spedes within the area tinder

evaluation for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Units I end 2, license renewal. In that letter.

the NRC staff requested a Ist of spedes and hformnation on protected, proposed, and

candidate spedes and critical habitat that may be In the vicinity of the Brunswick Steam Electric

Plant (BSEP) and Its associated transmission Ones. This original request was based on

Information provided In the applicant`s Environmental Report and Induded the transmission lne

corridors that transverse Brunswick, Colurnbus, Bladen, Robeson, New Hanover, Pender, and

Onslow Counties In North Carolina. We have received a letter from your Raleigh Field Office,

dated February 3, 2005. which responded to the original request

On January 25-26, 2005. the NRC staff conducted a site audit at the BSEP site. During this

audit, the NRC staff conduded that the origInal Fayetteville line, which now connects to the grld

at the Whiteville substation, would need to be considered In this Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (SEIS). The original Fayetteville One was built to connect BSEP to the grld

and remains in exIstence. TNs change In the extent of the transmission lines adds Cumberland

County In North Carolina to the list of counties that are being considered In this SEIS. The

revised transmission line corridors considered In this SEIS are identified In Enclosure 1. To

support the environmental Impact statement preparation process and to ensure compilance with

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NRC requests a revised list of species and

Information on protected, proposed, and candidate spades and critical habitat that may be In

the vicinity of BSEP and the associated transmission lines, Including the lne from the Whiteville

substation to the Fayetteville substation.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-44 April 2006
Appendix E

S. Hamilton -2-

If you have any questions concerning BSEP, the license renewal application, or other aspects

of this project, please contact Richard L. Emch, Jr., Senior Project Manager, at 301-415-1590

or by a-mail at rle Onrc.gov.

Sinc~X>

P~-sn Kuo ram~

Lcense Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-324 and 50-325

Enclosure: As stated

cc wlencl.: See next page

April 2006 E-45 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Legend 0 -- aX

* By EP

A 20 , _ _ 2

- Tr~ambsionneiks

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT

Transmission Une Map

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-46 April 2006
Appendix E

G- -YUNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTOK 1.C. =5

A*ugust 8, 2005

Mr. Sam D. anmilton, Regional Director

Southeast Regional Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlfe Service

1875 Century Boulevard Northeast, Suite 400

Atlanta, GA 30345

SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF BRUNSWICK STEAM

- PELECTRJC-PLA¢UglNIT-S 4-ANDANDXAREQUE8T FlR4NFGRM NSIR MT3N --

Dear Mr. Hamilton:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has prepared the enclosed biological

assessment (BA) (Enclosure 1) to evaluate whether the proposed renewal of the Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) operating licenses for a period of an additlonal 20

* years would have any adverse effect on listed species. The proposed action (license renewal)

Is not a major construction activity. BSEP Is located In Bunwick County In southeastern North

Carogna, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

By letters dated December 29, 2004, and March 17,2005. the NRC requested a 1st of

Federally endangered or threatened species that may be In the vicinity of BSEP and Its

associated transmission Ones. in a letter dated February 3,2005, the U.S. Fish and WildlIfe

Service (FWS) directed the NRC to the following Website, httpJInces.fws.gov/s for a lIst of

Federally listed endangered or threatened species to evaluate In a BA. The FWS Website

istsed 12 terrestrial and six aquatic Federally endangered, threatened, or candidate speeies as

potentially occurring In countles containing the BSEP site, transmission line riglits-of-way, and

the Cape Fear RIver.

For docurnentation purposes, the NRC has Included four terrestrial and one aquatic species

that have been reported to occur In the counties containig BSEP or associated transrnission

ine rights-of-way, but due to known habitat requirements, they are not likely to be found near

BSEP or Its associated transmission Ones. This BA provides an evaluation of the potential

Impact of renewing the BSEP operating licenses for an additional 20 years of operation on the

22 endangered and threatened species and one candidate species.

In addition, the staff also contacted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) by letter dated December 29. 2004, requesting a list

of Federally threatened or endangered aquatic species that may be In the vicinity of BSEP. In a

*letter dated February 4,2005, NMFS Identified 12 Federally threatened or endangered aquatic

species of whales, sea turtles, and one fish species as having the potential to be present In

North Carorina waters In the vicinity of BSEP and Its associated transmission lne rights-of-way.

FWS has full jurisdiction for the terrestrial species, West Indian manatee, and Waccamaw

sihverside, while sharing the responsibilities for the sea turtles with NMFS.

April 2006 E-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

S. Hamilton -2-

The NRC has determined that the proposed action would have no effect on the eastern cougar

(Pwna concoorcougar), piping plover (Charadrlus melodus), seabeach amaranth (Amawanthus

pumnfus) miaIl whorled pogonla (biolda medeololdes), or the Waccamaw silverside (Menidla

exte ).

In addition, the NRC staff has determined the proposed action tay affect, but Is not likely to

adversely affect, the Amarican alilgator (Alligator mississtplenss), bald eagle (HalIaestus

leucocephalus), wood stork (Mycferia areorcana), red-cockaded woodpecker (Pcokdes

- -- boreals)K Saflt .,eon Xp&mfchenisi).4ofden sedg JutA - - .

Hirst's panic grass (DIchanfthlum hiistfl, Pondberry or southern spicebush (fihdbrn

melssVsa), rough-teal loosistrife (Lysimachia aspeafUfola), Michatos sumac (Rhus

michauxV), American chaffseed (Schwalboa amemcaJa), Cooleys meadowrue (ThaUctrum

cooleyo, West Indian manatee yTrichedius manatus), loggerhead tufte (Caretta carotta),

green turtle (Ctho,'de mydas), leatherback turte (Denmochls corlacea), hawksbTll turtle

(Erutniochetys.bmbricata), and Kerp's rMley turtle (Lepkdchevs kernpf).

We are requesting your concurrence with our deterdination. In reaching our conclusion, the

NRC staff reffed on infornation provided by the licensee, on Iterature research and Interviews

with experts performed by NRC staff, and on Information from the FWS (i.e., Including current

Istings of species provided by FWS, Raleigh, Field Office).

It you have ary questions regarding ftis BA or te staffs request, please contact

Richard Emch, Senior Envlronmental Project Manager, at 301-41 61590 or by e-mraJI at

reOnrc.gov.

Sincerely,

7iPao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Offlce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos-, 50-324 and 50325

Enclosure: As stated

cc wlenc.: See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-48 April 2006
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

(for species under the jurisdiction of

Fish and Wildlife Service)

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

License Renewal Review

August 2005

Docket Numbers

50-325

50-324

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Rockville, Maryland

April 2006 E-49 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or

Thrieatened Specles from the Proposed LIcense Renewal for the

Brunswick Steam MIectric Psant, Units i and 2

(tor specles under the jurisdiction of

Fish and Wildlife Service)

1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the of dompsl gerJn nuclear_

--- powerplantsmrganc BWMWii Te A cE~iirgy-At of 1954, as amended, and NRC

Implementing regulations. The Carolina Power & Ught Compary (CP&L), now doing business

as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., operates Brunswick Steam Electric Planl, Units 1 and 2

(BSEP) In southeastem Norith Carolina under Operating Licenses (OLs) DPR-62 and DPR-71,

respectively. The OL for Unit 1 will expire September 8, 2016, and the Unit 2 icense will expire

December 27, 2014. CP&L has applied to renew the operating lcenses for BSEP. If approved

by the N.RC, the renewed OLs wvuld alow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond

the current licensed operating term.

In letters dated December29, 2004, the staff requested comments from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) end the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admrinstration's National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the lloense renewal application for ESEP (NRC 2004a, b).

Specifically, the staff requested a list of.spectes and inforrratbn on protected, proposed. and

candidate species and critical habitat that may be In the vicinity of BSEP and Its associated

transmission line rights-of-ay. In a letter from the FWS dated February 3, 2005 (FWS 2005a),

the staff was directed to an FWS website (httpl/nc-esfws.gov/es) for a list of species to include

In this biological assessment (BA). NMFS provided a list of Federally protected species under

thelrjurlsudicton In a letter dated February 4,2005 (NMFS 2005a). A total of 16 terrestrial and

20 aquatic species, Federally fisted as endangered, threatened, candidates for listing, or

species of concern, occur or potentially occur in the counties within which the BSEP site and Its

transrnisslon lIne rvghts-of-way are located or In the Cape Fear Rlver. The Cape Fear River

serves as the source of cooling water for BSEP. Of the 36 Identified species, 23 are under full

or partial FWS Jurisdiction.

2.0 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OLS for BSEP Units I and 2. BSEP Is located In

Brunswick County In southeastern North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

Wilmington, North Carolina Is approximately 15 rmi north of the BSEP site, and Myrtle Beach,

South Carolina Is approxImately 50 ml to the southwest. By letter dated October 20, 2004,

CP&L submitted an application to the NRC to renew these Ol- for an additional 20 years of

operation (I.e., until September 2036 for Unit I and December 2034 for Unit 2).,

1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-50 April 2006
Appendix E

No major refurbishment or replacement of Important systems, Structures, or components are

expected during the 20-year BSEP license renewal term. In addition, no constuction activities

are epeced to be associated wth license renewal. If the NRC approves the license renewal

application, the reactors and support facilities, Including the cooling system, would be expected

to continue to be operated and maintained until the renewed licenses expire In the rrmd-2030s.

Continued maintenance acSttes on the transmission line rights-of-way that are used to

connect BSEP to the electric power grid also would be required I the proposed action Is

approved. Ongoing right-of-way surveillance and maintenance activities along BSEP

transmission lines Include routine aerial and ground Inspectlons as well as activities associated

with vegetation management

Furs-uaGto 1 0FR 54.23 an&d 51 (c), CP&L subrnmted an Environmental Report (ER)

(CP&L 2004) In which CP&L analyzed the environmental Impacts associated with the proposed

license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluated mitigation

measures for reducing adverse envlronmental effects. The NRC is using this ER, as weo as Its

own analysis as the basis of a supplemental environmental Impact statement, a plant-specfic

supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental impact Staement for iUcense Renewal of

Nuclear Plants. 'This BA was prepared to evaluate the potential Impacts to species protected

under the Endangered Species Act of operating BSEP, Units I and 2 for an additional 20 years

beyond the current license term for each unit.

3.0 The Plant and Assoclated Transmisslon Une System

3.1 Reactor Systems

BSEP uses boiling water reactors (BWRs) and steam-driven turbine generators manufactured

by General Electric. As originally built and operated, each of the BSEP units had a design

rating of 2436 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)). Since 1996, the NRC has approved two power

uprates. Each unit Is now licensed to operate at 2923 MW(t), 20 percent over the original

licensed maximum power level.

Each reactor s primary containment is a pressure suppression system consisting of a drywall, a

pressure-suppression chamber storing a large volume of water, a connecting vent system

between the drywell and the suppression pool, a vacuum relief system, Isolation valves,

containment cooling systems, and other service equipment.

3.2 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

Cooling water for BSEP Is obtained from the lower Cape Fear River and discharged to the

Atlantic Ocean. Water passes from the lower Cape Fear estuary through screens In a diversion

structure used to limit the entrainment of biota Into the Intake canal. The 3-ml Intake canal

flows via gravity from the screens at the Cape Fear River to the plant. At the plant, cooling

water is drawn through a combination of eight bays (four for each unit). Each bay has a trash

rack, traveling screens, and an Intake pump. For each unit, two bays have fine mesh (1 mm)

2

April 2006 E-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

screens and the other two bays have half fine mesh and half coarse mesh (318 In.) screens.

Typically, each unit operates utilizing two of the fine mesh bays and one of the half ffne/half

coarse bays. Qrganisms Impinged on the traveling screens are washed Into a trough that leads

to a holding basin before bIng released to Walden Creek, which is part of the Cape Fear River

watershed. The daily maxlmrum intake by BSEP Is lImited to 2210 cubic feet per second (cfa)

during April through Novemfber and to 1844 cfs during Decernber through March.

Chlorine Is Injected Into the circulating water Intake system to prevent biofouling. Total residual

chorine is monitored under terms of the planr' Natlonal Pollutant Discharge Eirnination System

(NPDES) permit before the effluent Is pumped Into the ocean. After passing through the plant,

the discharge water Is released Into a 6-m&Urleng cqMnJb~A R t graftyout ImCaswell Beach_

(FPjure i). Al Caswmel Beach the effluent Is pumped 2000 ft offshore Into the Atlantic Ocean.

BSEP receives potable and processed water from the Brunswick County Public tNiles. CP&L

reports that from 1996 through 2001, BSEP's water Imports averaged 023 mirUlon gallons per

day (MGD). The source of the majority of water Imported from Brunswick County Public Utilities

Is surface water from the lower Cape Fear River. BSEP operates one groundwater well onsite

to supply-water to the biological laboratory. The well has a rated capacity of 30 galbns per

minute (gpm), but the actual use is far less than the rated capacity.

3.3 Electrical Transmission System

The eight 230-kV twmnsslon Ines constructed to connect the BSEP to the transmission

system were described In the Fhal Environmental Statement (FES) for operation of BSEP

Units 1 and 2 (AEC 1974). These lines Included two Ines to the Delco and Barnard Creek

substations and imnes to the Fayetteville, Wallace, and Jacksonville substations. In addition,

31 mlimf new transmission line were constructed after Initial licensing to connect BSEP to the

Weatherspoon Substation.

The two lines to Barnard Creek Substation have been extended to the Caste Hayne Substation

'and Wilrington Coming Switching Station, located about 12 ml to the north of the Barnard

Creek Substation. Both the Castle Hayne and the Wilmington Coming lines are considered in

this BA In their entirety. The original Fayettevflle One now connects to the grid at the Whiteville

Substation. However, because the Fayettevlile line, which was built to connect BSEP to the

grid, remains in existence, the full extent of the original line is considered In this BA.

The transmission lines are shown In Figure 2. In total, about 890 ml of transmission lines in

about 260 mn of rights-of-way are considered In this BA. The rights-of-way cover approximately

4690 as. The length of each line and the area covered by the rights-of-way associated with the

line are listed in Table 1. In estimating the rights-of-way for each line, the total area In shared

rights-of-way was distributed equally among the Ones within the right-of-way.

CP&L employs an Integrated vegetation management approach that Includes both mechanical

and chemical control methods. This allows them to design the maintenance practices to fit the

3

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-52 April 2006
Appendix E

.. .. .

Figure 1 o ! .. L'Units . 1 nd 2 (PEC2003) ' .,, S

differe9nt h'ndi c terrat ind solls'that a re crossed by the tan i es chanical

methodsInclude pruning felling; nowing, and hand trimming. Qteriicr methods Include thoe'

use of tree growlth rqguoato'rsio slow thie groivth fast g'treersand U S Environmental

-Proteebon6 Aency (EPA) pprove herbicides to control undrabl woody.vegeta~ton thal

'regrowafter mowinMg. -Oe te r e mbhnamt, ol m-ng end hebi' esresults 8 "

t ' 4 24 It;-. s ~, ~

April2006 E-53 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Legend 0

* BSEP

A 230 Kv Substa 0EC

TmIsmblon Unes

Co y

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT

Transmission Line Map

ha0

- K kftf

510 20 30 40

Wv4

win 8W3M05

Figure 2. BSEP Transrrission Une Map

5

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-54 April 2006
Appendix E

Table 1. Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Transmission Lines

Approidnmt Etmated RightLin Leng a t-Way Area

Substation Miles Acrs

Fayeftevlle 103 900

Weatherspoon 31 460

Delco East 31 320

Delco West 31 . 0

Wallace 55 720

Jacksonvige 75 . 940

Castle Haye East 35 650

WlIIrgto Cornig Swtchkg Staon 27 400

ToW 3M 4890

community dominated by low-growing, non-woody plants, such as grasses and herbaceous

plants that require loss maintenance but still provide food and cover for wildife (CP&L 2004).

4.0 Environmental Setting

ESEP Is located In Brunswick County, In southeastern North Carolna, near the mouth of the

Cape Fear River. The area within a 6-nl radlus of the plant Incudes the town of Southport, the

community of Boiling Spring Lakes, and the resort communities of Caswell Beach, Oak Island,

and Baid Head Island. WIlmington, North Carolina, lies approximately 15 ml north of the BSEP

- site, and "irtle Beach, South Carolina. Rles approxrmately 50 ml to the southwest along the

coast The Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point Is situated Immedlately north of the BSEP site.

FIgure 3 shows the site location and features In the surrounding area.

Cooling water for BSEP Is drawn from the Cape Fear River by way of a 3-ml-long Intake canal

that passes from the river to BSEP. After passing through the plants condensers, the heated

water travels through a -mF-long discharge canal to Caswell Beach where It Is pumped 2000 ft

offshore through large submerged pipes Into the Atlantic Ocean.

4.1 Terrestrial Resources

The BSEP site Is loated within the rnid-Atlantic coastal plain ecoreglon (Griffth et al. 2002),

which In pro-European settlement times was dominated by lo"gleaf pine (Fynus palustris) with

patches of oak (Quercus app.), gum (Nyssa spp.), and cypress (Taxodlum spp.) (Griffith et al.

2002). The BSEP site Is within the Carolina llatwoods sub-region, which Includes a wide variety

of community types Including pine flatwoods, pine savannas, freshwater marshes, pond pine

6

April 2006 E-55 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

I

I

I

* Rbads

L* ft I fa~

Pdwaia Lai&.

UrbinJ ca a.~~

1' I a .1 I Ad~ . = em- Us

Figure 3. BSEP Location and Surrounding Area, 50-ml Radius

7

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-56 April 2006
Appendix E

woodlands, pocosins, Carolia bays, and some sandhill communItles (Griffth et al. 2002). The

transmission 6nes cross other sub-region types Including mid-Atlantic 1loodplains and low

terraces;-aWiidonrivirIne swamps-arid peatiands;-The region-Is-a-sgnificantcenter-of endemic

blota (Halo ot al. 1999). Although there Is still a substantial amont of native habitat In the .

vIcini4y of the BSEP sie, rnuch of It has been converted to other uses, induding lobloily pine

(Phw taeda) piantationi end croplands of corn, soybeans, and tobacco.

The bnvironment on the BSEP site Includes waterways, such as te Cape Fear River,

DUtchman Creek, and Nancy Creek; saiine and brackish marshes; coastal dunes; and uplands

(AEC 1974). Most upland portions of the BSEP site have been replanted with lobiolly pine.

Terrestiii-aihdweandcoftnunitles In the-cofyBSER.Incepinesavannas,tongleaf -

piinwiregrass (Arka sdsta) communitles, pn-hardwood forests, pocosins, dune-strand

communItias, end salt rirshes (CP&L 2004).

Lobiolly pine Is the principal pine species in the pinehardwood forests In the vicnity of BSr=P.

Impoita hardwoods Include mweet gum (Llquktnba styradlfua), blacigurn (Nyssa sytvafca),

hickory (Calya epp.), end oaks. Along the ancient dunes, which tend to be well drained, the

forests are dominaWd by longleaf pine, turkey oak (Querus lae), and wlregrass. Remnant

pine savanhds oocurlin periodically flooded areas; these are characterized by an open canopyof oNglead pine or pond pine (P.-serofna) with a dense ground cover of herbs and shrubs. Arelatively unique cornhainity type In the area are pocosins. These are wetland depressions

vegetated with det. Stands of various evergreen shrubs and small trees such as red bay

(Persea borbonla) and sweet bay (Magnolia *grglnina) (CP&L 2004).

Sparse stands of grass dominated by sea oats (Unlola pankdata) characterize the seaward

side of the d strand communities found at the Interface between the sea and land. Because

of the *ind aid salt spray, plants are primarily found on the landward side of the dunes.

Relatively dense herbaceous shrub communities dominated by sabal palm (Sabalpalmetto)

and live oak (0. Ypflnafna) develop In these more protected areas (CP&L 2004).

Cordgrass (Sparhts alternfilora) and needlerush (Juncus romedanus) are the dominant species

In the saft marshes at the BSEP site. The marshes represent habitat for many important

aquatic organisms that are preyed upon by a variety of terrestrial wfldlife species (CP&L 2004).

Widlife species In the vicinity of BSEP are typical of those found In the southeastern Coastal

Plain. Theupland communitles support many species of birds, Including hawks, woodpeckers,

warblers, and sparrows; marmals such as while-tailed deer (Odocoleus vhginlanus), opossum

(Didelophs virginiana), raccoon (Procyon Iota,), squirrels (Sdurus spp.), skunk

4Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat (Lynx ruMs); as well as a variety of snakes, toads, frogs and

izards. Wetlands such as the salt-marshes provide habitat for the American alligator

(Aligator mlsslssIpplensts), raccoon (Procyon loto), river otter (Lontra canadensis), and many

species of wading birds (CP&L 2004).

8

April 2006 E-57 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

There are eight transmission lines that were constructed to connect BSEP to the transmission

system. The transnission fine to the Barnard Creek substation crosses the Cape Fear River

near the top of the estuary. The Whiteville transmission line crosses several pocosins and

Green Swamp, which has been designated a National Natural Landmark (NPS 2005). TheWhIteville transmission line also passes about I ml west of Lake Waccamaw State Park and

approximately 2 ml south of Lake Waccarnaw. The Holly Shelter Game Land in the Holly

Shelter swamp Is crossed by the Jacksonville transmission line. In northwest Pender County,

the Wallace transmission Uine crosses the B. W. Wells Savannah, a 117-ac remnant of wetland

savannah that supports 170 native plant species, some of which are considered rare (NCCLT

2001). The transmission line rights-of-ways do not cross any Federal or State parks. CP&L

has partnered with the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, the Conservation Trust for North

Carolina, the Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society, and the

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) to preserve unique and rare species within

the transmission line rights-of way.

42 Aquatic Resources

BSEP Is surrounded by a diverse and complex aquatic ecosystem Aquatic habitat types

surrounding the plant Incdude salt marshes, the river channel/estuary, and offshore regions

(CP&L 1980). The plant Is situated approximately 5.7 ml upstream from the mouth of the

Cape Fear River (CP&L 1985). BSEP's cooling system draws water predominantly from the

surface layer of the Cape Fear River ship channel through a 3-mi-ong Intake channel. Water Is

discharged to the Atlantic Ocean after flowing through a 68r-i discharge canal. The water is

pumped approximately 2000 ft offshore through submerged pipes to the point of discharge

(CP&L 1979).

The Cape Fear River Is estuarine at the point where water Is drawn into the Intake canal.

Estuaries are partially endosed coastal areas where freshwater and saltwater mix. These

areas are under tidal Influence, but they are protected from the full force of the ocean by barrier

Islands, salt marshes, or other land forms. The species found In estuaries are specially

adapted for life in ts transitional area. Estuaries are considered to be among the most

productive areas on earth (EPA 2005).

The region surrounding the BSEP Intake canal entrance, just downstream of Sunny Point, Is In

an area that experiences a large Udal exchange (CP&L 1985). Salinity is Influenced primarily by

tidal conditions and the rate of freshwater Inflow. A salinity gradient exIsts where runoff from

the Cape Fear River mixes with water from the Atlantic Ocean. From Sunny Point upstream to

Wilmington, the water Is often two-layered, with the less-dense frshwater moving downstream

over the more-dense seawater (CP&L 1980). Downstream from Sunny Point, the water is more

uniformly mixed because of complex water circulation patterns, vigorous tidal action, and high

exchange rates with the ocean. This portion of the estuary is shallow and Irregular In shape,

with marny Islands and channels that enhance mixing (CP&L 1980, 1985). Because the

freshwater Inflow from the Cape Fear River and Its tributaries Is highly variable, salinities at the

Intake may range from nearly 0 to 32 parts per thousand (ppt) (AEC 1974). During periods of

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-58 April 2006
Appendix E

average freshwater Inflow, salinities near Sunny Point are generally In the range of 8 to 15 ppt

(CP&L 1980). Minimum salinities are generally recorded In winter, and maximum sainities are

generally recorded in late summer (CP&L 1985). Water temperatures in the estuary are

Influenced largely by changes In season, with the warmest temperatures (as high as 1 03-iF)

observed during late surnmer (CP&L 1985).

The Cape Fear Estuary serves as a nursery area for fish and shellfish larvae and juveniles.

Some species, such as anchovy (Anchoa spp.) and gobles (Gobloneflus spp., Goblosoina spp.)

spawn In the estuary, while others, such as Atlantic menhaden (BravoorUa tyrannus), spot

(Leosomus xanthurus), croaker (Mlcopogonlas undulatus), and pinfish (Lagodon rhombokles)

spawn In the ocean (PEC 2003). Sainity and temperature influence the spatial and seasonal

distribution of these estuarine species (CP&L 1985). The ebb and flow of water In the estuary

also contribute to the transport and/or retention of larvae and other organisms throughout the

estuary (CP&L 1980).

Many species that inhabit waters In the vicinity of the B.SEP have commercial or recreational

value. Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (F. duoranum), and white shrimp

(Utopenaeus sefferus) Inhabit salt marshes, Incuding Snow's Marsh. which borders the Intake

canal (CP&L 1980). The shrimp spawn In offshore waters and the post-larvae are recruited Into

the estuary where they find food and protection. As the shrimp mature, they migrate to deeper

waters where commercial fishermen harvest them (AEC 1974). Croaker, an important food fish

and sport fish, Is another Inhabitant of the salt marsh, Including Snoaws Creek (AEC 1974).

Croaker spawn In the ocean during fall and winter. The young spend their first year In the

low-salnIty regions of the estuary and then move to the ocean. Examples of other spades

found In salt marshes near BSEP Include blackcheek tonguefsh (Symphurus pleglusa). strped

anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus), Atlantic menhaden, and pinfish (AEC 1974).

In the river channel and estuary, developing larvae of brown, pink, and white shrimp, as well as

blue crab (Celinectes spp.) can be found (AEC 1974). This portion of the estuary also supports

the larvae of anchovy, croaker, gobles, spot, blackcheek tonguefish, Atlantic menhaden, and

striped mullet (MugH cephalus) (AEC 1974). The estuary supports larval fish year-round.

although the species composition varies by season. Important adult fish using the estuary

incude gray sea trout (Cynosclon rgalrts), spot, croaker, bay anchovy (Anchoa mrrticll7),

summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus). American

shad (Aiosa sepldisstma), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blue backed herring (Aloss

aoestivaUs) (AEC 1974).

The heated effluent Is discharged Into the offshore region at Oak Island. Larvae of shrimp.

anchovies, gobies, spot, croaker, gray seatrout, pinfish, and menhaden have been recorded in

this region (AEC 1974). Adults with some commercial value captured In this area include

brown, pink, and white shrimp, blue crab, anchovy, spot, king fish (Mentalclrhus amerlcanus).

croaker, thread herring (Opistonema ogllnum), bluefish (Pornetomnus saltatrix), drum (Steliffer

10

April 2006 E-59 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

lanceolatus), and sole (Symphurus plagiusa). Benthic organisms found In the mud and sand of

this offshore area Inducde the snail (Retusa cailelculats), brittle star (Ophlophragumus app.),

and polychaete worms (AEC 1974).

5.0 Evaluation of Threatened and Endangered Species

5.1 TerrestrIal Specles

A total of 18 Federally Usted terrestrial spedes have been identified from counties traversed by

BSEP tranamrilon line rights-of-way. Federally asted terrestrial species reported to occur from

- B tw Bt n,-ColurrmbNewtanover, Onslow;Pender eumberiand, orRobeson- -

Counties include the bald eagle (Halaeetus lfuocphalus), red-cockaded woodpecker

(Poldes boreali), piping plover (Chat ddus melodus), wood stork (Mydycta amorina),

American chaffseed (Schwalbea amoriana), tough-leaf loosestrife (Lysamacida aspenIaefofia),

goldeh sedge (Cawx lute), pondberry (Lirdera melisstfofa), sea beach amaranth

(Amarantius pumilus), Hlrits panic grass (PanIcum r hirv, Michauxes sumac (Rhus m1ChauxJO,

Cooley's meadowrue (Thactrurmr cooleyle), smail whorled pogorna (Isotria medeolides), Saint

Francis' satyr (Neonympha mitchellil frandsc), and the American alligator. Also, there have

been historical records of the eastern cougar (Puma concolor oQuat) In the vicinity of BSEP.

Habitat for some of the Federally listed species could potentliay be found within or travetsed by

BSEP transmission iine rights-of-way, however, there Is no critical habitat for any of the

Federafly listed species on the BSEP shte or on the associated trarnmisslon lIne rights-of- Way.

There are known populations of the rough-leaf loosestrife, golden sedge, and Cooley's

rneadowrue within the 8SEP transmission lne rights-of-way. These sites are managed In

cooperation with the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources

(NCDEiiNR). Red-cockaded woodpeckers are known to inhabit the Military Ocean Port Sunny

Point, which Is ad]acent to BSEP, and additional habitat Is located In the vicinity of the BSEP as

well as along several of the transmission Ine rights-of-way. Wood storks and bald eagles are

occasionally seen foraging at the bypass return pond on BSEP but have not been recorded

nesting in the vicinity of BSEP or Its transmission line rights-of-way. The American alligator Is

widespread In Walden Creek and has been seen near the transmission line rights-of-way anid

the Intake and discharge canals. This species Is not biologically endangered or threatened, but

Is lIsted strictiy because of sirnilarty In appearance with other threatened crocodillan species.

CP&L monitors and records occurrences and populations of Federally listed and State-sensitive

terrestrial species on the BSEP site and within transmission line rights-of-way. In addition,

CP&L directs Its contract personnel and consults with appropriate Federal and State agencies

to develop and Implement restrictions and safeguards to protect threatened and endangered

species on the BSEPsite and the associated transmission line rights-of-way (BSEP 2003,

2005a).

CP&L and NCDEHNR signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 1993 to preserve and protect

rare, threatened, and endangered species and sensitive natural areas occurring on

11

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-60 Apnl 2006
Appendix E

transmission line rights-of-way (CP&L and NCDEHNR 1993). The company manages rare

plant species on Its transmission line rights-of-way through several Best Management Practices

(BSEP 200ta). CP&L and contractorpersonnel that are Involved In transmission line

maintenance activities must complete Environmental Tring: Endangerd Species (BSEP

2003). These personnel are retponsible for familiarizing themselves with any Identified rare

plant In their work area. They must comply with rare plant signs posted within or along the

right-of-way. CP&L personnel also install, maintain, and monitor stakes and signs that are

posted at the known rare plant loctions (9SEP 2005a): The use of herbicides, heavy

equipment, and mowing Is prohibited In areas with known populations of rare plants during the

active, "above-ground" period of the plant's growing cycle. Therefore, maintenance activities

-- are normallyoonducttldthe fell andwnter.-after-frost4n4hose-segmenteof transmission- - - -

Ineb that contain rare plants (BSEP 2003).

The NRC has reviewed life histotles Information for all the terrestrial threatened, endangered,

and candidate species that have been Identified In the vIcInity of iSEP or the transmission line

rights-of-way. The staff has also reviewed Information provkded by CP&L, FWS, and NCNHP

regarding threatened and endangered species In the vicinity of the BSEP site and associated

transmission line rlghts-of-way. The NRC has detenTined that the proposed action would either

have no effect or may affect, not likely to adveroely affect the terrestrial threatened,

endangered, and candidate spedes. Terrestrial species tat are Ksted as threatened or

endangered by the FWS aid have potential to occur In the vicinity of the BSEP site or along the

transmisslon line tights-of-way ere presented In Table 2. The basis for each determination Is

dscussed in the following paragraphs.

Table 2 Federally Listed Terrestrial Spedes Reported From Counties Associated

with BSEP and Its Transmission Line Rights-cf Way

Federal

Species Common Name Statuusm Counties Determination

REFPTLES

Affptor American alligator T(SIA) Bladen, Bnswick, May affect, not likely to

missrw ppkensL5 Columbus, Cumberland, adversely alfect

New Hanover, Ponder.

Robeson

MAMMALS

Puma concolor eastern cougar E BnrnswickNO, Onslow') No effect

couguar

BIRDS

Charaddus melodus piping plover T Brurwick, New No effect

Hanover, Onslow,

Pender

Hallaeotus bald eagle T Bladen" Brunswick, May affect not likely to

ucacepwlus Columbus", Onslow adversely affect

12

April 2006 E-61 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Table 2. (contd)

Federal

Sped" Common Nam Statusb Counties

Myctrlh americana wood stork E Bnrnswick

Detennination

May sifect, not fikely to

adversely affect

MaI affect, not likely to

adversely affect

Pkobes borwalbfi red cockaded

woodpecker

. _ .. INVEYRTEBATES.

E Bladen, Brunswick,

Colurbus, Cumberland,

New Hanover, Onsfow.

Pander, Robeson

Newiyp#A

PLANTS

carex kdk

Saint Frands' satyr

seeach amaranth

glden sed§e

E Cumbertand May affect, not hkely to

adversely affect

Dkhwftluxn ttl Hras panic grass

botri medeok~s anl whorded

P 'gna

Lkiders menwofssoi

Lyvlmadda

sspen~bof

pOndbey or

southern spicebush

rough-leaf loosestrle

T BrunswIc New No effect

Hanover, Onslow,

Pender

E OnskOw, Pender May affect, not likely to

adversely afect

C Onslow May affect, no*keyto

adversely affect

T Cumberland" No oftect

E Cunberland, Bladen*" May afect, not likely to

adversely affect

E Bladen, Bnna tck May affect, not likely to

Columbus". adversely affect

CumberIand New

Hanover, Onslow,

Pender

E Ctunborand, FRobeson May affect, not likely to

adversely affect

E Bladen", Cumberland, May affect, not likely to

Penderft adversely affect

E Brunswic, Cohxnbusi May affect, not likely to

New Hanove, Onslow, advoersely affect

Pender .

R~hu mldmux Michauxs sumac

Schtwa bea

an.*Ans

Thaktr=a coofeyf

American chaffseed

Cooeles meadowrue

(a) E endangred, T -Threatened. T(SIA) treataned due lo shinlarity ol appearance, C - candidate.

(b) Historic redord at least 20, maybe >50, years old.

(c) Recorded hI state database but not FWS r*Vg.

(d) Obscure record hI State database - not in FWSlsftng.

(e) Obscure record.

Based on: FWS 2005b; NCNHP 2004a

13

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-62 April 2006
Appendix E

American Alligator

The Anerican alltgator Is listed by FWS as threatened because of Its siilarity of appearance

with other threatened crocodlian species. This species Is not biologically endangered or

threatened and Is not subject to Section 7 consultatIon. They are found In freshwater wetland

areas throughout southeastern North Carolina (NCNHP 2005a). In the vcinity of BSEP. the

American alligator Is widespread In Walden Creek and the Intake and discharge canals, and it

has also been seen along the Fayetteville and Wallace transmission One rlghts-oftway. The

proposed activities (continued maintenance of the transmission Ine rlght-of-way and the Intake

and discharge canals) would not result In detectable modfications of the freshwater systems

-and9otddnotaiter-abftt quafltyin the-surrnding areas.- lTereforeAhNRC condudes that - - -

the proposed license renewal of BSEP may affect, but Is not likely to adversely affect the

American alilgator.

Eastem Cougar

The eastern cougar Is Isted by FWS as endangered. This large cat formerly ranged throughout

the eistem United States and Canada but was driven to near eSicklofi during the 1 Boos. It

may be extrpated from North Carolina (FWS 2005c) and may be eAlct throughout Its former

range (NfturServe 2005). It has not been reported from Brunswick or any of the surroundang

countles for over 20 years, and Is not likely to occur near BSEP or within Its transmission Une

rio-way. Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20:

yearicense renewal term would have no effect on the eastern cougar.

Piping Plover

The piping plover Is listed by FWS as threatened. This small shorebird breeds along the

Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to North Carolina as well as along the great lakes and on

river sandbars In the upper great plains (FWS 2005d). It winters along the Atlantic and Gulf

coasts from North Carolina to Mexico. FWS has designated portins of the Atlantic coastal

beaches In Brunswick, Hanover, Pender, and Onslow counties as critical habitat for the piping

plover (66 FR 36038). Critical habitat does not occur at BSEP or adjacent to associated

transmission One rights-of-way (CP&L 2004). Suitable nesting or foraging habitat Is not known

to occur at the BSEP site or along the transmission One rights-of-way.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history and critical habitat Information of the

piping plover. Based on this Information, along with Infomnation obtained from NCNi-iP on the

known occurrences of piping plovers, the staff determined that suitable nesting and foraging

habitat Is not present at the BSEP she or along the transmission line rights-of-way. Therefore,

the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term

would have no effect on the piping plover.

1 4

April2006 E-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Said Eagle

The bald eagle, found throughout the United States, Is listed by FWS as threatened. It was

proposed for delisting on July 6, 1999 (64 FR 36453), but a decision on whether to delist the

bald eagle Is still pending. Bald eagle nests are large often measuring 6 ft across

(FWS 2005a). Nest trees are usually large diameter trees characterdzed by open branching

and stout limbs. Because fish Is the primary food source, the majority of nest sites are within

0.5 ml of a body of water, such as coastal shorelines, bays, rIvers, lakes, farm ponds, or

dammed rivers (I.e., beaver dams, log Jams, etc.), and have an unobstructed view of the water.

Winter foraging areas are usually located near open water on rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and bays

wbesflisbandwitaf aru m undant.io r-ame tb I eQQrDo at et(Le., nelond.. -.....

barren lnd, tundra, 6uburban areas, etc.) where other prey spedes-(e.g., rabbit, rodents, deer,

carrion) are abundant

iald eagles have been periodically observed near BSEP and aong the transmission line

rights-of-way, but there are no known nesting locations near BSEP. In the last iteen years,

there have only been two confirmed nest sites within 20 rni of BSEP In Brunswick County.

Field personnel are requirsd to take trainiW to become famMar wkh threatened and

endangered species that are In the vicinity of BSEP and the transmission line rights-of-way.

This btain Includes familiarizing personnel with the characteristics of the bald eagle and.how

* to Identfy potential bald eagle nests (BSEP 2003). CP&L field personnel are required to report

any potential nests and CP&L maintains a pokicy of *do not disturb nests, whether active or

IaecW (BSEP 2003).

The staff visited the site and reviewed the Ile history information on the bald eagle. Based on

this inorrnation, Information obtained from NCNHP, and Information obtained from BSEP on

endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff concludes that continued operatlon of

BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect, but Is not likely to adversely affect,

bald eagles.

Wood Stork

The wood stork Ls listed by FWS as endangered. It inhabits freshwater and brackish wetlands.

and normally nests In cypress or mangrove swamps. Because of Its unique feeding technique

(tacto-location), It typically requires higher prey concentrations than other wading birds and

tends to rely on depressions In marshes or swamps where prey can become concentrated

during periods of falling water levels. Breeding colonies are located in Florida, Georgia, and

South Carolina (FWS 199. Every summer since the 1 980a, between 15 and 100 Individuals

have frequented th parea around Sunset Beach, North Carolina, which Is approximately 30 ml

southwest of BSEP. This non-breeding colony represents the northernmost extent of this

species range and Is the only known colony of wood storks In North Carolina (FWS 2005Df .

15

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-64 April 2006
Appendix E

This species has been perodicalgy observed foraging In the bypass return pond on the BSEP

site. It has not bem observed along the transmission line rights-o-way which are at least 15 mn

from theSunset Beach colony.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history of the wood stork. Based on this

Information, information obtained from NCNHP, and the fact that the wood stork Is known to

occasionally forage near the BSEP site, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP

over the 20-year lioense renewal term may affect, but Is not likely to adversely affect, the wood

stork.

k..hadad-WeQo'Wkpr

The red-cockaded woodpecker Is listed by FWS as endangered. it occurs throughout the

southeastern United States, and has been observed near the BSEP site and In all of the

counties crossed by the BSEP transmission fine rights-of-way. In eastern North Carolina, it Is

found in mature pine forests (generally longleaf pine) with sparse understory vegetation It

requires open stands of pines, vfit trees over 80 years old for nesting (FWS 1 993a). As of

2003, there were nine active red-cockaded woodpecker nesting groups on the Mimary Ocean- -

Terminal Sunny Point, and It Is thought that the facility could support as many as 17 nesting

groups (FWS 2003). Suitable nesting habitat for this species ls not found at BSEP

(CP&L 2004), but birds nay forage In the vicinity of the plant and could nest or forage near

many of the transafsslon line rights-of-way. Any facility expansion involving removal of mature

lonleaf pine would require surveys for.this species to ensure that no red-ocockaded

woodpeckers or trees with their nest-cavties would be harmed (CP&L 2004).

Field personhel are required to take training to become farnilar with threatened and

endangered species that are In the vicinity of BSEP and the transmission lne rights-of-way.

This ttaining Includes fafIllarIzing personnel with the characteristics of the red-cockaded

woodpecker and how to Identify potential red-cockaded woodpecker nests (BSEP 2003). CP&L

field personnel are required to report any potential nests and CP&L. maintains a policy of 'do not

disturb nests, whether active or inactive (BSEP 2003).

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information about the red-cockaded

woodpecker. Based on this Information, Information obtained frorn NCNHP. and Information

obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff concludes

that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect, but is not

likely to adversely affect, red-cockaded woodpeckers.

Saint Francis' Satyr Butterfly

The Saint Francis' satyr butterfly is fisted by FWS as endangered . It occurs in a single metapopulation In the sandhflls of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina (FWS 2005g).

Habitat consists primanly of wet meadows dominated by sedges (Carex spp.) and other wetland

grarminolds (FWS 1996a). The species has been observed In a variety of other wetland areas,

16

April 2006 E-65 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Including areas with pitcher plants and the endangered rough-leaf loosestrife, but It Is not

known If the Saint Frands' satyr uses these habitats for any part of its life cycle other than a

travel corridor. Although suitable habitat for the Saint Francis' satyr potentially could occur

within or near the AijnswI*-toFayettevlfle transmIssion One right-of-way, the NCNHP does not

have record of this species within at least 8 ml of the right-of-way.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history of the Saint Francis' satyr butterfly. Based

on this Information, Information obtained from NCNHP, and the fact that wetland areas with

pitcher plants and rough-leat loosestrife are known to occur in the ESEP transmission line

rights-of-way, the staff concludes that continued operation of BEEP over the 20-year license

renewal term m gapy affetbut Is rnot lkely toq tc~rsely aftect SAt Fmrids'styr butgtflt...

Seabeach Amaranth

The seabeach armranth Is listed by FWS as threatened. It is an annual plant that Inhabits

open sand areas on AtMantic ocean beaches, originally from Massachusetts to South Carolina,

but Is now restricted to approximately 65 populations In South Carolina, North Carolina, and

Now York state (FWS 1M6b). Between 60 and 70 percent of the surviving populations are In

North Carolina, nludnt some In Blinswick, New Hanover, Oheow, and Pander Counties

(FWS 2005h; NCNHP 2005a). At populations are strictly coastal, and seebeadc amaranth

often co-occurs In the same areas as the piping plover (FWS 1996b). There are no known'

poputidons near the BSEP site, and It Is unlikely that there Is any suitable habitat at the BSEP

ule or near any of the transmission rights-of-way. Therefore, the staff concludes that contrnued

operation of BSEP over the.20-year license renewal term would have no effect on the seabeach

amaranth.

Golden Sedge

The golden sedge is listed by FWS as endangered and Is only found In Pander and Onslow

Counties, North Carolina. This species was first discovered In 1991, but was not formally

described until 1994 (67 FR 3120); therefore, relatively lttle Is known about Its ecology. Golden

sedge Is a perennial found In a rare habitat type of coastal savanna underlain by calcareous

Q(msstone) deposits (FWS 2002a). Atthe tme it was listed as endangered, there were only

eight known populations of golden sedge, all within a 2-ml radius of each other. Several

additional populations have been found since the publication of the final listing determination

(NCNHP.2005b). In 1996, a single population of golden sedge was recorded along the

Jacksonville transmission line right-of-way In Onslow County. Since that time, additional

populations have been noted, and data provided by the NCNHP Indicates the presence of three

populations within the Jacksonvflle transmission Oine right-of-way and three others within 0.5 ml

of that right-of-way In Onslow and Pender Counties. The populations In the Jacksonville

right-of-way are protected by CP&L under an agreement with the NCNHP. In addition, field

personnel are required to take Environmental Training: Endangered Species to become

familiar with threatened and endangered species that are In the vicinity of BSEP and the

transmission line rights-of-way and to become familiar with CP&Ls Best Management Practices

17

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-66 April 2006
Appendix E

related to protecting rare plants In CP&L rights-of-way. These Best Management Practices

Include scheduling activtes outside the growing season for rare plarts, avoiding the use of

heavy.equiptnent In areas with rare plants at all times, and rot Using herbicides In areas where

rare plants have been identified (BSEP 2005a).

The staff visited the ite and reviewed the Ufe history Information about the golden sedge.

Based on this information, information obtained from NCNHP, and Information obtained from

BSEP 6n trinsiosson ine rights-of-way maintenance procedures and Best Management

Practices, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license

renewal term may affect, but Is not likely to adversely affect, golden sedge.

Hlst'; Panic Grass

The Hirst's panic grass Is currently a candidate for protection . It Is currently known from only

three sites, oWe in Delaware and two In North Carolina; there. are two sites In Now Jersey where

R has not been seef In 10 to 20 years (FWS 2002b). Hlirsrs panic grass Inhabits coastal plain

Internittent ponds In Wet savanna or pine barren habitats. The species relies on periods of

standing water to help mnIrnlIe competition form other species. The two known populations in

North Carolina are both located on Carmp Lesurne Marine Corps Base In Onslow County. The

known populations of Hits panic grass are at least 7 nd from the nearest BSEP transmission

line rghts-of-way, but suitable habitat may be found within or near the rights-of-way.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history of i-Prets paniic grass. Based on this

Informatlon, along with information obtained from NCNHP on the specks distribution, the staff

determined that suitable habitat could be found within the transmisslon One rights-ol-way.

Therefore, th6 staff concludes that tontinued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license.

renewal term may affect, but Is not likely to adversely affect, Hirst's panic grass.

Small MWorfld Pogonla

The small whorled pogonla Is listed by FWS as threatened and by the NCNHP (NCNHP 2005a)

as occurring In Cumberland County based on an obscure record. The FWS does not Include

this species In Its county listings (FWS 20051). This species occurs In very small populations

that are widely distributed from southern Maine and New Hampshire south through Virginia, to

northern Georgia end Eastern Tennessee, with outlying populations occurring in a number of

states west to MichIgan and Illinois (FWS 1992). In the southern portion of its range, the srall

whorled pogonia Is normally found In white pine (P. strobus)yrmed deciduous forests, and It

appears to be somewhat shade Intolerant (FWS 1992). All of the known populations of the

small whorled pogonia in North Carolina or South Carolina are located on the far western end of

each state, and no known populations are located within 150 ml of BSEP or associated

transmission line rights-of-way. Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of

BSEP over the 20-year lcense renewal term would have no effect on the small whorled

pogonla.

18

April 2006 E-67 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Pondberry (southern spicebush)

The pondberry or southern spicebush is listed by FWS as endangered. It is a shrub that occurs

in wetland habitats such as bottomland, and the margins of sinks, ponds, and other

depressions. It noirnally grows In shaded areas but may also be found In funl sun (FWS 20051).

it occurs In widely scattered sites along an arc from southeastern North Carolina through

Georgia and Mississippl to Arkansas and southern Missouri (FWS 1993b). It is known from

three sites In North Carolina, Including one population in Bladen County. Suitable habitat could

be found within several of the rights-of-way, but the NCNHP data do not include records of it

occurring within at least 1 mi of the nearest BSEP transmission line right-of-way.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history of the pondberry. Based on this

Information, along with Information obtained from NCNHP on the species distribution, the staff

determined that suitable habitat could be found within the transmission line rights-of-way.

Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license

renewal term may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, pondbeny.

Rough-Lof Loosestrl*e

The rough-leaf loosestrife Is listed by FWS as endangered. It Is a perennial herb that occurs In

pocosins in the coastal plain and sandhills of North Carolina (FWS 2005k). Habitat Is generally

In the ecotone between longleaf pine or oak savannas and wetter, shrubby areas where moist

sandy or peaty solis occur, and where low vegetation allows abundant sunlight to penetrate to

the soil surface (FWS 1995a). This grass-shrub ecotone naturally would be fire maintained;

therefore, the species appears to benefit from some periodic disturbance. Eight populations of

rough-leaf loosestrife are known from Brunswick County; one occurs In a BSEP transmission

line right-of-way north of BSEP In the Boiling Spring Lakes area (.e., the right-of-way that

contains the Castle Hayne East, Wilmington Coming, Wallace, and Jacksonville transmission

lines). Several populations are associated with the Wallace and Jacksonville transmission line

rights-of-way In Pender County (CP&L 2004) and one population is known near the end of the

Fayetteville transmission line. These populations are protected and managed by CP&L under

an agreement with the NCNHP. It is likely that there are additional areas with suitable habitat

for this species near the BSEP site and several of the transmission line rights-of-way.

Field personnel are required to take training to become familiar with threatened and

endangered species that are In the vicinity of BSEP and the transmission line rights-of-way and

to become familar with CP&Ls Best Management Practices related to protecting tare plants In

CP&L power line rights-of-way. These Best Management Practices include scheduling

activities outside the growing season for rare plants, avoiding the use of heavy equipment In

areas with rare plants at all times, and not using herbicides in areas with rare plants (BSEP

2003a, 2005a).

19

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-68 April 2006
Appendix E

The staff visited the ste and reviewed the life history Information about the rough-leaf

loosestife. Based on this Information, Information obtained from NCNHP, ard Information

obtained from BSEP on trannmission line rights-of-way maintenance procedures and Best

Management Practices, the ttaff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year

Uicense renewal term may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the rough-leaf looiestrlfe.

Mlchaux's Sumac

The Kchac'es sumac Is listed by FWS as endangered. It Is a shrub that Inhabits a variety of

soil types that may range from sandy, acidic soils to clayey, cdrcurnneutral soils (NatureServe

_ 05) jt survives best In areas that are subjected to some form of distufance that provi.

open space. At least 12 populations In North Carolina are on highway rights-of-way, road

clearings, or on the edges of aritcial clearings (FWS 20051). There are an estimated 31

populations remaining hI North Carolina, spread over eight counties, Including one population in

Robeson County, which contains the terminus of the Weatherspoon transmission line. The

known population In Robeson County Is not within 2 mN of the Witherspoon transmission line

right of way. However, there is a potential for suitable habitat to occur within or near the

Weatherspoon transmission line right-of-way.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the ile history of diuxs sumaC. Based on this

Infonnation, along with Information obtained from NCNHP on the species distribUlion. the staff

determined that suitable habitat could be found within the transmission Ine rights-of-way.

Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license.

renewal term may affect, but is not Ikcolito adversely affect, the Michauxs sumac.

Ameiin ChffsWed

The American chaffseed Is listed by FWS as endangered. Of the 72 known extant populations,

18 are located In North Carolina. However, 17 of those populations are on Fort Bragg in

Cumnberland and Hoke Counties. The other extant population In North Carolina Is along a

roadside In Moore County (FWS 1 995b). Historically, the species has been reported In Bladen

and Pander Counties, but has hot been observed In these counties for at least 20 years

(NCNHP 2005a). The American chaffseed Is a herniparasitic plant that occurs In sandy, acidic,

seasonally moist, to dry sonis. It Is generally found In habitats described as open, moist, pine

flatwoods, fire-maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xqrIc sandy

soils. and other open grass-sedge systems. It Is dependent on factors such as fire, mowing, or

fluctuating water tables to maintain the open to partly-open conditions that it requires

(FWS 1995b). No populations have been recorded near the BSEP site or along the

transmission line rights-of-way, or anywhere in the counties containn these rights-of-way for at

least 20 years. However, suitable habitat potentially exists In these areas.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history of American chaffseed. Based on this

Information, along with Information obtained from NCNHP on the species distribution, the staff

determined that suitable habitat could be found within the transmission line rights-of-way.

20

April 2006 E-69 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license

renewal term may affect, but Is not Nitely to adversely affect, the American chaffseed.

Cooley's Meadownte

The Cooley's meadowue Is Wsted by FWS as endangered; there are approidmatety 11 known

populations In North Carolina, all hI Brunswick, Columbus, Onsbow, and Pender Counties, and

one very small population In northern Florida (FWS 1994, 2005m). The populations In North

Carolina are In two dusters; there are siX shs within 4 ml of each other In Pender and Onslow

Counties, and fve siRes within 8 ml of each other In Brunswick and Columbus Counties.

Cooley's meadowrue Is a perennala herb that grows in drcumnneutral soils In we piwe S lM1 _.as

o cr --g-rs sec o~ten ~ aftfieborier Intermittent drainages or swamp forests. It Is often

associated with some type of disturbance such as clearings, edges of frequently burned

savannas, and powerline or highway rights-of-way that are maintained by fire or rmowing

(NatureServe 2005). The species typically occuples a narrow hydrological niche, where soil Is

moist to saturated, but water does not stand above the soil surface (NatureServe 2005).

Cooley's meadowrue Is potentially affected by tranamission line rights-of-way maintenance.

Several populations have been found In or nesr the Jacksonville right-of-way In Onslow County.

The populations within the right-of-way are protected by CP&L under an agreement with the

NCNHP. Several other populations have been observed near, but not within the Fayetteville

transmission right-of-way In western Brunswick County. KI is Ikely that there are additional

areas of suitable habitat along several of the transmission lrne tights-of-way.

Fleld.personnel are required to take training to become familiar with threatened and

endangered species that are In the vicinity of BSEP and the transmission line rights-of-way and

to become familiar with CP&Ls Best Management Practices related to protecting rare plants In

CP&L transmission ine rights-of-way. These Best Management Practices Include scheduling

activities outside the growing season for rare plants, avoIding the use of heavy equipment In

areas with rare plants at all times, and not using herbicides In areas with rare plants (BSEP

2003a, 2005a).

The staff visited the sIte and reviewed the Ue history Information about the Cooley's

meadowrue. Based on this Information, information obtained from NCNHP, and Information

obtained from BSEP on transmission line rights-of-way maintenance procedures and Best

Management Practices, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year

license renewal term may affect, but Is not Dkely to adversely affect, the Cooley's meadowrue.

52 Aquatic Species

A total of seven Federally Dited threatened or endangered aquatic species under either full or

partial FWS Jurisdiction were Identifled as having the potential to be present In North Carollna

waters In the vicinity of BSEP and its associated transmission line rights-of-way (NMFS 2005a;

FWS 2005a). There Is no critical habitat for any of the Federally listed species at the BSEP site

or near the associated transmission lne rights-of-way. These Include the West Indian manatee

21

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-70 April 2006
Appendix E

(Trichechus manatus), five sea turtles (loggerhead turtle [Carelta carfta], green turtle

[Chelonla mydas], leatherback turtle [Dennochelys codaceaj, hawksbM turtle [Eretrnocheoys

hrnbricata], and Kemp's ridley turtle .[LEpidochls kerp), and a fish, the Waccamaw sitverside

(Meonko extensa) (Table 3). NMFS and the FWS share jurisdiction for the sea turtles, with

NMFS having responsiblity in the marine environment and FWS on nesting beaches.

The NRC has reviewed ife histories Information for all the aquatic threatened or endangered

species that have been Identified In the vicinity of BSEP or the transmission line rights-of-way.

The staff has also reviewed Information provided by CP&L, FWS, NMFS, and the NCNHP

regarding threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of BSEP(CP&L 2004; NCNHP

2004b; NMFS 2005ab and tFSo200). The NRC has deterrnined that the proposed

action would either have no effet or may aftet, not advfyWWthe endangrred or

threatened species. The basis for each determinallon Is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Table 3 Federally Usted Aquatic Species Reported from Counties Associated

with BSEP and Its Transmission IIne Rights-of Way

Federal

Species Common Name StatuPl Countifs Determination

MAMMALS

Tdiahechus mntus West Indan E 9ruwick, Now May affect, rot likely to

manatee Hanover, Onalow. adversely affect

Ponder

REFrILES

Careta caret loggerhead turtle T° Brunswick, New May affect, not lirly to

Hanover, Orstow. adversely affed

Pender

Chonia nydas green turtle Tm Brunswick, New May affect, not Rkely to

Hanover, Onlow adversely aftet

Dermochelys coracea lesthrback turtle E" Bnrnswick, Onslow May affect, not likety to

adversely affect

ErotmochetyT hawksbill turtle E! (NC)" May aftct, not likely to

bnbrdcta adversely effect

Lopkcwbelys kermpi Kemps rldley turtle EV Bnswick May affect, not Ecelyto

adversely affect

FISH

MenridA externsa Waccamaw T Columbus No effect

1svrside

(a) E - endangered, T- threatened.

(b) Nesting areas are under FWS Jurisdiction, otherwise the species Is under NMFS jurisdiction.

(c) Green turtles ar Isted as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles In Florida and

on the Pacifc Coast of Mexico, which ar listed as endangered.

(d) (NC) - County-level listings are not available; the species has Federal rLsting status In North Carolina

22

April 2006 E-71 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

West Indian Manatee

The West Indian manatee Is a Federally listed endangered species. These large mammals

may be found as far north as Virginia along the Atlantic coast. At least two manatees have

been observed In the Cape Fear Estuary, but none have been documented at the BSEP site

(CP&L 1998; PEC 2005). They may Inhabit both salt and fresh water, generally between 5 and

20 ft deep (FWS 2005n). The diversion structure with turtle-blocker panels Installed at the

entrance to the Intake canal should minimize the potential for manatee entry Into the canal.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history information on the West Indian manatee.

Based on this Information, Information obtained from NCNHP and FWS, and Information

obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff concludes

that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect, but Is not

likely to adversely affect, the West Indian manatee.

Waccamaw Silversid

The Waccamaw silverside, which Is Federally I~sted as a threatened species, Is known only

from Lake Waccamaw In Columbus County. Therefore, It Is not expected to occur at the BSEP

site (FWS 2005o). The Fayetteville transmission line passes approximately 2 ml south of Lake

Waccamew, but maintenance and operation of that transmission right-of-way has no Impact on

the lake.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the Hie history Information on the Waccarnaw silverside.

Based on this Information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, and NCNHP, and

Information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term would have

no effect on the Waccamaw salverskde.

Set Turts

NMFS and the FWS share Jurisdiction for the sea turtles, with NMFS having responsibility In the

marine environment and FWS on nesting beaches. A Biological Opinion Issued by the NMFS In

2000 addressed impacts to sea turtles specifically resulting from BSEP operation (NMFS 2002).

There are no known suitable nesting beaches on the BSEP site or associated transmission line

rights-of-way; therefore, Section 7 consultation with FWS has not been required.

Loggerhead Turtle

The loggerhead tuftle Is listed by the FWS as threatened. The loggerhead may be found

hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as In Inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes.

creeks, ship canals. and the mouths of large rivers. Loggerhead turtles were the most common

species observed at the BSEP In 2004; 69 percent of the sea turtles handled were loggerheads

The species also nests on suitable beaches suitable for nesting from North Carolina to Florida,

23

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-72 April 2006
Appendix E

wvith primary nesting beaches found in Florida (FWS 2005p). Nesting season is generally

between May and November.. Loggerhead turtle nesting In North Carolina occurs only on the

AtlantIc Coast beaches, and does not occur in the Cape Fear River estuary or anywhere near

the BSEP shte or associated transmission line rights-of-way.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history information on the loggerhead turtle.

Based on this Information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

Information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but is not likely to adversely affect, the loggerhead turtle.

Green Turtle

The green turtle Is listed by the FWS as threatened. In eastern North America, this spedes Is

found from Massachusetts to Mexico. Green turtles are generally found In shallow waters

Inside reefs, bays, and Inlets and are attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of

marine grass and algae. Approximately 12 percent of the sea turtles handled at the BSEP In

2004 were green turtles. Nesting In the continental United States Is limited to between 300 and

1000 nests annually on Florldas east coast (FWS 2005q).

The staff visited the she and reviewed the life history Information on the green turtle. Based on

this Information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

Information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, green turtles.

Lestherback Turtle

The leatherback turtle Is listed as endangered by the FWS. The species rarely enters the

estuary. Only historical sightings of the leatherback (last observed more than 20 years ago)

have been documented In Brunswick County (NHP 2004b). Nesting In the United States occurs

mainly In Florida, but has also occurred in Georgia. South Carolina, and North Carolina. No

nests have been observed at the BSEP site.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the leatherback turtle.

Based on this Information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

Information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, the leatherback turtle.

Hawksbill Turtle

The hawksbill is listed as endangered by the FWS. In the continental United States, nesting is

restricted to the southeast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys (NMFS 2005b). The hawksbfll

24

April 2D06 E-73 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

turtle has been reported from all the eastern seaboard, but sightings north of Florida are rare.

This species has not been documented at the BSEP site.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the hawksbill turtle. Based

on this information. Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP. and

information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

condudes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, the hawksbW turtle.

Kemp's Ridley Turtle

The Kemp's ridley turtle is listed by the FWS as endangered. Nesting occurs in Tamaulipas

Mexico, and sometimes In Texas. Adults of this species are found primarily In the Gulf of

Mexico, but Imrmature turtles are found along the Atlantic coast as far north as Canada

(FWS 2005r). The Kemprs ridley turtle is found In shallow coastal waters, often In association

with red mangrove shorelines (FWS 2005r). Nearly 19 percent of the sea turtles handled at

BSEP In 2004 were Kemp's ridley turtles.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the Kemp's ridley turtle.

Based on thi Infbormaton, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

InformatIon obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened spedes procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely effect, the Kemp's ridley tutle.

6.0 Conclusions

The staff has Identified 12 terrestrial and 6 aquatic Federally listed endangered, threatened,

and candidate species that are under full or partial FWS jurisdiction that have a reasonable

potential to occur in the vicinity of BSEP or along the transmission line rights-of-way, and

therefore may be affected by continued operations of BSEP and maintenance of the associated

transmission line rights-of-way. Additionally, the staff Identified four other Federally listed

terrestrial species and one Federally listed aquatic species that have been reported to occur In

the counties containing BSEP or associated transmission rights-of-way. However, because of

known habitat requirements, these species are not likely to be found near BSEP or Its

associated transmission line rights-of-way and, therefore, would not be affected by continued

operations at BSEP. CP&L has procedures In place to protect endangered or threatened

species, If they are encountered at the plant site or along transmission line rights-of-way, and

provides training for employees on these procedures (BSEP 2003, 2005a). In 1993, CP&L

signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the NCDEHNR to preserve and protect rare,

threatened, and endangered species and sensitlve natural areas occurring on transmission lne

rights-of-way (CP&L and NCDEHNR 1993). CP&L also maintains Best Management Practices

for Management of Rare Plants on Its rights-of-way (BSEP 2005a).

25

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-74 April 2006
Appendix E

The NRC staff has analyzed the species that are likely to be in the vicinity of BSEP or the

associated transmission lines, the known distributions and records of those species, the

ecological Impacts of the operation of BSEP and the operation and maintenance of the

associated transmission rights-of-way, the effects of these practices on the species potentially

present, and the mitigation measures that CP&L has already Implemented. Based on this

analysis, the staff has determined that continued operation of BSEP and Its associated

transmission lines for an additional 20 years would not have an adverse Impact on any

threatened or endangered species.

7.0 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Tie 10, Eneriy, Part5l,'Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Ucensing and Related Regulatory Functions.'

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy. Part 54, 'Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.'

64 FR 38453. July 6,1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule

To Remove the Bald Eagle In the Lower 48 States From the Ust of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule." Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

66 FR 38038. July 9, 2001. 'Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final

Determinations of Critical Habitat for Wintering Piping Plovers; Final Rule.' Federal Register,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

67 FR 3120. January 23, 2002. "Endangered Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for

Carex lutea (Golden Sedge).' Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Atomi4c Energy Act of 1954. 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2003. Environmental Training: EndangeredSpecies.

EVC-SUBS-OOD82, Rev 0, Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005a. Endangered and Threatened Species.

EVC-SUBS-00011. Rev Z Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005b. Brunswick Steam Electri Plant 2004 Sea

Turtle AnnualReport. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1979. 316(a) Demonstration, Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina. Volume XIX. Carolina Power & Light Company,

Environmental Technology Section, New Hill, North Carolina.

26

April 2006 E-75 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Carolina Power and LUght Company (CP&L). 1980. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear

Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power & Ught Company, New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Ught Comrpany (CP&L). 1985. BmunswlckSteam ectric Plant Cape Fear

Studies: InterpretWe ReportL Carolina Power & Ught Company, New HUI, North Carolina.

August 1985.

Carolina Power andi Ught Company (CP&L). 1998. Threatened and Endangered Species

Self-Assessment Report. Carolina Power & Ught Company, Environmental Services Section,

Biological Assessment Unit. New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Ught Company (CP&L). 2004. Appfcahfs Eironmental Report -

Operating Lficanse Renewl Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plnt Units Na. 1 and2 Docket

No. 50-281, LUcense No. DPR-23, Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Light and North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources (CP&L and NCDEHNR). 1993. Memorandum of Understanding between the

Carolna Power and Ught Company and the N.C. Department of envlronment, Health, and

Natural Reources; March 19, 1993.

Endangered Species Act f 1973 (ESA). 16 USC.1531, et seq.

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A Cornstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.

MacPherson, J.1B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbu me. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South

Carolina, (Color poster with map, descrtive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston,

Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,5,00,000). Accessed at

htp:/Aiww epa.govAwedlpageslecoregionstncsc.eco.htn on January 19, 2005.

Hall, S.P, MIP. Schafale, and J.T. Finnegan. 1999. Conservation Assessment ot the

Southeast Coastal Plain of North Carolina Using Sfe-Onented and Landscape-OrIented

Analysls. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Divislon of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh,

North Carolina.

National MMadne Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Endangered Species Act - Section 7

Consultation. Operation of the Coding Water Intake System at the Brunswick Steam Electric

7P n- OIh a-roll ffiser-a DfifCmpia-n. nsuINaod ncu Iie-ao ia

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. uShrimp Trawling In the Southeastem United

States, under the Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations and as Managed by the Fishery

Management Pians for Shrimp In the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexlco.0 Endangered Species

27

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-76 April2006
Appendix E

Act - Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast

Region. Accessed at

http/Iww.nmfs.noaa.govdpraLres/readingrmnESAsec7iBlop.shrihnpjtrawiing.PDF

on April 28, 2005.

National Oceanic and Alrnospheric Admdnistration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005a. Letter from Ms. Teletha Griffin, Administrative Support Assistant, U.S. Department of

Comrnmere, NOAA, Protected Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office In St Petersburg,

Florida to NRC regarding a ist of all Federally protected endangered and threatened spedes

under review for license renewal at BSEP.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005b. Species Information. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected

Resources, Silver Spring. Maryland. Accessed at http:/hww.nmfs noa.gov/prispecies/ on

June 26,2005.

National Oceanic and Atrnospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2q05c. Species of Concem and Candidate Species. NOM National Marine Fisheries Service,

Office of Protected Resources, Sliver Spring, Maryland. Accessed at:

htlp:/Aww.nrnfs.noaa.gov/prlspedes/concem/ on June 26, 2005.

National Park Service (NPS). 2005. Green Swamp National Natural Landmark. Accessed at

hmitp rlnaue.nps.gov/nnVegistr/UMapS tates/NorhCaror uma NNLJGSI on March 11,2005.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer An Online Encyclopedia of Life (Web Application).

Accessed at http11ww.natureserve.org/explorer on March 10, 2005.

North Carolina Coastal Land Trust (NCCLT). 2001. Group Preserving Remnant of Wetland

Studied by N. C. State Ecologist. Press release dated October 22,2001. Accessed at

httpilwww.coastaIlandtrustorg on August 27,2002.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004a. Natural Heritage Program List of

the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. 2004 Edition. Accessed at:

httplJvww.nonhp.orgfimagesJOther%20Publications%20Rare%20Animali°20Ustpdf

on March 11, 2005.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004b. North Carolina Natural Heritage

Program County Elements Search Results. Accessed at http:l/207A.179.38/nhp/d.php

on March 10, 2005.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2005a. Heritage Data. Accessed at

httpJ/hww.ncnhp.org/pages/herftagedata.html on March 11,2005.

28

April 2006 E-77 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2005b. Letter from Harry E. LeGrand,

NCNHP to Edward T. Oleil, Progress Energy. Ucense Renewal for the Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Southport, Brunswick, County, North Carolina.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2004. Endangered Species Pennit

No. 04ST49. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Caroina.

Progress Energy CarolInas, Inc. (PEC). 2003. Bnrnswfck Steam Electrkc Plant 2003 Bological

Monitoring Report Progress Energy Carollnas, Inc., Environmental Services Section, New Hill,

North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolnas, Inc. (PEC). 2005. E-mall message from Torn Thopson,

Progress Energy Carolnas, Inc., Environmental Services Section, to Susan Sargent, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory. July 8, 2005. ADAMS Accession No. ML052030260.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1974. FinalEnvinmenteStatementRflatedto the

Continued Construcdon and Proposed Issuance of an Operating Lcense for the Bnmswlck

Steam Etectric Plant Uni 1 and2, Caroina PowerandLight Company. Docket Nos. 50-324

and 60-325. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. National Estuary Prograrn About

Estuares. Accssed at htlp:/Mww.epa.gov/neplabout1 htn on April 1, 2005.

U.S. Fish mnd Wildife Service (FWS). 1992. Small Kboded Pogonla (lsotrla medeolodes)

Recovely Plan, Fbst Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993a. Endangered and Threatened Spedes of the

Southeastern United States (The Red Book). Accessed at

htipJ/endangered.fws.govAlb/sab4a.htrrd on January 6,2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1993b. Recovery Plan forPondbenry

(Undera merisslfolla). Atlanta Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlie Service (FWS). 1994. Cooey's Meadowrne (Thaictrum rcooleyAh/es)

RecoveryPIan. Atlanta. Georgia.

U.S. Fish end Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995a. Rough-LeafLoosestrf (Lysimachia

sspanruaefolla) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Widlife Service (FWS). 1995b. American Chaffseed (Schwalbea amedcana)

Recovoty Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1 996a. Saint Francds' Satyr (Neonympha mitchelfif

francisc# Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

29

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-78 April 2006
Appendix E

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servce (FWS). 1 998b. Recovery Plan tor Seaboach Arnanth

(Arnaranthus pumlubs) RaMesque. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1997. Revised Recovery Plan for the U.S. Breeding

fopulabn of the WoodStorkl Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and WJildlife Service (FWS). 2002a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Endangered Status for Carax lutea (Golden Sedge). Accessed at

http:Ilwww.eswr.oorNlO12302.bd on May 27, 2005.

U.S. ilsh and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2002b. Candidate Assessrnent and Listing Priority

AssIgnment Form. Panicun hIrstil. Accessed at

http:I/ecos.1ws.govddocatcandformns.pd/r5/panhlr.pdf on March 11, 2005.

U.S. Fish Mnd Wildlife Service (FWS). 2003. Recoverl Plan for Me Red-Cockaded

Woodpecker (Pkcdes borealis). Second Revision. Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildife Service (FWS). 2005a. Letter from Mr. Pete Benjamin, Ecological

Services Supervisor, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildife Sarvice, to Mr. Pao-Tsln

Kuo, NRC, regarding a list of aO Federally protected endangered and threatened species In the

area under review for license renewal at BSEP.

U.S. Fish and WildlIfe Service (FWS). 2005b. North Carolina County Endangered Species,

Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildrie Service.

Accsed at httpJlno-es.fws.gv/es/chtylst on March 10,2005.

U.S. Fish end Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005c. Eastern Cougar In North Carolina. Accessed at

httpi/nc-es.fws.gov/mrnammaVcougarMrtml on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005d. Piping Plovers in North Carolina. Accessed at

http:i/nc/-s.fs.gov/birds/ppplov.htmi on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). .2005e. Bald Eagles In North Carolina. Accessed at

http://nc-es.fws.govlblrdasbalde.html on January 21,2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 20051. Wood Storks In North Carolina. Accessed at:

http://nc-es.!ws.gov/birds/woodstor.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and WildlIfe Service (FWS). 2005g. SaInt Francis' Satyr In North Carolina.

Accessed at: http:J/nc-esfws.govAlnsecstfranclshtrrl on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005h. Seabeach Amaranth In North Carolina.

Accessed at http:J/nc-es.fws.gov/plant/sdeabamaramnthrnl on March 10, 2005.

30

April 2006 E-79 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 20051. Small Whorled Pogonla In North Carolina.

Accessed at httpJ/nc-es.fws.gov/plant/swpogonla.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 20051. Pondberry in North Carolina. Accessed at:

http/lnc-es.fws.gov/plant/pondberry.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wldlife Service (FWS). 2005k. Rough-Lsaf Looseste In North Carolina.

Accessed at httpJ/rn es.fws.govplant/luboseshtrr on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 20051. Mlchaux Sumac In North Carolina. Accessed at

http:J/no-es.fws.govfpIanVnitchumacrhtrnl on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005m. Cooley's Meadowrue In North Carolina.

Accessed at http:lhes.fws.gov/plant/coolrneadow.htmnl on March 10 2005.

US. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005n. West Indian Manatees In North Carolina.

Accessed at http:/nc-es.fws.gov/mammaVmanatee.html on March 10 2005.

U.S. Fish and Widlfe Service (FWS). 20050. Waccarnaw sliverside hI North Carolina.

Accessed at http://nr es.eewgov/Ltwaccsilver.htrl on March 10 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser'ice (FWS). 2005p. Loggerhead Sea Turtles In North Carolina.

* Accessed at http~lno eaffws gov/repUle/logger.htrnl on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005q. Green Sea Turtles hI North Carolina. Accessed

at: htip /nceo.ffws.gov/reptle/gresnsea htrnl on March 10 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005r. Kemp's Rldley Sea Turtles In North Carolina.

Accessed at http:/Jno-es.ttws.gov/reptile/rfdley.html on March 10 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisslori (NRC). 2004a. Letter from NRC to Mr. Sam D. Harnilton,

Regional Direclor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, request for list of protected species withIn the

area under evaluation for the BSEP, UnIts 1 and 2, LUcense RenewaL

U.S. Nuclear R Iatory Comrmdston (NRC). 2004b. Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia A. Kurkul,

Regional Adrnintstrator, NOAA Flshees Service, rom NRC request for list of protected

species within the area under evaluation for the BSEP, UnIts 1 and 2, License Renewal:

31

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-80 April 2006
Appendix E

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHNOTON, D.C. 2055r5000

August 9, 2005

Mr. David Bemhart

Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources

NOM's National Marine Fisheries Service

Southeast Regional Office

263 13th Avenue, South

St Petersburg, FL 33701

SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF BRUNSWICK STEAM

ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND A REQUEST FOR INFORMAL CONSULTATION

Dear Mr. Bernhart:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has prepared the enclosed biological

assessment (BA) (Enclosure 1) to evaluate whether the proposed renewal of the Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, Units I and 2 (BSEP) operating licenses for a period of an additional 20

years would have any adverse effect on Isted species. The proposed action license renewal)

Is not a major construction activity. BSEP is located in Brunswick County in southeastern North

Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape fear River.

By letter dated December 29, 2004, to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the NRC requested a fist of Federally threatened or

endangered species that may be In the vicinity of BSEP and Its associated transmission lines.

In a letter dated February 4, 2005, NMFS Identified 12 Federally listed endangered or

threatened species and siX species of concern as potentially occurring In the area containing

the BSEP site, transmission line rights-of-way, and the Cape Fear River.

In addition, the staff also contacted the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) by letter dated

December 29,2004, requesting a list of Federally endangered or threatened species that may

be In the vicinity of BSEP. In a letter dated February 3, 2005, FWS directed the staff to the

following Webstte, http://nc.es.fws.govles, for a list of species. The staff Identified a total of 16

terrestrial and 20 aquatic Federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate specIes or

species of concern having the potential to be present In the vicinity of BSEP and its associated

transmission line rights-of-way. Regarding the marine species, NMFS has full Jurisdiction for

the whales and sturgeon, while sharing the responsibilities for the sea turtles with the FWS.

The NRC has determined that the proposed action would have no effect on the sel whale

(Balaenoptera borealis), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera

physalus), North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glaclalls), humpback whale (Megaptera

Novaeangfiae), sperm whale (Physetermacrocephalus), dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus),

night shark (Carcherhinus signatus), speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi), or warsaw

grouper (Epinephelus nlgrtus).

April 2006 E-81 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

D. Bernhart -2-

Also, the NRC staff determined the proposed action may affect, but Is not likely to adversely

affect, the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Ctelonla mydas), leatherback turtle

(Denmochelys codacea), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys kempil), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser

brovirostnum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynhus), or the sand tiger shark

(Odontaspis taurus). There is currently an Incidental Take Statement hi place as a result of a

previous formal Section 7 consultation and accompanying Biological Opinion Issued by NMFS

on January 20, 2000. Those take limits (six loggerhead, two Kemp's ridley, three green, one

leatherback, and one hawksbill turtles) continue to apply to BSEP operation.

We are requesting your concurrence with our determination. In reaching our conclusion, the

NRC staff refled on Information provided by the licensee, on literature research and Interviews

with experts performed by NRC staff, and on information from the NMFS (Southeast Regional

Office).

If you have any questions regarding this BA or the staffs request, please contact

Richard Emch, Senior Environmental Prolect Manager, at 301-415-1590 or by e-mail at

rlefnrc.gov.

Sincerely,

FPao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

Uicense Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-324 and 50-325

Enclosure: As stated

cc w/encl.: See next page

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-82 April 2006
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

(for species under the jurisdiction of

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service)

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

License Renewal Review

August 2005

Docket Numbers

50-325

50-324

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Rockville, Maryland

April 2006 E-83 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or

Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

(for species under the jurisdiction of

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service)

1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coinmissron (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear

power plants In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended, and NRC

Implementing regulations. The Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), now doing business

as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., operates Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

(BSEP) In southeastern North Carolina under Operating licenses (OLs) DPR-62 and DPR-71,

respectively. The OLtfor Unit 1 will expire September 8.2016, and the Unit 2 license will expire

December 27,2014. CP&L has applied to renew the operating licenses for BSEP. It approved

by the NRC, the renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond

the current licensed operating term.

In letters dated December 29, 2004, the staff requested comments from the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on the license renewal application for BSEP (NRC 2004a, b).

Specifically, the staff requested a fist of species and information on protected, proposed, end

candidate species and critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of BSEP and Its associated

transmission line rights-of-way. In a letter from the FWS dated February 3, 2005 (FWS 2005a),

the staff was directed to an FWS website (http:/(nc-es.fws.govles) for a list of species to Include

In this biological assessment (BA). NMFS provided a list of Federally protected species and

species of concern under their jurisdiction in a letter dated February 4, 2005 (NMFS 2005a). A

total of 16 terrestrial and 20 aquatic species, Federally listed as endangered, threatened,

candidates for listing, or species of concern, occur or potentially occur In the counties within

which the BSEP site and Its transmission line rights-of-way are located or In the Cape Fear

River. The Cape Fear River serves as the source of cooling water for BSEP. Of the 36

Identified species, 18 are under full or partial jurisdiction of NMFS.

2.0 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action Is renewal of the OLs for BSEP Units I and 2. BSEP Is located In

Brunswick County In southeastern North Carolina, near the mouth of the Cape Fear River.

Wilmington, North Carolina is approximately 15 mil north of the BSEP site, and Myrtle Beach,

South Carolina is approximately 50 ml to the southwest. By letter dated October 20, 2004,

CP&L submitted an appilcatlon to the NRC to renew these OLs for an additional 20 years of

operation (i.e., until September 2036 for Unit 1 and December 2034 for Unit 2).

No major refurbishment or replacement of Important systems, structures, or components are

expected during the 20-year BSEP license renewal term. In addition, no construction activities

are expected to be associated with license renewal. If the NRC approves the license renewal

application, the reactors and support facilities, Including the cooling system, would be expected

1

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-84 April2006
Appendix E

to continue to be operated and maintained until the renewed licenses expire In the mld-2030s.

Continued maintenance activities on the transmission Une rights-of-way that are used to

connect BSEP to the electric power grid also would be required If the proposed action Is

approved. Ongoing right-of-way surveillance and maintenance activities along BSEP

transmission lines Include routine aerial and ground inspections as well as activities associated

with vegetation management.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), CP&L submitted an Environmental Report (ER)

(CP&L 2004) In which CP&L analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed

license renewal action, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluated mitigation

measures for reducing adverse environmental effects. The NRC Is using this ER, as well as its

own analysis as the basis of a supplemental environmental impact statement, a plant-specific

supplement to NUREG-1 437, Generic Envfronmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants. This BA was prepared to evaluate the potential Impacts to species protected

under the Endangered Species Act of operating BSEP, Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years

beyond the current license term for each unit

3.0 The Plant and Associated Transmission Une System

3.1 Reactor Systems

BSEP uses boiling water reactors (BWRs) and steam-driven turbine generators manufactured

by General Electric. As originally built and operated, each of the BSEP units had a design

rating of 2436 megawatts-thermal (MW(t)). Since 1996, the NRC has approved two power

uprates. Each unit Is now licensed to operate at 2923 MW(t), 20 percent over the original

licensed maximum power level.

Each reactor's primary containment Is a pressure suppression system consisting of a drywall, a

pressure-suppression chamber storing a large volume of water, a connecting vent system

between the drywell and the suppression pool, a vacuum relief system, isolation valves,

containment cooling systems, and other service equipment.

3.2 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems

Cooling water for BSEP Is obtained from the lower Cape Fear River and discharged to the

Atlantic Ocean. Water passes from the lower Cape Fear estuary through screens in a diversion

structure used to limit the entrainment of biota Into the intake canal. The 3-ml Intake canal

flows via gravity from the screens at the Cape Fear River to the plant. At the plant, Cooling

water is drawn through a combination of eight bays (four for each unit). Each bay has a trash

rack, traveling screens, and an Intake pump. For each unit, two bays have fine mesh (1mm)

screens and the other two bays have half fine mesh and half coarse mesh (318 In) screens.

Typically, each unit operates utilizing two of the fine mesh bays and one of the half fine/half

coarse bays. Organisms Impinged on the traveling screens are washed Into a trough that leads

to a holding basin before being released to Walden Creek, which Is part of the Cape Fear River

watershed. The daily maximum Intake by BSEP is limited to 2210 cubic feet per second (cfs)

during April through November and to 1844 cfs during December through March.

2

April 2006 E-85 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Figure 1. Location of Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units I and 2 (PEC 2003)

Chlorine Is injected Into the circulating water Intake system to prevent biofouling. Total residual

chorine Is monitored under terms of the plants National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit before the effluent is pumped Into the ocean. After passing through the plant,

the discharge water is released into a 6-ml-long canal that flows by gravity out to Caswell Beach

(Figure 1). At Caswell Beach the effluent Is pumped 2000 ft offshore Into the Atlantic Ocean.

3

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-86 April 2006
Appendix E

BSEP receives potable and processed water from the Brunswick County Public Utilities. CPML

reports that from 1995 through 2001, BSEP's water Imports averaged 0.23 million gallons per

day (MGD). The source of the majority of water Imported from Brunswick County Public Utilities

is surface water from the lower Cape Fear River. BSEP operates one groundwater well onsite

to supply water to the biological laboratory. The well has a rated capacity of 30 gallons per

minute (gpm), but the actual use Is far less than the rated capacity.

3.3 Electrical Transmission System

The eight 230-kV transmission lines constructed to connect the BSEP to the transmission

system were described In the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for operation of BSEP

Units 1 and 2 (AEC 1974). These lines Included two Ones to the Delco and Barnard Creek

substations and lines to the Fayetteville, Wallace. and Jacksonville substations. In addition,

31 ml of new transmission eine wre constructed after InitIal lcensing to connect BSEP to the

Weatherspoon Substation.

The two lines to Barnard Creek Substation have been extended to the Castle Hayne Substation

and Wilmington Corning Switching Station. located about 12 rid to the north of the Barnard

Creek Substation. Both the Castle Hayne and the Wilmington Coming lnes are considered In

this BA In their entirety. The original Fayetteville line now connects to the grid at the Whiteville

Substation. However, because the Fayetteville line, which was built to connect BSEP to the

grid, remains In existence, the full extent of the original line Is considered In this BA.

The transmission Unes are shown In Figure 2. In total, about 390 ml of transmission lines In

about 260 mN of rights-of-way are considered In this BA. The rights-f-way cover approximately

4690 ac. The length of each line and the area covered by the rights-of-way associated with the

line are listed In Table 1. In estimating the rights-ofd-way for each line, the total area In shared

rights-of-way was distributed equally among the lines within te right-of-way.

CP&L employs an Integrated vegetation management approach that Includes both mechanical

and chemical control methods. This allows them to design the maintenance practices to ft the

different kinds of terrain and soils that are crossed by the transmission lines. Mechanical

methods Include pruning, felling, mowing, and hand trimming. Chemical methods Include the

use of tree growth regulators to slow the growth of fast-growing trees, and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA)-approved herbicides to control undesirable woody vegetation that

regrows after mowing. Over time, the combination of mowing and herbicides results In a

community dominated by low-growing, non-woody plants, such as grasses and herbaceous

plants that require less maintenance but still provide food and cover for wildlife (CP&L 2004).

4.0 Environmental Setting

BSEP Is located In Brunswick County, In southeastern North Carolina, near the mouth of the

Cape Fear River. The area within a 6-mi radius of the plant Includes the town of Southport, the

community of Boiling Spring Lakes, and the resort communities of Casweii Beach, Oak Island,

and Bald Head Island. Wilmdngton, North Carolina, Res approximately 15 ml north of the BSEP

site, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, lies approximately 50 ml to the southwest along the

coast. The Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point is situated Imme diately north of the BSEP.site.

Figure 3 shows the she location and features In the surrounding area.

4

April 2006 E-87 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Legend

* BSEP

A 230 Kv Substadons

Trasmisson Unes

I Couty

o4io 20

oomMe

0 5 10' 20 30 40

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT

Transmission Line Map

w

S

Mrs M35

Figure 2. BSEP Transmission Une Map

5

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-88 April 2006
Appendix E

l Lakt *Wan Rkfem

Fedml Lan&

Cowly 3imaha

M uaAreA

Figure 3. BSEP Location and Surrounding Area, 50-ml Radius

6

April 2006 E-89 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Table 1. Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Transmission Unes

Approximate Estimated RightLine Length of-Way Area

Substation Miles Acres

Fayetteville 103 900

Weatherspoon 31 460

Delco East 31 320

Daco West 31 300

Wallace 55 720

Jacksonville 75 940

Castle Hayne East 35 650

Wkmington Coming Switching Station 27 400

Total 388 480

Cooling water for ESEP is drawn from the Cape Fear River by way of a B-mi-long Intake canal

that passes from the river to BSEP. After passing through the plants condensers, the heated

water travels through a B-mi-long discharge canal to Caswell Beach where it is pumped 2000 ft

offshore through large submerged pipes into the Atlantic Ocea.

4.1 Terrestrial Resources

The BSEP site is located within the mid-Atlantic coastal plain ecoreglon (Griffith et al. 2002),

which In pre-European settlement times was dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustrs) with

patches of oak (Quercus spp.), gum (Nyssa spp.), and cypress (Taxodlum spp.) (Griffith et al.

2002). The BSEP site Is within the CarolIna flatwoods sub-region, which Includes a wide variety

of community types including pine flatwoods, pine savannas, freshwater marshes, pond pine

woodlands, pocqsins, Carolina bays, and some sandhill communities (Griffith et al. 2002). The

transrmIssion lines cross other sub-region types Including mid-Atlantic floodplalns and low

terraces, and non-riverine swamps and peatiands. The region Is a significant center of endemic

blota (Hall et ai. 1999). Although there is still a substantial amount of native habitat in the

vicinity of the BSEP site, much of It has been converted to other uses, Including loblolly pine

(P. taeda) plantations and croplands of corn, soybeans, and tobacco.

The environment on the BSEP site Includes waterways, such as the Cape Fear River,

Dutchman Creek, and Nancy Creek; saline and brackish marshes; coastal dunes; and uplands

(AEC 1974). Most upland portions of the BSEP site have been replanted with loblolly pine.

Terrestrial and wetland communities In the vicinity of BSEP include pine savannas, longleaf

pine/wiregrass (Aildsda strita) communities, pine-hardwood forests, pocosins, dune-strand

communities, and salt marshes (CP&L 2004).

Loblolly pine Is the principal pine species In the pine-hardwood forests In the vicinity of BSEP.

Important hardwoods Include sweet gum (Uquidamba styraciflua), blackgum (Nyssa syfvatca),

hickory (Carya spp.), and oaks. Along the ancient dunes, which tend to be well drained, the

.7

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-90D April 2006
Appendix E

forests are dominated by longleaf pine, turkey oak (Ouercus laevls), and wiregrass. Remnant

pine savannas occur in periodically flooded areas, these are characterized by an open canopy

of longleaf pine or pond pine (PFnus serotina) with a dense ground cover of herbs and shrubs.

A relatively unique community type In the area are pocosins. These are wetland depressions

vegetated with dense stands of various evergreen shrubs and small trees such as red bay

(Persea borbonis) and sweet bay (Magnolia vlrgnlnana) (CP&L 2004).

Sparse stands of grass dominated by sea oats (Uniola panicuiata) characterize the seaward

side of the dune-strand communities found at the interface between the sea and land. Because

of the wind and salt spray, plants are primarily found on the landward side of the dunes.

Relatively dense herbaceous shrub communities dominated by sabal palm (Sam palmetto)

and live oak (Q. virginlana) develop In these more protected areas (CP&L 2004).

Cordgrass (Spartina eitemfflora) and needlerush (Juncus romerianus) are the dominant species

In the salt marshes at the BSEP site. The marshes represent habitat for many Important

aquatic organisms that are preyed upon by a variety of terrestrial wildlife species (CP&L 2004).

Wildlife species In the vicinity of BSEP are typical of those found In the southeastern Coastal

Plain. The upland communities support many species of birds, Including hawks, woodpeckers,

warblers, and sparrows; mammals such as white-talled deer (Odocolleus virginlanus), opossum

(Didelphis virglniena), raccoon (Procyon Itoa,), squirrels (Sclurus spp.), skunk

(Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat (Lynx nufus); as well as a variety of snakes, toads, frogs and

lizards. Wetlands such as the salt-marshes provide habitat for the American allIgator

(Alligatortnmsslssopplensis), raccoon (Procyon Ioto), river otter (Lonta canadensis), and many

species of wading birds (CP&L 2004).

There are eight transmission tines that were constructed to connect BSEP to the transmission

system. The transmission fine to the Barnard Creek substation crosses the Cape Fear River

near the top of the estuary. The Whitevile transmission line crosses several pocosins and

Green Swamp, which has been designated a National Natural Landmark (NPS 2005). The

Whiteville transmission line also passes about I mi west of Lake Waccamaw State Park and

approximately 2 mi south of Lake Waccamaw. The Holly Shelter Game Land In the Holly

Shelter swamp Is crossed by the Jacksonville transmission One. In northwest Pender County.

the Wallace transmission tne crosses the B. W. Wells Savannah, a 117-ac remnant of wetland

savannah that supports 170 native plant species, some of which are considered rare (NCCLT

2001). The transrnIssion line rights-of-ways do not cross any Federal or State parks. CP&L

has partnered with the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, the Conservation Trust for North

Carolina, the Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society, and the

North Carolina Nafural Heritage Program (NCNHP) to preserve unique and rare species within

the transmission line rights-of way.

4.2 Aquatic Resources

BSEP Is surrounded by a riverse and complex aquatic ecosystem. Aquatic habitat types

surrounding the plant Include salt marshes, the river channeilestuary, and offshore regions

(CP&L 1980). The plant Is situated approximately 5.7 mi upstream from the mouth of the

Cape Fear River (CP&L 1985). BSEP's cooling system draws water predominantiy from the

surface layer of the Cape Fear River ship channel through a 3-mi-long intake channel. Water is

8*

April 2006 E-91 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

discharged to the Atlantic Ocean after flowing through a 6-rii discharge canal. The water Is

pumped approximately 2000 ft offshore through submerged pipes to the point of discharge

(CP&L 1979).

The Cape Fear River Is estuarine at the point where water is drawn Into the Intake canal.

Estuaries are partially enclosed coastal areas where freshwater and saltwater mix. These

areas are under tidal Influence, but they are protected from the funl force of the ocean by barrier

islands, salt marshes, or other land forms. The species found in estuaries are specially

adapted for lie In this transitonal area. Estuaries are considered to be among the most

productive areas on earth (EPA 2005).

The region surrounding the BSEP Intake canal entrance, just downstream of Sunny Point, Is in

an area that experiences a large tidal exchange (CP&L 1985). SalinIty is Influenced primarily by

tidal conditions and the rate of freshwater Inflow. A salinity gradient exists where runoff from

the Cape Fear River rrixes with water from the Atlantic Ocean. From Sunny Point upstream to

Wilmington, the water Is often two-layered, with the less-dense freshwater mroving downstream

over the more-dense seawater (CP&L 1980). Downstream from Sunny Point, the water Is more

uniformly mbied because of complex water circulatlon patterns, vigorous tidal action, and high

exchange rates with the ocean. This portion of the estuary is shallow and Irregular In shape,

with many islands and channels that enhance mixing (CP&L 1980, 1985). Because the

freshwater Inflow from the Cape Fear River and Its tributaries Is highly variable, salinities at the

Intake may range from nearly 0 to 32 parts per thousand (ppt) (AEC 1874). During periods of

average freshwater Inflow, salinitles near Sunny Point are generally In the range of 8 to 15 ppt

(CP&L 1980). Ufnlmum salinitles are generaly recorded In winter, and maximum isalnites are

generally recorded In late summer (CP&L 1985). Water temperatures In the estuary are

Influenced largely by changes In season, with the warmest temperatures (as high as 1 03VF)

observed during late summer (CP&L 1985).

The Cape Fear Estuary serves as a nursery area for fish and shellfish larvae and juveniles.

Some species, such as anchovy (Anchoa spp.) and gobles (Goblonegus app., Gobbsorna spp.)

spawn In the estuary, while others, such as Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), spot

(Lefostomeus xanthurus), croaker (MIcropogonias undulatus), and pinfish (Lagodon rhomboldes)

spawn In the ocean (PEC 2003). Salinity and temperature Influence the spatial and seasonal

distribution of these estuarine species (CP&L 1985). The ebb and flow of water In the estuary

also contribute to the transport and/or retention of larvae and other organisms throughout the

estuary (CP&L 1980).

Many species that Inhabit waters In the vicinity of the BSEP have commercial or recreational

value. Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp (F. duonarum), and white shrimp

(Litopenaeus seiferus) Inhabit salt marshes, Including Snow's Marsh, which borders the Intake

canal (CP&L 1980). The shrimp spawn In offshore waters and the post-larvae are recruited Into

the estuary where they find food and protection. As the shrimp mature, they migrate to deeper

waters where cornmercial fishermen harvest them (AEC 1974). Croaker, an important food fish

and sport fish, Is another inhabitant of the salt marsh, Including Snows Creek (AEC 1974).

Croaker spawn In the ocean during fall and winter. The young spend their first year In the

low-sarinity regions of the estuary and then move to the ocean. Examples of other species

found In salt marshes near BSEP Include blackcheek tonguefish (Symphurus plagiusa), striped

anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus), Atlantic menhaden, and pinfish (AEC 1974).

9

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-92 April 2006
Appendix E

In the river channel andrestuary, developing larvae of brown, pink, and white shnlmp, as well as

blue crab (Cainectes 8pp.) can be found (AEC 1974). This portion of the estuary also supports

the larvae of anchovy, croaker, gobles, spot, blackcheek tonguelish, Atlantic menhaden, and

striped mullet (Mugft cephalus) (AEC 1974). The estuary supports larval fish year-round,

although the species composition varies by season. Important adult fish using the estuary

Include gray sea trout (Cynoscion regalis), spot, croaker, bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchfil,),

summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosws), American

shad (Alosa sapidissima), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and blue backed herring (Alosa

aestvalls) (AEC 1974).

The heated effluent is discharged Into the offshore region at Oak Island. Larvae of shrimp,

anchovies, gobles, spot, croaker, gray seatrout, pinfish, and menhaden have been recorded In

this region (AEC 1974). Adults with some commercial value captured In this area Include

brown, pink, and white shrirrp, blue crab, anichovy, spot, king fish (Mentacirrhus amercanwus),

croaker, thread herring (Opstonema ogilnum), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), drum (Stellifer

Ianceolatus), and sole (Symphurus plagiusa). Benthlc organisms found In the mud and sand of

this offshore area Include snails, brittle star (Ophiophragumus spp.), and polychaete worms

(AEC 1974).

5.0 Evaluation of Threatened and Endangered Species

A total of 12 Federally 0lsted threatened or endangered aquatic spedes under full or partial

NIFS jurisiction were Identified as having the potential to be present in North Carolina waters

In the vicinity of BSEP and Its associated transnission line rights-of-way (NMFS 2005a). These

include six whales, (sal whale [Balaeroptera bo1s], blue whale [eaenoptera musculus], fin

whale JBalaenoptera physalus], right whale [Eubalaena glacifaI4, humpback whale [Megaptera

noveangflad], end sperm whale [Physeter macrocephausnD, five sea tuytles (loggerhead turtle

[Caretta caretta], green turtle [Chelonla mydasl, leatherback turtle [Demicchelys corlacea),

hawksbill turtle [Eretmochlys knbricsta], and Kemp's ridley turtle [Leplocheys kemp4), and

one fish species, the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenserbrevirostnini) (Table 2). NMFS has full

jurisdiction over the whales and sturgeon. NMFS and the FWS share Jurisdiction for the sea

turtles, with NMFS having responsibility In the marine environment and FWS on nesting

beaches.

In their letter dated February 4, 2005, NMFS also Identified six Federal fish species of concern

under their lurisdiction in North Carolina (Atlantic sturgeon [Acdpsnser oxyrhynchus

oxyrhynchus], dusky shark [Carcharhinus obscurus], night shark [Carcharhinus signatus],

speckled hind [E0lnephelus dumrnmondhayi], Warsaw grouper [Epinephelus nigritus], and sand

tiger shark [Odontaspis taurus]) (Table 2) (NMFS 2005a). These species are not protected

under the Endangered Species Act, but concerns about their status Indicate they may warrant

listing In the future.

The NRC staff reviewed life history Information for al the aquatic threatened, endangered, and

species of concern that have been identified In the vicinity of BSEP or its transmission line

rights-of-way. The staff has also reviewed Information provided by CP&L, FWS, NMFS, and

the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), regarding threatened and endangered

species in the vicinity of the BSEP site (CP&L 2004; NCNHP 2004; NMFS 2005a, b, c; FWS

10

April 2006 E-93 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

2005b). The NRC has determined that the proposed action would either have no effect or may

affect, not likely to adversely affect these species. The basis for each determination is

discussed In the following paragraphs.

Table 2. Federally Listed Marine Species Reported From Counties Associated

with BSEP and Its Transmission Une Rights-of Way

Federal

Specks Common Name Statusw Counties Oetenninaflon

MAMMALS

Baltenciptera boreals sel whale E (NC)" no effect

Balaernoera mustus blue whale E (NC) no effect

Baaenoptera physakis fin whale E (NC) no effect

Eubalaena glacllas North Atlantic right E (NC) no effect

whale

Megapora novaseangflae humpback whale E (NC) noeffect

Physetar macrocephaius sperm whale E (NC) no effect

REPTILES

Cearett carefta loggerhead turtle T(c) Snirnswick, New may affect, not likely

Hanover. Onslow, to adversely affect

Peondtr

Chelonla mydas green turtle T(cd) Brunswick. New may affect, not likely

Hanover, Onslow to adversely affect

Dennochersb cordcea leatherback turtle E(c) Brunswik, Onslow may affect, not likely

to adversely affect

Eretnwochlys bnbrata hawksbill turtle E(c) (NC) may affect, not likely

to adversely affect

Lqpkdceys kempfi Kemp's rldley turtle E(c) Brunswick may affect, not likely

to adversely affect

FISH

Aclpnserbrovirostrum shortnose sturgeon E Bladen, Brunswick. may affect, not likely

New Hanover, Pender to adversely affect

Aoeianser axyrhynchus Atlantic sturgeon C Bladen, Brunswick. may affect, not likely

oxyrhyachus ' New Hanover, Ponder to adversely affect

11

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-94 April 2006
Appendix E

Table 2. (contd)

Pedeant

Species Common Name StatusO) Counties Determination

FISH

Carchadthus obscurs duskyshark C (NC) no effect

Cachahbiu algrnatus night shark C (NC) no effect

Eplnephlu speckled hind C (NC) no effect

dnrrimmdheyl

Epfinphelus nivrous Warsaw grouper C (NC) no effect

Odontaspis faurus sand tiger shark C (NC) may affect, not likely

to adversely affect

(a) E - endangered, T- threatened, C- species of concern

(b) (NC) - County-evel Wng3 are not available; the species has Federal isting status hI North Carolina

(c) Nesting areas are under FWS wrsdci otherwse the species Is under NMFS Jurisdiction.

(d) Green turtes are isted as threatened, except for beedkg popuations of green turles In Forida and

on the Pacific Coast of Mexico, which are isted as endangered

set Whal

The sei whale favors temperate, deep, offshore waters. Local distribution Is thought to be

linked to the distribution of their food source, which Includes copepods, fish, or krill. Current sel

whale population estimates are around 54,000 Individuals (American Cetacean Society 2005).

This species Is not expected to enter the Cape Fear estuary or to be found near the BSEP

discharge structure. Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the

20-year license renewal term would have no effect on the sel waile.

Blue Whale

Although blue whales have been seen In coastal waters, they are found predominantly offshore

(NMFS 2005b). This species Is most frequently sighted In more northern waters, off eastern

Canada. It Is considered an occasional visitor In the U.S. Atlantic. This species Is not expected

to enter the Cape Fear estuary or to be found near the BSEP discharge structure. Therefore,

the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term

would have no effect on the blue whale.

fin Whaole

Although fin whales are found In all oceans of the world, they prefer the vastness of the open

sea (American Cetacean Society 2005). Precise estimates of population abundance are

unavailable, but present populations may number around 40,000 In the northern hemisphere.

This species Is not expected to enter the Cape Fear estuary or to be found near the BSEP

discharge structure. Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the

20-year license renewal term would have no effect on the fin whale.

12

April 2006 E-95 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

North Atlantic Right Whale

The majority of North Atlantic right whale females In the western North Atlantic population use

wintering and calving areas off the southeastern United States, then move to summer feeding

and breeding grounds in New England waters and to the north (NMFS 2005b). The malority of

males do not migrate to the southern calving grounds, but males do frequent the northern

waters In summer. Critical habitat for the species has been designated In coastal Florida and

Georgia, but not In North Carolina. This species Is not expected to enter the Cape Fear estuary

or to be found near the BSEP discharge structure. Therefore, the staff concludes that

continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term would have no effect on the

North Atlantic right whale.

Humpback Whale

Humpback whales are seasonal migrants. They generally swim to polar waters In summer and

tropical waters In winter. In the western North Atlantic, humpback whales feed during spring,

summer, and fall along the eastern coast of the United States (NMFS 2005b). An increased

number of sightings In the U.S. mid-Atlantic and southern states, including North Carolina, has

been reported. These areas may be Increasingly Important habitat for Juvenle humpback

whales (NMFS 2005b). This species Is not expected to enter the Cape Fear estuary or to finger

along the coast near the BSEP discharge structure. Therefore, the staff concludes that

continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal t6rrn would have no effect on the

humpback whale.

Sperm "oha

Spemn whales are uncommon in waters shallower than 300 m deep (NMFS 2005b). Because

of their association with deep waters, It Is unlikely that tis species would be found near the

BSEP. Therefore, the staff concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year

license renewal term would have no effect on the sperm whale.

Sea Turtles

NMFS and the FWS share Jurisdiction for the sea turtles, with NMFS having responsibility In the

marine environment and FWS on nesting beaches. A Biological Opinion Issued by the NMFS In

2000 addressed impacts to sea turtles specifically resulting from BSEP operation. The

Biological Opinion concluded that the *BSEP Is not likely to Jeopardize the continued existence

of the loggerhead, leatherback, green, hawksbill, or Kemp's ridley sea turtles" (CP&L 2004).

More recently, a Biological Opinion comparing sea turtle loss from coastal seawater Intakes to

the losses from Incidental take during shrimp trawling Indicated that while "sea turtles entering

coastal or Inshore, areas have been affected by entrainment In the cooling-water systems of

electrical generating plants sea turtle mortality associated with these activities is relatively low

and does not significantly affect the environmental baselIne" (NMFS 2002).

BSEP holds an endangered species permit. Issued on an annual basis by the North Carolina

Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), to tag sea turtles entrained in the Intake canal,

using methods In accordance with the FWS and NMFS sea turtle tagging protocols. BSEP also

holds an Incidental Take Statement Issued by NMFS (NMFS 2000), which authorizes the

capture and relocation of sea turtles. The Incidental Take Statement proscribes takes by plant13

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-96 April 2006
Appendix E

related Injury or mortality to be limited to six loggerhead turtles, two Kemp's rddley turtles, three

green turtles, one leatherback turtle, or one hawksbill turtle annually. These permits allow

certain BSEP staff to possess and transport entrained or stranded sea turtles for the purpose of

rehabilitation andlor release and the possession of dead stranded sea turtles for the purposes

of disposition (NCWRC 2004). The permit requires notification of each stranding event within

24 hours, and submnission of a written report within 48 hours of each stranding event.

Three sea turtle species have been collected, some as recently as July 2005. In the vicinity of

the BSEP Intake canal (BSEP 2005a). These were the loggerhead, green, and Kemp's rkdley

turtles. In 2004, the handling of 16 sea turtles by BSEP staff was reported to NMFS (8SEP

2005a). "Turtle-blocker panels' have been installed at the diversion structure, located at the

entrance to the Intake canal, to minimize the potential for sea turtes to enter the canal. BSEP

staff regularly patrols the canal to look for turtles and to ensure the blocker panels are well

maintained.

Loggrhead Turtle

The loggerhead turtle Is listed as threatened. The species occurs on beaches suitable for

nesting from North Carollna to Florida (FWS 2005c). The loggerhead may be found hundreds

of miles out to sea, as well as In Inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks,

ship canals, and the mouths of large rivers (FWS 2005c). Nesting season Is generally between

May and November. Nesting occurs on suitable beaches from North Carolina to Florida, with

primary nesting beaches found In Florida. Loggerhead turtle nesting in North Carolina occurs

only on the Atlantic Coast beaches, and does not occur In the Cape Fear River estuary, or

anywhere near the BSEP site or associated transmission line rights-of-way. However,

loggerhead turtles were the most common species observed at the BSEP In 2004. Sixty-nine

percent of the sea turtles handled were loggerheads.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the loggerhead turtle.

Based on this Informnation, information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, the loggerhead turtle.

Green Turtle

The green turtle is listed as threatened. In the western North Atlantic Ocean, this species Is

found from Massachusetts to Mexico. Nesting in the United States Is limited to between 300

and 1000 nests annually on Florida's east coast (FWS 2005d). Green turtles are generally

found In shallow waters inside reefs, bays, and Inlets and are attracted to lagoons and shoals

with an abundance of marine grass and algae (FWS 2005d). Approximately 12 percent of the

sea turtles handled at the BSEP In 2004 were green turtles.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the green sea turtle.

Based on this information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, the green turtle.

14

April 2006 E-97 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

Leatherback Turtle

The leatherback turtle is flisted as endangered. Nesting in the United States occurs mainly in

Florida, but has also occurred In Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. No nests have

been observed at the BSEP site. The species rarely enters the estuary. Only historical

sightings of the leatherback (last observed more than 20 years ago) have been documented in

Brunswick County (NCNHP 2004).

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the leatherback turtle.

Based on this information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, the eatherback turtle.

Hawksblll Turtle

The hawksbill turtle Is listed as endangered. In the United States, nesting Is restricted to the

southeast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys (NMFS 2005b). The hawksbll has been

reported from all the eastern seaboard, but sightings north of Florida are rare. This species has

not been documented at the BSEP site.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Informnation on the hawksbill turtle. Based

on this Information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not fikely to adversely affect, the hawksbill turtle.

Kemp's Ridley Turtle

The Kemp's ridley turtle Is listed as endangered. Nesting occurs In Tamaulipas, Mexico, and

sometimes In Texas. Adults of this species are found prinarly In the Gulf of Mexico, but

immature turtles are found along the Atlantic coast as far north as Canada (FWS 2005e). The

Kemp's ridley turtle Is found In shallow coastal waters, often In association with red mangrove

shorelines (FWS 2005e). Nearly 19 percent of the sea turtles handled at the BSEP In 2004

were Kemp's ridtey turtles.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the Kemp's ridley turtle.

Based on this Information, information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHIP, and

information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, the Kemp's ridley turtle.

Shortnose Sturgeon

The shortnose sturgeon Is Federally listed as endangered. NMFS has jurisdiction for

anadromous fish, including the shortnose sturgeon. A Biological Opinion issued by NMFS in

2000 addressed impacts to shortnose sturgeon specifically resulting from BSEP operation. The

Biological Opinion stated that 'NMFS believes the likelihood for shortnose sturgeon to be

adversely affected by the proposed action is low enough to be considered discountable.

15

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-98 April 2006
Appendix E

Therefore NMFS has determined It Is unlikely that a shortness sturgeon would be adversely

affected by the proposed actlonr (NMFS 2000). No sturgeon Individuals were collected at

BSEP before 1998 (CP&L 1998). Nine adult shortnose sturgeon were captured in the Cape

Fear River between 1987 and 1998 (CP&L I 998). A tagging and tracking study conducted

between 1990 to 1993 managed to capture only eight adult shortnose sturgeon in the lower

Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross 1995). Five tagged fish occupied river kilometers 16 through

96 from early January through May. This stretch of the river Is upstream of the BSEP Intake

canal. NCNHP data Indicate that shortnose sturgeon have been observed in the vicinity of the

point where the Cape Fear River is crossed by the Jacksonville transmission line right-of-way.

The staff visited the site and reviewed the life history Information on the shortnose sturgeon.

Based on thi; Information, Information obtained from NCWRC, FWS, NMFS, and NCNHP, and

information obtained from BSEP on endangered and threatened species procedures, the staff

concludes that continued operation of BSEP over the 20-year license renewal term may affect,

but Is not likely to adversely affect, the shorbse sturgeon.

Species of Concern

Several of the species of concern are not expected to be present near the BSEP site. The

dusky shark avoids low salinities and is not commonly found In estuaries (NMFS 2005c); the

speckled hind, Warsaw grouper, and night shark are all deep-water species, preferring much

greater depths than those found in the vicinity of BSEP (NMFS 2005c). Two other species of

concern a more lkely to be present in the vicinity of the BSEP. The sand tiger shark Is a

coastal species and may generally be found In the surf zone to depths of 75 It (NMFS 2005c).

Juvenile sand tiger sharks are found In estuaries of the eastern United States and, therefore,

may be present In the vicinity of BSEP. The Atlantic sturgeon Is relatively common In the lower

Cape Fear River (Moser and Ross 1995). Juveniles were found to prefer waters greater than

10 m deep In the vicinity of the saltwater and freshwater Interface.

6.0 Conclusions

The staff has Identified eight Federafly listed endangered, threatened, and species of concern

under full or partial NMFS Jurisdiction that have a reasonable potential to occur In the vicinity of

BSEP or along the transmission line rights-of-way and, therefore, may be affected by continued

operations of BSEP and maintenance of the associated transmission line rights-of-way.

Additionally, the staff Identified 10 additional species that have been reported to occur in the

counties containing BSEP or associated transmission rights-of-way. However, because of

known habitat requirements, these species are not likely to be near the BSEP or associated

transmission line rights-of-way and, therefore, would not be affected by continued operations at

BSEP. CP&L has procedures In place to protect endangered or threatened species if they are

encountered at the plant site or along transmission Une rights-of-way and provides training for

employees on these procedures (BSEP2003,2005b). In 1993, CP&L signed a Memorandum

of Understanding with the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species and sensitive

natural areas occurring on transmission line rights-of-way (CP&L and NCDEHNR 1993).

The NRC staff has analyzed the species that are likely to be In the vicinity of BSEP or the

associated transmission lines, the known distributions and records of those species, the

ecological Impacts of the operation of BSEP and the operation and maintenance of the

16

April 2006 E-99 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

associated transmission rights-of-way, the effects of these practices on the species potentially

present, and the mitigation measures that CP&L has already implemented. Based on this

analysis, the staff has determined that continued operation of BSEP and Its associated

transmission fines for an additional 20 years would not have an adverse impact on any

threatened or endangered species or species of concern.

7.0 References

1 0 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Tite 10, Energy Part 51, mEnvironmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulated Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Tide 10, Energy, Part 54, ORequirements for

Renewal of Operating Ucenses for Nudear Power Plants.f

Atomic Energy Act of 1954. .42 USC 2011, et seq.

American Cetacean Society. 2005. Cetacean fact packs. American Cetacean Society, San

Pedro, California. Accessed at http:/1www.acsonline.orglfactpackl on June 26, 2005.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2003. Environmental Trainng. Endangered Species.

EVC-SUBS-00062, Rev 0. January, 2003, Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2004 Sea

Turtle Annual Report. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina.

Brunswick Stearn Electric Plant (BSEP). 2005b. Endangered and Threatened Species. EVCSUBS-0001 1, Rev 2. February, 2005.

Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1979. 316(a) Demonstration, Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant, Southport North Carolina. Volume XIX. Carolina Power & Light Company,

Environmental Technology Section, New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1980. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear

Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power & Light Company. Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1985. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear

Studies: Interpretive Report. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 1998. Threatened and Endangered Species

Self-Assessment Report. Carolina Power & Light Company, Environmental Services Section,

Biological Assessment Unit. New Hill, North Carolina.

Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L). 2004. Appricant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units No. I and2. Docket

No. 50-261, License No. DPR-23, Southport, North Carolina.

17

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 E-100 April 2006
Appendix E

Carolina Power and Light and North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources (CP&L and NCDEHNP). 1993. Memorandum of Understanding between the

Carolina Power and ight Company and the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and

Natural Resources. March 19,1993.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Griffith, G.E., JM. Omernik, JA Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.

MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South

Carolina, (Color poster with map, descritptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston,

Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,5,00,000). Accessed at

http:/ANww.epa.gov/wedfpages/ecoregionslncsc-eco.hbn on 19 January 19, 2005.

Hall, S.P, M.P. Schafale, and J.T. Finnegan. 1999. Conservation Assessment of the

Southeast Coastal Plain of North Carolina Using Ste-Orinted and Landscape-Oriented

Analysis. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh,

North Carolina.

Moser, M.L and S.W. Ross. 1995. 'Habitat Use and Movements of Shortnose and Atlantic

Sturgeons In the Lower Cape Fear River, North Carolinae Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 124(2): 225-234

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Endangered Species Act - Section 7

Consultation. Operation of the Cooling Water Intake System at the Brunswick Steam Electric

Plan, North Carolina Power and Light Company. Consultation conducted by the National

Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region, for the U.S. Nudear Regulatory Comrnission,

Washington, D.C.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Shrimp Trawling In the Southeastern United

States, under the Sea Turtle Conservation Regulations and as Managed by the Fishery

Management Plans for Shrimp in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species

Act - Section 7 Consultation, Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast

Region. Accessed at.

http:Ihsww.nmfs.noaa.gov/protres/readingmVESAsec7/Biop-shrlmp-trawling.PDF

on April 28,2005.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005a. Letter from Ms. Teletha Griffin, Administrative Support Assistant, U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries

Service, Protected Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida, to

NRC regarding a list of all Federally protected endangered and threatened species under

review for license renewal at BSEP.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005b. Species Information. NOM Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver

Spring, Maryland. Accessed at: http:lAww.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/speciesI on June 26, 2005.

18

April 2006 E-1 01 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2005c. Species of Concern and Candidate Species. NOAA Fisheries Service, Office of

Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed at

httpl//wwv.nmfs.noaa.govlprlspecieslconcernl on June 26,2005.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2004; North Carolina Natural Heritage

Program County Elements Search Results. Accessed at http'J1207.4.179.S8lnhpffind.php on

March 10, 2005.

North Carolina Widlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2004. Endangered Species Permit

No. 048749. North Carolina Wildife Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC). 2003. Brunswkk Steam Eectrdc Plant 2003 Biological

Monitoring Report Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc., Environmental Services Secdon, New HiI,

North Carolina.

U.S. AtorrJc Energy Commdssion (AEC). 1974. Fnal Envionmenta Statement Related to the

Conthnued Consinction and Proposed Issuance of an Operatn Lcense for the Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant Unis 1 and2, Carolina Powerand Light Company. .Docket Nos. 50-324

and 50-325. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. National Estuary Program: About

Estuaries. Accessed at httplIwwrw.epa.gov/nepfabouti.htm on April 1, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005a. Letter from Mr. Pete Benjarnin, Ecological

Serves Supervisor. FWS, to Mr. Pao-Tsin Kuo, NRC, regarding a list of all Federally protected

endangered and threatened species In the area under review for license renewal at BSEP.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005b. North Carolina Coity Endangered Species,

Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Accessed at: httpJ/Inc-es.fws.3gv/es/chtylistI on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005c. Loggerhead Sea Turtles In North Carolina.

Acoessed at: http://nc-es.flws.gov/reptllelogger.htrnl on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005d. Green Sea Turtles In North Carolina. Accessed

at http://nc-es.tfws.gov/reptilelgreensea.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2005e. Kerp's Ridley Sea Turtles In North Carolina.

Accessed at http://nc-es.ffws.gov/reptile/ridley.html on March 10, 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. Letter from NRC to Mr. Sam D. Hamilton,

Regional Director, FWS, request for list of protected species within the area under evaluation

for the BSEP Ucense Renewal

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (N RC). 2004b. Letter from NRC to Ms. Patricia A.

Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NOAA Fisheries Service, request for list of protected species

within the area under evaluation for the BSEP Ucense Renewal.

19

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-1 02 April 2006
Appendix E

( z UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

\, ad dNATIONAL MARNE FISHERES SERV E

Southeast Regional Office

263 13Ih Avenue South

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

(727) 824-5312; FAX 824-5309

htt:D/1sero.nmfs noaa gov

SEP 1 9 2005 FISER3l:WW

Pao-Tsin Kuo

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts

'Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington. DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Pao-Tsin Kuo:

This is In response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) letter dated August 9,

2005, and attached biological assessment (BA) dated August 2005 regarding license

renewal of the Brunswick Steamn Electric Plant. In your letter and BA, you requested

informal i r the continued operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

for the ret 20 yes and potential impact on listed species under thejurisdiction of

NOAA's TINat hluLrt' isheries Service (NMFS). This letter also refers to the

currently effective Biological Opinion and incidental take statement issued byNMES

January 20,2000. The Brunswick Steam Electric 'Plant is located on the Cape Fear River

Estuary in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

On January 20, 2000, NMFS issued a biological opinion and incidental take statement

concerning the operation of the cooling water intake system of the Brunswick Steamn

Electric Plant over the next 20 years. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

outlines four general conditions for reinitiating consultation: 1) The amount or extent of

incidental take is exceeded; 2) new information reveals effects of the action that may

affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously

considered; 3) the action is modified in a manner causing effects to listed species or

critical habitat not previously considered; 4) a new species is listed or critical habitat

designated that maybe affected by the action.

Based on the information provided in the August 2005 BA and annual reports on

incidental take received from the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant since issuance of the

January 20, 2000, biological opinion, a need fr reinitiation does not exist. The facility

has not exceeded nor approached its allowable incidental take. The BA indicates that

there is no new information on the effects of the plant operation not previously

considered, and the action has not been modified in such a manner as to cause effects to

listed species or critical habitat not previously considered. No new species or critical

habitat have been listed or designated in the area of the Brunswick Plant that may be

affected by its operation.

* " (%.0

April 2006 E-1 03 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix E

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA and the requirements for reinitiation, NMFS

does not deem reinitiation appropriate at this time and considers its January 20.2000,

biological opinion in full force and effect for the continued operation of the Brunswick

Plant until such time as one of the 4 criteria forreinitiationunder Section 7 oftheESA is

met.

This concludes the NRC's consultation responsibilities under the ESA for species under

NMFS' purview. Consultation must be reinitiated if a take occurs or new information

reveals effects of the action not previously considered, or the identified action is

subsequently modified in a manner that causes an efrect to the listed species or critical

habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, or if a new species is listed

or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.

Thank you for your continued cooperation in the conservation ofthreatened and

endangered species under NMFS purview. If you have any questions about the

information contained in this letter, please contact Mr. Walt Wilson, fisheries biologist at

(727) 824-5327.

Sincerelyyours,

Crabtree, CE Ph.D.

Regional Administrator

cc: F/PR3

FISER43 Thompson

File: 1514-22Mv2 NRC Brunswick

Ref: ISERW2005104312

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 E-104 April 2006
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2

Table F-1 lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996, 1 999)(a) and Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are not

applicable to Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units I and 2 (BSEP) because of plant or site

characteristics.

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to BSEP

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment

SURFACE WATER QUALrTY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 1 4.2.1.2.2 BSEP does not discharge Into a

4.4.2.2 lake.

Eutrophication 1 4.2.1.2.3 BSEP does not discharge Into a

4.4.2.2 lake.

Water use conflicts (plants with 2 4.3.2.1 BSEP does not discharge into a

cooling ponds or cooling towers using 4.4.2.1 small river with low flow.

makeup water from a small river with

low flow)

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS wrrH COOLINGTOWER BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish In 1 4.3.3 BSEP does not dissipate heat

early life stages using cooling towers.

Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 4.3.3 BSEP does not dissipate heat

using cooling towers.

Heat shock 1 4.3.3 BSEP does not dissipate heat

using cooling towers.

AOUATiC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Premature Emergence of Aquatic 1 4.2.2.7 Aquatic Insects not present In

Insects 4.4.3 vicinity of BSEP discharge. I

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

references to the 'GEIS" include the GEIS and Rs Addendum 1.

April 2006 F-1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix F

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE-10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater use conflicts (potable 2 4.8.1.1 BSEP uses less than 100 gpm

and service water, and dewatering; 4.8.2.1 groundwater.

plants that use >100 gpm)

Groundwater use conflicts (plants 2 4.8.1.3 BSEP does not dissipate heat

using cooling towers withdrawing 4.4.2.1 using cooling towers.

make-up water from a small river)

Groundwater use conflicts (Ranney 2 .4.8.1.4 BSEP does not have or use

wells) Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.2.2 BSEP does not have or use

(Ranney wells) Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.3 BSEP does not have cooling

(cooling ponds In salt marshes) ponds in salt marshes.

Groundwater quality degradation 2 4.8.3 BSEP does not use cooling

(cooling ponds at inland sites) ponds.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling tower impacts on crops and 1 4.3.4 BSEP does not use cooling

ornamental vegetation towers.

Cooling tower Impacts on native 1 4.3.5.1 BSEP does not use cooling

plants towers.

Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 4.3.5.2 BSEP does not use cooling

towers.

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 4.4.4 - BSEP does not use cooling

resources ponds.

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (public 1 4.3.6 BSEP does not have cooling

health) (plants using lakes or canals, towers or cooling ponds and its

or cooling towers or cooling ponds cooling canal does not discharge

that discharge to a small river) to a small river.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 F-2 April 2006
Appendix F

F.1 References

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

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report, Section 6.3 - Transportation, Table 9.1

Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C. I

April 2006 F-3 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
I I
Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 in Support of the

License Renewal Application Review
o
Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 in Support of the

License Renewal Application Review

G.1 Introduction

Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L), now doing business as Progress Energy

Carolinas, Inc., submitted an assessment of severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) as part of its Environmental Report (ER)

(CP&L 2004). This assessment was based on the most recent BSEP Probabilistic Safety

Assessment (PSA) available at that time, a plant-specific offsite consequence analysis

performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) computer

program, and insights from the BSEP Individual Plant Examination (IPE) (CP&L 1992) and

Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (CP&L 1995). In identifying and

evaluating potential SAMAs, CP&L considered SAMA candidates that addressed the major

contributors to core damage frequency (CDF) and population dose at BSEP, as well as SAMA

candidates for other operating plants that have submitted license renewal applications. CP&L

identified 43 potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced to 36 unique SAMA candidates

by eliminating SAMAs that are not applicable at BSEP because of design differences, that

would require extensive changes that would involve implementation costs known to exceed any

possible benefit, or that would exceed the dollar value associated with completely eliminating all

internal and external event severe accident risk at both BSEP units. CP&L assessed the costs

and benefits associated with each of the potential SAMAs and concluded that several of the

candidate SAMAs evaluated may be cost-beneficial and warrant further review for potential

implementation.

Based on a review of the SAMA assessment, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

issued a request for additional information (RAI) to CP&L by letter dated February 24, 2005

(NRC 2005). Key questions concerned changes to the Level 2 PSA model and source terms

since the IPE, the approach for calculating replacement power costs, further information on

several specific candidate SAMAs and low-cost alternatives, the potential impact of

uncertainties on the assessment results, and licensee plans for future consideration of

potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. CP&L submitted additional information by letters dated

April 21, 2005, and June 1,2005 (Progress Energy 2005a, b). In the responses, CP&L

provided a description of the changes to the Level 2 analysis and how the source terms were

derived using the Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP) 4.0.4 computer program, an

assessment of the impact of assuming replacement power cost based on loss of a single unit

April 2006 G-1 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

versus both units, a table that mapped the candidate SAMAs to important basic events and

additional information regarding several specific SAMAs, a further assessment of uncertainties

in the Level 1 model, and a description of future plans for evaluating potentially cost-beneficial

SAMAs. CP&L's responses addressed the staff's concerns.

An assessment of SAMAs for BSEP is presented below.

G.2 Estimate of Risk for BSEP2

CP&L's estimates of offsite risk at the BSEP are summarized in Section G.2.1. The summary is

followed by the staff's review of CP&L's risk estimates in Section G.2.2.

G.2.1 CP&L's Risk Estimates

Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA

analysis: (1) the BSEP Level 1 and 2 PSA model, which is an updated version of the IPE

(CP&L 1992), and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite consequences and economic impacts

(essentially a Level 3 PSA model) developed specifically for the SAMA analysis. The SAMA

analysis Is based on the most recent BSEP Level I and 2 PSA model available at the time of

the ER, referred to as the MOR03 Unit 2 model. CP&L considers the Unit 2 model to be

appropriate for both Unit 1 and 2 as it incorporates the changes from the extended power

uprate (EPU), which was approved in 2002 (the Unit 1 model does not yet include all EPUrelated changes). The scope of the BSEP PSA does not include external events.

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 4.2 x 10-5 per year.

The CDF is based on the risk assessment for internally Initiated events. CP&L did not include

the contribution from external events within the BSEP risk estimates; however, it did account for

the potential risk reduction benefits associated with external events by doubling the estimated

benefits for internal events. This is discussed further in Section G.6.2.

The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table G-1. As shown in this table,

events initiated by loss of offsite power (dual unit) and turbine trips are the dominant

contributors to CDF. In response to an RAI, CP&L stated that station blackout (SBO)

sequences contribute 1.56 x 10- per year (about 37 percent of the total internal events CDF),

while anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) sequences contribute 3.3 x 1 O per year

(about 8 percent of the CDF). Internal floods contribute 8.8 x 10 ' per year (about 2 percent of

the CDF) (Progress Energy 2005a).

The current Level 2 BSEP PSA model has been developed for the EPU configuration and

represents a significant update to the IPE. The Level 2 PSA involved the development of

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-2 April 2006
Appendix G

Table G-1. BSEP Core Damage Frequency for Internal Events

CDF % Contribution

Initiating Event (Per Year) to CDF

Loss of offslte power - dual unit (LOOP) 1.47 x 1 Us 35.1

Turbine trip 1.14x 105 27.2

Main steam isolation valve closure/loss of condenser 4.78 x 10 11.4

vacuum

Loss of direct current (DC) panel 3.18 x 104 7.6

Loss of alternating current (AC) emergency bus 2.39 x 104 5.7

Loss of control rod drive (CRD) 1.72 x 1 0c4 4.1

LOOP - single unit 1.01 x 104 2.4

Other 1.01 x 104 2.4

Internal floods 8.80 x 10-7 2.1

Loss of reactor building closed cooling water 4.60 x 1 f7 1.1

Interfacing systems loss of coolant accident/ 3.40 x 1 c7 0.8

excessive loss of coolant accident

Total CDF (internal events) 4.19 x 104 100

containment event trees, which are stated to incorporate a number of technical advances to

make them consistent with current state of knowledge on severe accident issues and useful for

risk-informed applications. A separate containment event tree is used for each of the Level 1

accident classes to describe the response of the containment. The containment event tree end

states are grouped into release categories by magnitude and timing of the expected releases.

The result of the Level 2 PSA is a set of release categories with their respective frequency and

release characteristics. The results of this analysis for BSEP are provided in Table F-5 of the

ER. The frequency of each release category was obtained from the quantification of the

containment event tree for each Level 1 accident sequence. The release characteristics were

obtained from the results of MAAP analyses of conservatively selected, representative

sequences for each release category.

The offsite consequences and economic impact analyses use the MACCS2 code to determine

the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public. Inputs for these analyses

include plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide inventory, source term

April 2006 G-3 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

and release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected population distribution (within a

50-mi radius) for the year 2036, emergency response evacuation modeling, and economic data.

The core radionuclide inventory is based on the generic boiling water reactor (BWR) inventory

provided in the MACCS2 manual, adjusted to represent the BSEP uprated power level of

2923 megawatts-thermal (MW[t]). The magnitude of the onsite impacts (in terms of cleanup

and decontamination costs and occupational dose) is based on information provided in

NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997a).

In its ER, CP&L estimated the dose to the population within 50 mi of BSEP to be approximately

29.35 person-rem per year. The breakdown of the total population dose by containment

release mode is summarized in Table G-2. Containment failures within the intermediate time

frame (6 to 24 hours following event initiation) and early time frame (less than 6 hours following

event initiation) dominate the population dose risk at BSEP.

Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

Population Dose

Containment Release Mode (Person-Rem Per Year) % Contribution

Early Containment Failure 8.38 28

Intermediate Containment Failure 20.92 71

Late Containment Failure 0.05 <1

Intact Containment Negligible Negligible

Total Population Dose 29.35 100

G.2.2 Review of CP&L's Risk Estimates

CP&L's determination of offsite risk at BSEP is based on the following three major elements of

analysis:

1. the Level 1 and 2 risk models that form the bases for the 1992 IPE submittal (CP&L 1992)

and the 1995 IPEEE submittal (CP&L 1995)

2. the major modifications to the IPE model that have been incorporated in the BSEP PSA

3. the MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product source terms and release

frequencies from the Level 2 PSA model into offsite consequence measures.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-4 April 2006
Appendix G

Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of CP&L's risk estimates

for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below.

The original BSEP PSA was submitted to the NRC in May 1988 (CP&L 1988). This Level I

PSA included internally and externally initiated events, and was reviewed by the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory (now known as Idaho National Laboratory) under contract for the NRC

(NRC 1989). The overall conclusion of this review was that the PSA was a reasonable and

competent investigation into the risks associated with operation of BSEP. The ER states that

many of the Insights provided by this review were factored into the IPE.

The BSEP IPE (CP&L 1992) was an update of the original PSA. The staff's review of the BSEP

IPE is described in an NRC report dated January 21, 2000 (NRC 2000). Based on a review of

the original IPE submittal, related supplements, and responses to RAls, the staff concluded that

the IPE submittal met the Intent of Generic Letter 88-20; that Is, the IPE was of adequate

quality to be used to look for design or operational vulnerabilities.

There have been numerous revisions to the IPE model since Its submittal. A comparison of

internal events risk profiles between the IPE and the PSA used in the SAMA analysis indicates

an increase of approximately 1.5 x 104 per year in the total Internal events CDF (from 2.7 x 104

per year in the IPE to 4.19 x 1 O-per year in MOR03). The increase is mainly attributed to

modeling changes that have been implemented since the IPE was submitted rather than plant

hardware changes. A summary listing of those changes that resulted in the greatest impact on

the internal events CDF was provided in the ER (CP&L 2004) and further discussed in response

to an RAI (Progress Energy 2005a). The major changes are summarized in Table G-3.

The IPE CDF value for BSEP is close to the average of the CDF values reported in the IPEs for

BWR 3/4 plants. Figure 11.2 of NUREG-1560 shows that the IPE-based total internal events

CDF for BWR 3/4 plants ranges from 9 x1 09 to 8 x1 04 per year, with an average CDF for the

group of 2 x 10'5 per year (NRC 1 997b). It is recognized that other plants have updated the

values for CDF subsequent to the IPE submittals to reflect modeling and hardware changes.

The current internal events CDF results for BSEP are comparable to other plants of similar

vintage and characteristics.

The PSA results used in the SAMA analysis were based on the Unit 2 PSA. In response to an

RAI, CP&L described the differences between Unit 1 and Unit 2 that might affect the PSA

results and concluded that the differences do not significantly affect the CDF (Progress Energy

2005a). The Unit 2 model incorporates the changes from the EPU; therefore, it is more up-todate and consistent with the current plant configuration. The staff concludes use of the Unit 2

PSA results for the SAMA analysis for both units Is acceptable.

April 2006 G-5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

Table G-3. BSEP PSA Historical Summary

CDF(2)

PSA Version Summary of Changes from Prior Version (per year)

MOR92 * IPE Submittal 2.7 x 105

93 IPE Update * Increased LOOP initiating event frequency NA

* Added credit for new SBO procedure

* Improved human reliability analysis

* Numerous system fault tree model changes

94 IPE Update * More detailed model of diesel generator failures and offsite 1.1 x 1o-5

power recovery options

MOR96 * Consolidated selected event trees 9.1 x104

* Changed numerous system fault tree models

* Updated failure data In conjunction with maintenance rule

implementation

MOR98 * Replaced prior Level I model with separate models for 2.54 x 1'5

Units 1 and 2

* Modified Level 2 model to calculate only large early

releases frequency results

MOR98R1 * Revised modeling of credit for battery charger given battery 4.92 x 104

failure

* Modified Level 2 model to calculate releases for eight

release categories

MOR02 * Periodic update 4.97 x 10'5

* Numerous miscellaneous changes and corrections, some

in response to peer review

MOR03 * Incorporated changes related to EPU implementation 4.19 x 10'5

* Updated various common cause failure values

* Updated LOOP frequency and recovery rules

* Numerous additional changes and corrections to the Level

1 model

* Modified the Level 2 model to calculate releases for

12 release categories

(a) Values for MOR98 and later are based on a Unit 2-specific model.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-6 April 2006
Appendix G

The staff considered the peer reviews performed for the BSEP PSA and the potential impact of

the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In the ER and in response to an RAI, CP&L

described the previous peer reviews, the most significant of which was the Nuclear Energy

Institute/Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) Peer Review of the MOR98R1 PSA

model conducted in 2001. In its ER, CP&L stated there were no "A" level facts and

observations (i.e., facts and observations important and necessary to address before the next

regular PSA update), and there were 66 "B" level facts and observations (i.e., facts and

observations important and necessary to address, but disposition may be deferred until the next

PSA update), six of which were resolved prior to the MOR03 model being used for the SAMA

analysis. In response to an RAI, CP&L stated that resolution of the outstanding Level B peer

review comments is still in progress, and described the six major issues associated with the

outstanding comments (Progress Energy 2005a). These Issues Involve the need to address

the following:

. safety relief valve re-closure in loss of decay heat removal (DHR) sequences during

which the containment pressurizes

* net positive suction head issues in scenarios involving failure of suppression pool

cooling and successful containment venting

* reactor building environmental conditions in scenarios in which the containment fails

prior to core damage

* potential conservatisms in modeling including common cause failure modeling (double

counting), heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) modeling for the diesel

generator cells, failure of DC initiating events, modeling of CRD initiating events, and

giving credit for alternate rod insertion for ATWS events

* potential non-conservatism in LOOP initiating event data

* refinement in human error probability estimates.

The impact of these issues on the results of the PSA was discussed by CP&L in general terms.

CP&L concluded that only the first three issues could result in an increase in risk and potential

retention of some additional SAMAs. These issues predominantly impact core damage

sequences associated with loss of injection late in the event or with complete loss of DHR.

CP&L identified four candidate SAMAs that would help mitigate these accident sequences.

Phase II SAMA 36 (use fire-fighting water as a backup for containment spray) was already

identified as potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis in the ER; thus, the impact of the

peer review comment resolution on this SAMA was not further evaluated. In its ER, CP&L

identified three additional SAMAs that would have estimated benefits close to their

April 2006 G-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

implementation costs but that were not positively identified as cost-beneficial in the baseline

SAMA analysis. Further evaluation of these three SAMAs considered conservative modeling

assumptions that would tend to offset, to some extent, the potential impact of the resolution of

the comments (Progress Energy 2005a). These three additional SAMAs are listed below, along

with CP&L's assessment regarding the potential impact of peer review comment resolution.

* Phase II SAMA 6. Proceduralize all potential 4-kV AC bus cross-tie actions. The

benefit of this SAMA is limited because the loss of DHR sequences are long evolutions

and even without these procedures the onsite staff would likely perform the 4-kV crossties given that the hardware Is in place to support it.

* Phase II SAMA 13. Install an inter-unit CRD cross-tie. Implementation of this SAMA

could help mitigate the consequences associated with the Class II sequences by

delaying the onset of core damage and containment failure. However, the cross-tie

introduces the potential to fail the CRD system on the opposite unit. Additionally, in

quantifying the benefit of this SAMA it was conservatively assumed that the initial failure

of the CRD would not prevent the cross-tie from being performed. As a result, the

actual benefit of this SAMA would be less than the estimated value, and the SAMA is

not considered to be a candidate for further consideration.

* Phase II SAMA 34. Provide supplemental power supplies for offsite power recovery

after battery depletion during SBO. This SAMA would remove the dependence on the

switchyard station battery so that a means of aligning offsite power will be available

when the station batteries are depleted. Recovery of AC power In loss of DHR

sequences appears to be a viable means of reducing risk and one that may be costbeneficial upon resolution of the BWROG peer review Level B facts and observations.

As a result of the evaluation, CP&L determined that Phase II SAMAs 6 and 13 should not be

retained for further evaluation because the true benefits would be less than the benefit

assessed, and the impact of the resolution of the facts and observations would probably not

prove them to be cost-beneficial. However, the benefits associated with Phase II SAMAs 34

and 36 may increase if relevant facts and observations are resolved. Based on the information

provided, the staff agrees with CP&L's general assessment of the potential impact of comment

resolution on the results of the PSA. The SAMAs potentially Impacted by resolution of the peer

review comments are discussed further in Section G.6.

Given that the BSEP Level 1 PSA has been peer reviewed and the potential impact of the

unresolved peer review findings has been assessed, that CP&L has satisfactorily addressed

staff questions regarding the PSA, and that the CDF falls within the range of contemporary

CDFs for BWR 3/4 plants with Mark I containment, the staff concludes that the Level 1 PSA

model is of sufficient quality to support the SAMA evaluation.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-8 April 2006
Appendix G

As indicated above, the current BSEP PSA does not include external events. In the absence of

such an analysis, CP&L used the BSEP IPEEE in the SAMA analysis to identify the highest risk

accident sequences and the potential means of reducing the risk posed by those sequences, as

discussed below.

The 1988 BSEP PSA, which preceded the IPEEE, included external events with a seismic

contribution to CDF of 6.6 x 105 per year (CP&L 1988). However, this was an early seismic risk

assessment described by the licensee as "preliminary and with results that were described as

uscreening values." The Idaho National Laboratory review of the external events analysis

concluded that the analysis provided a reasonable and credible estimate of the external events

risk, but that "it is fully expected that with more refined ongoing and planned analysis of seismic

events, the core damage results will be significantly reduced" (NRC 1989). In response to an

RAI, CP&L indicated that no further seismic analysis had been performed other than that

associated with the IPEEE or Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 programs

(Progress Energy 2005a).

The BSEP IPEEE was submitted in 1995, in response to Supplement 4 of Generic Letter 88-20

(CP&L 1995). BSEP did not identfy any fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities to severe

accident risk in regard to the external events related to seismic, fire, or other external events.

In a letter dated November 18, 1998, the staff concluded the submittal met the intent of

Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20, and the licensee's IPEEE process is capable of

identifying the most likely severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities (NRC 1998).

The IPEEE uses a focused-scope seismic margins analysis developed by the Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI). This method is qualitative and does not provide numerical estimates

of the CDF contributions from seismic initiators (EPRI 1991). The seismic IPEEE identified a

number of outliers of items within the scope of the USI A-46 program. Resolution of these

outliers was to be accomplished In the context of USI A-46. Given the satisfactory resolution of

these outliers, BSEP found that, based on the EPRI assessment methodology, none of the

plant's high confidence, low probability of failure values were less than the 0.3g review level

earthquake used in the IPEEE. The NRC review and closure of USI A-46 for BSEP is

documented in a letter dated August 5, 1999 (NRC 1999).

Based on the licensee's IPEEE efforts to identify and address seismic outliers and the expected

large costs associated with further seismic risk analysis and potential seismic-related plant

modifications, the staff concludes the opportunity for seismic-related SAMAs has been

adequately explored, and it is unlikely that cost-effective SAMAs that address seismic

vulnerabilities will exist. This conclusion is based on the high cost of the required structural

modifications compared to the benefits expected.

April 2006 G-9 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

The BSEP fire analysis was based on EPRI's Fire-induced Vulnerability Evaluation

methodology. The methodology employs a graduated focus on the most important fire zones

using qualitative and quantitative screening criteria (EPRI 1992). The fire zones or

compartments were subjected to at least two screening phases. In the first phase, a

compartment was screened out if it was found to not contain any equipment or cables

associated with safe shutdown or an initiating event. In the second phase, CP&L used the IPE

model of internal events to quantify the CDF resulting from a fire-initiating event. The

conditional core damage probability associated with each fire compartment was based on the

equipment and systems unaffected by the fire. The CDF for each compartment was obtained

by multiplying the frequency of a fire in a given fire compartment by the conditional core

damage probability associated with that fire compartment.

After the assessment was completed, six fire compartments remained that contributed more

than 1 x 10- per year. These compartments are:

Fire Comnartment Compartment Description CDF

CB-21, CB-23 Southwest control room area 1.93 x 1 0-

RB2-1 g(NC) 20-ft level reactor building north central area 3.14 x 10I

RB2-1 g(NW) 20-ft level reactor building north west area 1.58 x 1 O'

CB-06 Unit 2 cable spreading room 1.56 x 1 O4

DG-14 E4 switchgear room 1.10 x 106

DG-9 E8 switchgear room 1.07 x 1 O6

The resulting fire CDF was estimated as 3.62 x I 0' per year (CP&L 1 996a).

The fire CDF is approximately 85 percent of the current Internal events CDF. In its ER, CP&L

described each of the fire compartments listed above and identified candidate SAMAs to

potentially reduce the associated fire risk. As a result, CP&L identified the following potential

enhancements that it further considered as SAMAs:

* improvements to the alternate shutdown panel

* improvements to the training operators receive on operating the plant from outside the

control room and improvements to ex-control room communications equipment

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-10 April 2006
Appendix G

* addition of automatic fire-suppression system to control room cabinets, in the 20-ft level

of the reactor building (north-central and northwest), and in switchgear rooms (E4 and E8)

* prohibiting transient combustibles in the cable spreading room and/or requiring

fire-suppression personnel to be present during work that may cause a fire

* improvements to fire barriers between cabinets in the cable spreading room.

The IPEEE analysis of other external events is an update of that performed as part of the 1988

BSEP PSA. The total high-wind-induced CDF was determined to be 4 x 104 per year. All other

external events were determined to contribute less than 1 x IO4 per year to CDF. The

high-wind contribution to CDF was caused by failure of the switchyard and the resulting

long-term loss of offsite power. While not considered a vulnerability, CP&L reviewed the

existing procedures and training and concluded that the ability to cope with a long-term SBO

event was adequately addressed (CP&L 1996b). In its ER, CP&L considered enhancements to

the switchyard and offsite power connections to prevent damage from high winds; however,

such modifications are very expensive (> $25 million). CP&L concluded that no further

modifications would be cost-effective for high-wind events.

Because of relatively low contributions from the fire CDF value and other external events, CP&L

doubled the benefit derived from the internal events model to account for the contribution from

external events. This doubling was not applied to those SAMAs that specifically addressed fire

risk (i.e., Phase II SAMAs 30-33). Doubling the benefit for Phase II SAMAs 30-33 is not

appropriate because these SAMAs are specific to fire risks and would not have a corresponding

benefit on the risk from internal events. The risks discussed above that are caused by external

events are the results of analyses that were performed at various times prior to the current

BSEP internal events PSA. The methodologies also vary in their degree of completeness and

conservatism. Consequently, the results cannot be directly compared with those from the

current PSA. Regardless of the above, the staff agrees with CP&L's conclusion that the risks

posed by external events is roughly equivalent to the risks from internal events. Therefore, the

staff concludes that CP&L's use of a multiplier of two to account for external events is

reasonable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The staff reviewed the general process used by CP&L to translate the results of the Level 1

PSA into containment releases, as well as the results of this Level 2 analysis. CP&L

characterized the releases for the spectrum of possible radionuclide release scenarios using a

set of 12 release categories, which are defined by the timing and magnitude of the release.

The frequency of each release category was obtained from the quantification of a containment

event tree for each Level 1 accident sequence. The release characteristics for each release

category were obtained from the results of MAAP 4.0.4 analyses of conservatively determined

representative sequences for each category. The process for assigning accident sequences to

April 2006 G-1 1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

the various release categories and selecting a representative accident sequence for each

release category is described in the ER and in response to RAls (Progress Energy 2005a). The

release categories and their frequencies are presented in Tables F-2 through F-4 of the ER

(CP&L 2004). In response to an RAI, CP&L described the basis for some of the more

significant results. The source terms used to characterize fission product releases for the

applicable containment release category are given in Table F-5 of the ER and are stated to be

best estimates for the selected sequences. All releases were modeled as occurring at ground

level and with a thermal content the same as ambient. CP&L assessed the impact of

alternative assumptions (e.g., releases at higher elevations and thermal contents). The results

of these sensitivity studies showed that the 50-mi population dose would increase by less than

4 percent. This small increase has a negligible impact on the analysis and its results. The staff

concludes that the process used for determining the release category frequencies and source

terms is reasonable and appropriate for purposes of the SAMA analysis.

As mentioned previously, the reactor core radionuclide Inventory used in the consequence

analysis is based on the generic BWR inventory provided in the MACCS2 manual, adjusted to

represent the BSEP uprated power level of 2923 MW(t)h. In response to an RAI concerning

the Impact of current and future fuel management practices, CP&L performed an additional

BSEP-specific MACCS2 sensitivity calculation assuming a 65 percent increase in the

inventories for strontium-90, cesium-1 34, and cesium-1 37. This level of increase was based on

a prior calculation for the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station In which the end-of-cycle activity

levels for a bounding case of 1400 effective full-power days were compared to the reference

BWR inventories. Use of this increased inventory results In about a 30-percent increase in the

total costs associated with a severe accident. Using realistic mid-life or average conditions

would result in a smaller increase. CP&L assessed the impact that this change might have on

the SAMA screening process and determined that two SAMAs (Phase II SAMAs 13 and 34)

could become marginally cost-beneficial. However, these two SAMAs were already identified

as potentially cost-beneficial when using a 3-percent real discount rate, as discussed in

Section G.6.2. Based on this limited impact, the staff concludes that the scaling based on the

plant-specific power level yields sufficiently accurate and reasonable results for the dose

assessment.

The staff reviewed the process used by CP&L to extend the containment performance (Level 2)

portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3 PSA). This

included consideration of the major input assumptions used in the offsite consequence

analyses. The MACCS2 code was utilized to estimate offsite consequences. Plant-specific

input to the code includes the source terms for each release category and the reactor core

radionuclide inventory (both discussed above), site-specific meteorological data, projected

population distribution within a 50-mi radius for the year 2036, emergency evacuation modeling,

and economic data. This information is provided in Appendix F of the ER (CP&L 2004).

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-12 April 2006
Appendix G

CP&L used site-specific meteorological data processed from hourly measurements for the 2001

calendar year as input to the MACCS2 code. The hourly data were collected from the onsite

meteorological tower. Data from 1997 through 2001 were also considered, but the 2001 data

was found to result in the largest risk and was subsequently used in all MACCS2 risk

calculations. The staff concluded that use of the 2001 meteorological data in the SAMA

analysis is reasonable.

The population distribution CP&L used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated for the

year 2036, based on the U.S. Census population data for 2000 and the expected annual

population growth rate (USCB 2000a). The 1990 and 2000 county-level census data were used

to estimate the annual population growth rate (USCB 2000b). It was assumed that the growth

rate would remain the same as that reported between 1990 and 2000. Using sector-specific

population growth rates, projections were made by linearly extrapolating the 2000 sector

population data to year 2036. The staff concluded the methods and assumptions for estimating

population are reasonable and acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending 10 mi

from the plant. It was assumed that 95 percent of the population would move at an average

speed of approximately 0.24 meters per second with a delayed start time of 30 minutes

(CP&L 2004). This assumption is conservative relative to the NUREG-1 150 study (NRC 1990),

which assumed evacuation of 99.5 percent of the population within the emergency planning

zone. The staff concluded that the evacuation assumptions and analysis are deemed

reasonable and acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

Site-specific economic data requiring spatial distributions as input to MACCS2 were prepared

by specifying the data for each of the eight counties within 50 mi of the plant. The values used

in each of the 160 sectors surrounding the plant corresponded to the county that made up a

majority of the land in that sector. For eight sectors, no county encompassed more than

two-thirds of the area, conglomerate data (weighted by the fraction of each county in the sector)

were defined for these sector. In addition, generic economic data that applied to the region as

a whole were revised from the MACCS2 sample problem Input when better information was

available. These included value of farm and non-farm wealth and fraction of farm wealth from

improvements (e.g., buildings, equipment). The agricultural economic data were updated using

available data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA 1998). Information on the duration

of growing seasons for some crops was obtained from the North Carolina Department of

Agriculture, while for other crops the data were taken to be the same as used previously in

Southern Nuclear Operating Company's ER for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (SNC 2000).

The staff concludes that the methodology used by CP&L to estimate the offsite consequences

for BSEP provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an assessment of risk

April 2006 G-13 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite

risk on the CDF and offsite doses reported by CP&L.

G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

The process for identifying potential plant improvements, an evaluation of that process, and the

improvements evaluated in detail by CP&L are discussed in this section.

G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements

CP&L's process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the following

elements:

* review of the most significant basic events from the BSEP MOR03 Levels 1 and 2 PSA

* review of Phase II SAMAs from license renewal applications for six other U.S. nuclear

sites

* review of potential plant improvements identified in the BSEP IPE and IPEEE

* review of each of the dominant fire compartments, and SAMAs that could potentially .

reduce the associated fire risk.

Based on this process, an initial set of 43 candidate SAMAs, referred to as Phase I SAMAs,

was identified. In Phase I of the evaluation, CP&L performed a qualitative screening of the

initial list of SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following

criteria:

* the SAMA is not applicable at BSEP because of design differences

• the SAMA would require extensive changes that would involve implementation costs

known to exceed any possible benefit

* the SAMA would cost more than $9.6 million to Implement (the modified maximum

averted cost-risk, which represents the dollar value associated with completely

eliminating all internal and external event severe accident risk at both BSEP units).

Based on the above criteria, seven SAMAs were eliminated, leaving 36 for further evaluation.

The remaining SAMAs, referred to as Phase II SAMAs, are listed in Table F-16 of the ER

(CP&L 2004), and were subjected to further evaluation. During Phase II of the evaluation,

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-14 Apnl 2006
Appendix G

CP&L screened out some of the remaining SAMA candidates based on plant-specific insights

regarding the low-risk significance of systems affected by the SAMA. Seven such SAMAs were

screened from further evaluation. Additionally, it was determined that one SAMA had already

been implemented, and one SAMA was subsumed by another SAMA. A detailed cost-benefit

analysis was performed for each of the 27 remaining SAMA candidates. To account for the

potential impact of external events, the estimated benefits based on internal events were

multiplied by a factor of two (except for those SAMAs specific to fire risks because those

SAMAs would not have a corresponding benefit on the risk from internal events.)

Of the 27 SAMAs evaluated in the final phase, seven were identified as potentially costbeneficial in the baseline analysis. Several additional SAMAs were determined to be potentially

cost-beneficial when using a 3-percent real discount rate or when accounting for the impact of

uncertainties. The remaining SAMAs were evaluated and subsequently eliminated, as

described in Sections G.4 and G.6 below.

G.3.2 Review of CP&L's Process

CP&L's efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with internal

initiating events and fires. The initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident

sequences considered to be Important to CDF from functional, initiating events and

risk-reduction-worth perspectives at BSEP. Selected SAMAs from other nuclear plants were

included.

The preliminary review of CP&L's SAMA identification process raised some concerns regarding

the completeness of the set of SAMAs identified and the Inclusion of plant-specific risk

contributors. The staff requested information on certain risk-important events that did not

appear to be addressed by a candidate SAMA (NRC 2005). In response to the RAI, CP&L

updated tables in Its ER to provide a more complete accounting of the SAMAs associated with

each of the important basic events (CP&L 2005a). Based on this additional information, the

staff concludes that the set of SAMAs evaluated In the ER addresses the major contributors to

CDF and offsite dose, and the review of the top risk contributors does not reveal any new

SAMAs.

Although the IPE did not identify any vulnerabilities, several procedural improvements and

hardware modifications were identified for implementation (NRC 2000). Subsequently, a

decision was made by CP&L not to implement two of these improvements (a fifth diesel

generator and a dedicated DC power supply for the switchyard breakers). These two

improvements were included in the initial list of candidate SAMAs (CP&L 2004).

CP&L identified BSEP-specific candidate SAMAs for fire events using a combination of the

BSEP PSA models and the IPEEE. The fire risk at BSEP has been shown to be dominated by

April 2006 G-15 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

control room fires, though several other major contributors were also identified. As a result, six

SAMAs were identified and retained for evaluation. Potential plant enhancements for other

external events (e.g., high-wind events and transportation and nearby facility accidents) were

determined to be too expensive, sufficiently addressed by existing requirements, or bounded by

existing scenarios. The staff concludes that CP&L's rationale for eliminating these

enhancements from further consideration is reasonable.

By letter dated, February 24, 2005, the staff sent CP&L an RAI about several other candidate

SAMAs that were identified as potentially cost-beneficial at other BWR plants but not addressed

by CP&L (NRC 2005). In response to the RAI, CP&L provided an assessment of the

applicability/feasibility of each of the specific enhancements Identified at BSEP by the staff, and

concluded that these SAMAs either would not provide a significant benefit at BSEP or are

addressed by existing SAMAs for BSEP (Progress Energy 2005a).

The staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all-inclusive, because additional, possibly

even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the staff

concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the benefits of

the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely cost less

than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated with

maintenance, procedures, and training are considered.

The staff concludes that CP&L used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying

potential plant improvements for BSEP, and the set of potential plant improvements identified

by CP&L is reasonably comprehensive and, therefore, acceptable. This search included

reviewing insights from the plant-specific risk studies, reviewing plant improvements considered

in previous SAMA analyses, and using the knowledge and experience of its PSA personnel.

G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

CP&L evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 27 remaining SAMAs that were applicable to

BSEP. The changes made to the model to quantify the Impact of the SAMAs are detailed in

Section F.6 of Appendix F to the ER (CP&L 2004) and in the response to an RAI

(Progress Energy 2005a). Most of the SAMA evaluations were performed using realistic

assumptions with some conservatism. For several of the SAMAs, the risk reduction was based

on more bounding assumptions; for example, Phase II SAMA 18 (provide alternate feeds to

essential loads directly from an alternate emergency bus) assumes that all loss of emergency

4-kV bus initiating events are eliminated.

CP&L used model re-quantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF and

population dose reductions were estimated using the MOR03 version of the BSEP Unit 2 PSA.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-16 April 2006
Appendix G

Table G-4 lists the assumptions considered to estimate the risk reduction for each of the

evaluated SAMAs, the estimated risk reduction in terms of percent reduction in CDF and

population dose, and the estimated total benefit (present value) of the averted risk. The

determination of the benefits for the various SAMAs is further discussed in Section G.6.

For those SAMAs that specifically address fire events (i.e., Phase II SAMAs 30-33), the

reduction in CDF and population dose was not directly calculated. For these SAMAs, a

bounding estimate of the impact of the SAMA was made based on general assumptions

regarding the approximate contribution to total risk from external events (relative to that from

internal events), the fraction of the external event risk attributable to fire events, and the fraction

of the fire risk affected by the SAMA and associated with each fire compartment (based on

information from the IPEEE). For example, it is assumed that the contribution to risk from

external events is approximately equal to that from internal events, and that fires contribute

75 percent of the external-events risk. The IPEEE fire analysis was then used to identify the

fraction of the fire risk that could be eliminated by potential enhancements in various fire

compartments. A similar process was applied to the proposed fire enhancements for each fire

compartment considered.

The staff reviewed CP&L's bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant

improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction

are reasonable and somewhat conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is similar to what

would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its estimates of averted risk for the

various SAMAs on CP&L's risk-reduction estimates.

G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

CP&L estimated the costs of implementing the 27 candidate SAMAs through the application of

engineering judgement, use of estimates from other licensees' estimates for similar

improvements, and development of site-specific cost estimates. To ensure conservatism, the

cost estimates did not include the cost of replacement power during extended outages required

to implement the modifications, nor did they Include contingency costs associated with

unforeseen implementation obstacles. The cost estimates provided in the ER did not generally

account for inflation. When using costs estimates prior to 1995, CP&L applied a 2.75 percent

per year inflation rate to arrive at year 2003 estimated costs. All cost estimates were indicated

to be on a site basis.

April 2006 G-17 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
z

C)

M

CA)

-4

En

C

'a

-C

2

CD

(7)

~1

00

0

0)

Table G-4. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis for BSEP

% Risk Reduction Total Benefit Total Benefit

%ARisksReduction Using 7%/1 Using 3% C s

CDF Population Discount Rate Discount Rate

Dose (S) ($)

1 - Portable Increases time available for AC power recovery 21 18 1,613,000 2,048,000 489,300

generator for DC from time based on loss of turbine-driven

power Injection at battery depletion to the time based on

loss of turbine-driven Injection at heat capacity

temperature limit (HCTL). Credit for portable

generator also taken for non-SBO with loss of

normal DC supply. A lumped failure probability

of 1 x1 0 Is used to represent operator alignment

errors and hardware failure of the portable

generator.

3 - Provide the main Reduces the manipulation time required to align the 0.5 0.7 54,000 70,000 434,800

control room with the UAT to the emergency buses following failure of the

capability to align the startup auxiliary transformer from 40 min to 20 min.

required to align the The human error probability (HEP) for the action was

unit auxiliary trans- reduced from 1.8 x 10 to 4.1 x1 0-2 based on

former (UAT) to the reduced time and Improved man-machine Interface.

emergency buses

4 - Direct drive diesel Supplements existing high-pressure Injection 15 12 1,085.000 1,370,000 4,000.000

Injection pump sources and Is capable of operating during an SBO.

The injection path Is defined to be through an

existing feedwater Injection line. Division II DC

power Is required for success. A lumped failure

probability of 5 x 10 2 Is used to represent operator

alignment errors and hardware failures of the pump.

5 - Enhanced CAD Results In an Increase In the CRD Injection flow rate 13 9 896,000 1.115,000 >1,000,0001

flow such that It Is capable of making up for boll-off even

In the early time frame for transient sequences.

0

0.

G)
V0

0

0~

0)

Table G4. (contd)

Total Benefit Total Benefit

SAMA Assumptons Rsk Reducton Using 7r Using 3% Cost

COF Population Discount Rate Discount Rate

Dose (S) ($)

6 - Proceduralize all Abnormal operating procedures are updated such 0.7 0.6 51,000 64,000 100,000

potential 4-kW AC bus that instructions are available to provide power from

cross-tie actions any given emergency 4-kV AC bus to any other

emergency 4-kW AC bus In accident conditions. The

existing Inter-divislonal, cross-tie HEP Is used to

represent the failure probability of the Inter-unit

cross-tie actions based on the procedure

Improvements.

10 - Improve Upgrades the low-pressure coolant Injection controls 0.5 1 64,000 84,000 434,800

procedures/equipment to allow more precise control over the Injection flow

to prevent boron rate in an ATWS. The HEP for the flow control action

dilution was reduced from 4.3 x 102 to 3.4 x 102. The

corresponding dependent HEPs were also adjusted

to account for the change In the base HEP.

11 - Enhance the main Improves the HEPs governing the 480-v AC cross-tle 1 3 185,000 245,000 434,800

control room (MCR) to actions by reducing the time required to perform the

include capability to action and by improving man-machine Interface of

perform 480-V AC the controls used In the action. The HEP for the

substation cross-tie cross-tie action was reduced from

6.9 x 10.2 to 2.1 x 10.2. The corresponding

dependent HEPs were also adjusted to account for

the change In the base HEP.

CD

2

co

cn

C

CD

CD

U'n

at

x

GV
z

C

C)

CD,

CI,

CA

CD

U'

Table G-4. (contd) x)

CD

a.

x

C) % Rducion Rik Total Benefit Total Benefit

SAMA Assumptonssk Reducton Using r7 Using 3% Cost

CDF Population Discount Rate Discount Rate

Dose (M) (M)

12 - Enhance the MCR Reduces the HEPs governing the DC alternate 1 2 115,000 148,000 434,800

to Include capability to power alignment actions by reducing the time

align the alternate DC required to perform the action and by Improving manpower supply to machine Interface of the controls used In the action.

specific DC panels The HEP for the alternate alignment action was

reduced from 1.2 x 10' to 8.4 x 102. The

corresponding dependent HEPs were also adjusted

to account for the change In the base HEP.

13 - Install an Inter- Credits the use of the opposite unit's CRD 6 9 727,000 951,000 836,900

unit CRD cross-tie system as an additional means of providing highpressure Injection. While not credited for

preventing a loss of CRD Initiating event or for

providing Injection during an ATWS, the cross-tle

is assumed to be capable of providing makeup

for transient cases. A lumped failure probability

of 5 x 102 Is used to represent operator alignment

errors and hardware failures of the cross-tie flow

path.

15 - Diverse Reduces the failures of EDG HVAC Initiation 3 2 226,000 285,000 200,000

emergency diesel caused by malfunction of the logic systems

generators (EDG) through the addition of a redundant logic train. A

HVAC logic lumped failure probability of I x 10.2 Is used to

represent hardware and support system failures

for the alternate logic train.

C)

0o

_.

0

0) a)
0

0

i)

G)

Table G-4. (contd)

Total Benefit Total Benefit % Risk Reduction Usn7% sig3

SAMA Assumptions Using 7°MOc Using 3% Cost (S) CDF Population Discount Rate Discount Rate

Dose ($) (S)

16 - Diverse swing Provides a diverse, diesel-driven air compressor that 1 1 111,000 140,000 159,100

diesel generators air can be used to start any/all of the EDGs given a

compressor common cause failure of the normal starting system.

Eliminates the common cause failure to start term of

EDG starting air compressors.

17 - Provide alternate Allows directly supplying the loads for DC Bus 19 13 1,287,000 1,607,000 489,300

feeds to panels 2A-1 with a portable generator given failure of the

supplied only by DC bus. Only supplies the 2A-1 loads and can be

bus 2A-1 used when the bus has failed. The alignment

action Is assigned the same 1.2 x 10 failure

probability that Is used for similar alternate

power source alignments In the model.

18 - Provide alternate Loss of emergency 4-ky bus Initiating events were 3 4 315,000 409,000 434,800

feeds to essential eliminated.

loads directly from an

alternate emergency

bus

19 - Provide an A portable compressor can be used to mitigate a 4 a 580,000 772,000 489,300

alternate means of loss of the Instrument air compressors due to

supplying the either compressor failure or support system

Instrument air header failure. A lumped failure probability of 1 x 10-2 Is

used to represent hardware and operator failures

to align the portable compressor.

20 - Enhance the MCR Allows the operator to swap AC supplies to the 1 2 141,000 183,000 434,800

to include capability to battery chargers from the control room. An HEP of 1

swap AC power x 10P Is assigned to the action.

supplies to the battery

chargers

z

cG) m

M

-A

Cl) co

:4C

U' CD3

(n

CD

0

x

G)
z

C

M

G7)

CA)

cn4

Cn

(D

3

CD

Table G-4. (contd) -o

CD

0.

G) Total Benefit Total Benefit % Risk Reduction Using 7% Using 3%

SAMA Assumptions CDF Population Discount Rate Discount Rate Cost ($)

Dose ($) ($)

21 - Enhance CRD Reduces the probabllty of loss of CRD system flow 3 2 202,000 254,000 500,000

logic by allowing the automatic bypass of the drive path

and suction filters given plugging/clogging. The

bypass path failure probabilities include events for

logic/support system failures (i.e., 5 x 104) and

motor-operated valve failures (i.e., 3 x 1 0,).

22- Install self-cooled Eliminates the cooling dependency for the CR0 1 2 139,000 182,000 500,000

CRD pumps pumps.

25- Proceduralize Allows the operators to prevent the loss of the 9 0.5 334,000 378,000 50,000

battery charger high- battery chargers as a DC source when the

voltage shutdown batteries have failed or are unavailable. A failure

circuit inhibit probability of 5 x 104 Is assigned to the HEP used

to represent high-voltage shutdown circuit

Inhibit.

29- Portable EDG Reduces the contribution of sequences involving 3 2 207,000 260,000 186,900

fuel oil transfer pump failure of the existing EDG fuel oil transfer

pumps. A lumped failure probability of 1 x 102 Is

used to represent hardware and operator failures

for the alignment and operator of the portable

fuel transfer pumps.

30 - Improve alternate Improves operator reliability over the use of the not not 1,047,000 1,334,000 1,531,900

shutdown panel current panel by a factor of five for all control room estimated estimated

fire scenarios.

0

a)
'a

M .

0

0

0)

G)

CA'

z

a

m

G)

t.N

CA)

4

al

rO

CD2

CD

01

Table G-4. (contd)

Total Benefit Total Benefit

SAMA Assumptions Rs tusing 7/ Using 3% C st CDF Population Discount Rate Discount Rate

Dose (M) (M)

31 - Improved Improves operator reliability over the use of the not not 131,000 167,000 250,000

alternate shutdown current panel by 10 percent for all control room fire estimated estimated

training and equipment scenarios.

32 - Add automatic fire Suppression system Is 95 percent effective In not not 379,000 483.000 750,000

suppression system eliminating the risk of fires In the 20-ft elevation of estimated estimated

the north-central and northwest areas of the reactor

building.

33 - Improve fire Eliminates the risk associated with all fires In non- not not 3,700 4,700 100,000

barriers between critical cabinets. Prevents the spread of fires to estimated estimated

cabinets In the cable cabinets containing equipment required for the safe

spreading room shutdown of the plant.

34 - Provide Ensures that a means of operating the 6 5 409,000 516,000 489,300

supplemental power switchyard circuit breakers Is available to

supplies for offsite recover offsite power after the station batteries

power recovery after have been depleted. Represented by crediting

battery depletion the bolldown and fuel heat-up time In the offsIte

during SBO power recovery calculations for long-term SBO

calculations (i.e., Injection Is lost at the time of

battery depletion).

CD

x

G)
z

C

G)

-L

Ca

CD

C

to

Cn,

Table G-4. (contd)

% Risk Reduction Total Benefit Total Benefit

SAMA AssumptRonstUsing 7 Using 3%s

CDF Population Discount Rate Discount Rate

Dose ($) ($)

35 - Use fire-fighting Reduces the contribution of most loss of EDG 1 0.7 70.000 88,000 2,000.000

water as a backup for cooling sequences by crediting the alignment of fireEDG cooling fighting water to the EDG cooling system. A lumped

failure probability of I x 10 Is used to represent the

operator alignment errors and hardware failures of

the fire-fighting water cross-tle.

36 - Use fire-fighting Reduces the probability of sequences including 1 2 161,000 224,000 100,000

water as a backup for containment spray failures In the Level 2 PSA

containment spray model. A lumped failure probability of 5 x 10 Is

used to represent the operator alignment errors

and hardware failures of the fire-fighting water

cross-tie.

37 - Low-pressure Credits operation of reactor core Isolation cooling 0.4 0.7 53,000 70.000 200,000

RCIC operation (RCIC) after reactor coolant system depressurization

at HCTL when power Is available for fow control.

Operators are always successful In Implementing low

pressure RCIC injection.

SAMAs In bold are potentially cost-beneficial when either a 7-percent or 3-percent real discount rate Is used In staffs analysis.

' The staff judges the cost of this SAMA to be on the order of $5 million to $10 million.

_.

N,

0

0

a)

CD

0.

G)
Appendix G

The staff reviewed the bases for the CP&L's cost estimates (presented in Section F.3 of

Appendix F to the ER). For certain improvements, the staff also compared the cost estimates

to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements, including estimates developed as

part of other licensees' analyses of SAMAs for operating reactors and advanced light-water

reactors. The staff reviewed the costs and found them to be consistent with estimates provided

in support of other plants' analyses.

The staff questioned CP&L about the cost estimate for Phase II SAMA 1, portable generator for

DC power. In the ER, the implementation cost for Phase II SAMA 1 is stated to be for a singleunit site; however, the estimated benefit is based on the risk reduction achieved at both units.

In response to the RAI, CP&L stated that it assumed that power cables were installed that could

be used to align a portable generator to either unit; however, it was also assumed that the

generator would only be used at one unit at a time. Because credit was taken for the

enhancement in dual-unit SBO sequences, two generators or a single, larger-capacity

generator would be required to achieve the estimated benefit in these events. Because dualunit SBO accounts for 37 percent of the total CDF compared with only 2.3 percent from singleunit SBO, the design of the SAMA would need to account for simultaneous use at both units to

derive the full benefit. CP&L concluded that the cost estimate was, therefore, conservative.

The staff considers the cost estimate value in Table G4, which reflects the cost for one

generator, to represent a lower-bound cost.

The staff notes that the cost estimate for Phase I SAMA 1 was also used for several other

SAMAs (i.e., Phase II SAMAs 17, 19, and 34) because the cost of those SAMAs was

considered to be equivalent to the cost of using portable generators to back up the station

batteries. Phase II SAMA 17- provide alternate feeds to panels supplied only by DC bus 2A-1,

and Phase II SAMA 19, provide an alternate means of supplying the instrument air header -

would derive most of their benefits from single-unit events. Thus, the cost estimate, which is

based on a single, portable generator (or air compressor) that could be connected to either unit,

is reasonable for these SAMAs. Phase II SAMA 34 - supplemental power supplies for offsite

power recovery after battery depletion during SBO - obtains much benefit from dual-unit SBO

events. This SAMA involves providing portable power supplies for the switchyard. DC

generators would be used to provide power to operate the power control breakers, while a

480-V AC generator would be used to supply line compressors for breaker support. While one

set of power supplies may be sufficient to deal with dual-unit SBO events, both a DC and an AC

power supply would be needed. The cost estimate addresses providing only a DC power

supply. Consequently, the staff considers the cost estimate for Phase II SAMA 34 to also

represent a lower-bound cost. The staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by CP&L

are sufficient and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

April 2006 G-25 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

CP&12s cost-benefit analysis and the staff's review are described in the following sections.

G.6.1 CP&L's Evaluation

The methodology used by CP&L was based primarily on NRC's guidance for performing costbenefit analysis, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook, NUREG/BR-01 84

(NRC 1997a). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA according to

the following formula:

Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE

where

APE = present value of averted public exposure ($)

AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($)

AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs ($)

AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($)

COE = cost of enhancement ($).

If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

benefit associated with the SAMA and It is not considered cost-beneficial. CP&L's derivation of

each of the associated costs Is summarized below.

NUREG/BR-0058 was recently revised to reflect the agency's policy on discount rates.

Revision 4 states that two sets of estimates should be developed - one at 3 percent and one at

7 percent (NRC 2004). CP&L provided both sets of estimates and indicated that it would

consider for further evaluation any SAMA that was cost-beneficial using a 3-percent discount

rate (CP&L 2004).

Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (A person-rem per year)

x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

x present value conversion factor (10.76 based on a 20-yr period with a 7-percent

discount rate).

As stated in NUREG/BR-01 84 (NRC 1997a), it is important to note that the monetary value of

the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

health risk resulting from a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of

potential losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the license renewal term) of

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 G-26 April 2006
Appendix G

the facility. Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss resulting from a single accident, the

possibility that such an accident could occur at any time over the license renewal term, and the

effect of discounting these potential future losses to present value. For the purposes of initial

screening, CP&L calculated an APE of approximately $632,000 for the 20-yr license renewal

term, which assumes elimination of all severe accidents.

Averted Offsite Propertv Damage Costs (AOC)

The AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

APE = Annual CDF reduction

x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

x present value conversion factor.

For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, CP&L

calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $49,000 based on the Level 3 risk analysis.

This results in a discounted value of approximately $522,000 for the 20-year license renewal

term.

Averted Occupational Exposure (AOE) Costs

The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

AOE = Annual CDF reduction

x occupational exposure per core damage event

x monetary equivalent of unit dose

x present value conversion factor.

CP&L derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in

Section 5.7.3 of NUREG/BR-0184, the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997a). Best

estimate values provided for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term

occupational dose (20,000 person-rem over a 10-yr cleanup period) were used. The present

value of these doses was calculated using the equations provided in the handbook in

conjunction with a monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a real discount

rate of 7-percent, and a time period of 20 yr to represent the license renewal term. For the

purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, CP&L

calculated an AOE of approximately $16,000 for the 20-yr license renewal term.

April 2006 G-27 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

Averted Onsite Costs (AOSCI

Averted onsite costs (AOSC) include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted

power replacement costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable

accidents only and not for severe accidents. CP&L derived the values for AOSC based on

information provided in Section 5.7.6 of NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997a).

CP&L divided this cost element into two parts: (1) the onsite cleanup and decontamination

cost, commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC), and (2) the

replacement power cost.

ACC were calculated using the following formula:

ACC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

x present value conversion factor.

The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

NUREG/BR-01 84 to be $1.1 x 1 0 9 (discounted over a 10-yr cleanup period). This value was

integrated over the term of the proposed license extension. For the purposes of the initial

screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, CP&L calculated an ACC of

approximately $496,000 for the 20-yr license renewal term.

Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula:

RPC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of replacement power for a single event

x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is

required

x reactor power scaling factor.

CP&L based its calculations on the value of 1006 megawatts-electric [MW(e)], which

conservatively bounds the maximum dependable capacity of 938 MW(e) for Unit 1 and 900

MW(e) for Unit 2. CP&L applied a power scaling factor of 1006 MW(e)/910 MW(e) to

determine the RPC. Additionally, CP&L multiplied the RPC by a factor of two based on a

conservative assumption that a severe core damage event in one unit would result in shutting

down the second unit. This was done to maximize the RPC and provide a slightly conservative

assessment of the maximum averted cost risk (MACR). For the purposes of initial screening,

which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, CP&L calculated the RPC to be

approximately $731,000 for the 20-yr license renewal term.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-28 April 2006
Appendix G

Using the above equations, CP&L estimated the total present dollar value equivalent associated

with completely eliminating severe accidents at BSEP to be about $2,397,000 for a single unit.

Because all SAMA costs and benefits were provided on a site basis, CP&L doubled this value

to obtain the two-unit site value of $4,794,000. To account for additional risk reduction in

external events, CP&L doubled this value again (to $9,588,000), to provide the modified

maximum averted cost risk (MMACR), which represents the dollar value associated with

completely eliminating all Internal and external event severe accident risk at both BSEP units.

CP&L's Results

If the implementation costs for a candidate SAMA were greater than the MMACR of

$9,588,000, then the SAMA was screened from further consideration. A more refined look at

the costs and benefits was performed for the remaining SAMAs. If the expected cost for those

SAMAs exceeded the calculated benefit, the SAMA was considered not to be cost-beneficial.

In the baseline analysis contained In the ER (using a 7-percent discount rate), CP&L identified

seven potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs. These SAMAs are:

* SAMA I - Portable generator for DC power: This SAMA involves the use of a portable

generator to supply DC power during an SBO.

* SAMA 15 - Diverse EDG HVAC logic: This SAMA involves the installation of a diverse set

of fan actuation logic, which would reduce the reliance of operators to perform a fan start on

loss of the automatic actuation logic.

* SAMA 17- Provide alternative feeds to panels supplied only by DC bus 2A-1: This SAMA

involves the installation of alternate DC feeds, which may reduce plant risk through

diversification of the power supplies.

* SAMA 19 - Provide an alternate means of supplying the instrument air header: This SAMA

involves procurement of an additional portable compressor to be aligned to the supply

header to reduce the risk associated with loss of Instrument air.

* SAMA 25- Proceduralize battery charger high-voltage shutdown circuit inhibit: This SAMA

involves disabling the charger high-voltage trip circuit when the batteries are disconnected

from the DC circuit, thereby preventing the trip and allowing the chargers to remain online.

* SAMA 29 - Portable EDG fuel oil transfer pump: This SAMA provides additional means of

supplying the EDG day tank in the event a common cause failure prevents operation of the

existing pumps.

April 2006 G-29 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

* SAMA 36 - Use fire-fighting water as a backup for containment spray: This SAMA would

provide redundant containment spray function without the cost of installing a new system.

CP&L performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices and

uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment (CP&L 2004). Based on an analysis

using a 3-percent real discount rate, as recommended in NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC 2004),

several additional SAMA candidates were determined to be potentially cost-beneficial. If the

benefits are increased by approximately a factor of two to account for uncertainties, six

additional SAMA candidates (beyond those identified in the 3-percent discount rate case) were

determined to be potentially cost-beneficial. The potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs, and CP&L's

plans for further evaluation of these SAMAs are discussed In more detail in Section G.6.2.

G.6.2 Review of CP&L's Cost-Benefit Evaluation

The cost-benefit analysis performed by CP&L was based primarily on NUREGIBR-01 84

(NRC 1 997b) and was executed consistent with this guidance.

To account for external events, CP&L multiplied the internal-event benefits by a factor of two for

each SAMA, except those SAMAs that specifically address fire risk (Phase II SAMAs 30-33).

Doubling the benefit for SAMAs 30-33 is not appropriate because these SAMAs are specific to

fire risks and would not have a corresponding benefit on the risk from internal events. Given

that the CDF from fires and other external events as reported by CP&L is approximately the

same as the CDF for internal events, the staff agrees that the factor of two multiplier for

external events is reasonable.

As discussed in Section G.6.1, CP&L applied a multiplier of two to the replacement power cost

based on a conservative assumption that a core damage accident in one unit would result in

permanent shutdown of the remaining unit. The staff questioned CP&L about the rationale for

doubling this cost. In response, CP&L stated this was done to maximize the replacement

power costs and provide a slightly conservative assessment of the MACR. CP&L indicated the

benefit would be reduced by about 15 percent if loss of power generation from only one unit

was assumed in its calculation (Progress Energy 2005a). The staff considers the assumption

regarding loss of the second unit to be conservative, because In the majority of events

(e.g., those involving an intact containment) the unaffected unit can eventually return to service.

For purposes of its evaluation, the staff reassessed the benefits for each SAMA assuming

replacement power costs for only a single unit. Table G4 reflects these adjusted values.

The effect of considering replacement power for only one unit does not change the costeffectiveness of any SAMAs in the baseline analysis; that Is, the same seven SAMAs identified

as potentially cost-beneficial in Section G.6.1 remain potentially cost-beneficial.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-30 April 2006
Appendix G

When benefits were evaluated using a 3-percent discount rate, two additional SAMAs were

determined to be potentially cost-beneficial in the staff's assessment

(i.e., Phase II SAMAs 13 and 34):

* SAMA 13- Install an inter-unit CRD cross-tie as a potential means of recovering from a

loss of CRD at a given unit.

* SAMA 34 - Use DC generators to provide power to operate the power control breakers

while a 480-V AC generator could supply the air compressors for breaker support.

In the 3-percent discount rate case presented in its ER, which assumed replacement power

costs for both units, CP&L identified these SAMAs as well as SAMAs 16 and 18 as potentially

cost-beneficial. Although the latter two SAMAs are not cost-beneficial when replacement power

costs are based on loss of a single unit, they become potentially cost-beneficial when the

impact of uncertainties is considered, as discussed below.

CP&L considered the impact that possible increases in benefits from analysis uncertainties

would have on the results of the SAMA assessment. Information regarding the uncertainty

distribution of the internal events CDF is summarized in Section F.7.2 of the ER (CP&L 2004).

In the uncertainty assessment described therein, the 9WI percent confidence level for the

internal events CDF is approximately 2.35 times the point estimate CDF, while the mean CDF is

approximately 2.1 times the point estimate. CP&L re-examined the initial set of SAMAs to

determine if any additional Phase I SAMAs would be retained for further analysis if the benefits

(and MMACR) were increased by a factor of 2.35. One such SAMA was identified

(i.e., Phase I SAMA 25 - additional diesel generator), but based on further consideration of its

costs and its limited effectiveness due to common cause failure, CP&L concluded that this

SAMA could not be cost-beneficial even if the system was 100 percent reliable. CP&L also

considered the Impact on the Phase II screening if the estimated benefits were increased by a

factor of 2.35 in addition to the factor of two multiplier already included in the baseline benefit

estimates to account for external events. Six additional SAMAs became potentially costbeneficial in CP&L's analysis.

The staff noted that the mean CDF value (8.85 x 10 5 per year) and the 95th percentile CDF

value (9.83 x 10 per year) reported in the ER are much closer than typical. Furthermore, the

staff noticed that a potentially large number of events were assigned an error factor of 10 in

CP&L's uncertainty calculation. Depending on the event, this may be conservative and can

skew the results (including the mean and 95' percentile) towards higher values. Therefore, the

staff requested an assessment of the impact if the mean rather than the point estimate CDF

value were used in the cost-benefit analysis, and if an error factor of 3 instead of 10 were used

for these events.

April 2006 G-31 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

In response to the RAI, CP&L stated that the use of point estimate values is standard practice

for the BSEP PSA, and that the 95t percentile value was computed by inputting an error factor

of 10 for basic events where a common cause failure, initiator, operator action, or maintenance

unavailability event did not have a pre-determined error factor (Progress Energy 2005a). CP&L

performed an additional uncertainty analysis in which those error factors initially set at 10 were

reset to 3. It stated the purpose of this calculation was to provide a firmer basis for the

uncertainty multiplier that is applied to the baseline benefits in the SAMA analysis and the

calculation does not necessarily provide a true statistical assessment of data uncertainties in

the PSA model. The reduction in the assumed default error factor from 10 to 3 resulted in a

95th percentile value-to-point estimate CDF ratio of 1.89 Instead of the factor of 2.35 identified

previously, and a reduction in the ratio of the mean-to-point estimate from 2.1 to 1.2. In the

staff's view, these results are more typical of the uncertainty distribution from other PSAs;

therefore, the staff suggests the use of a multiplier of about two to account for uncertainties is

reasonable. Accordingly, the staff assessed the potential impact of uncertainties by applying a

multiplier of 2.0 to the estimated benefits in the baseline analysis (based on a 7-percent

discount rate). If benefits were doubled to account for uncertainties, six additional SAMAs

(beyond the nine SAMAs identified above as potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline and

3-percent discount rate cases) could be cost-beneficial. These additional SAMAs are

Phase II SAMAs 6, 16,18, 30,31, and 32.

In its ER, CP&L stated that several SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial and warrant further

review for potential Implementation; however, it did not specifically identify which SAMAs would

be pursued (CP&L 2004). In response to an RAI on this subject, CP&L stated that the SAMAs

identified as cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (i.e., Phase II SAMAs 1, 15, 17, 19, 25, 29,

and 36) had been reviewed by the BSEP Plant Review Group (PRG) prior to the submittal of

the license renewal application (Progress Energy 2005a). The PRG recognized the high

positive impact of implementing SAMA 1, which could affect the cost-effectiveness of the

remaining cost-beneficial SAMAs. As a result, CP&L performed a probabilistic evaluation to

investigate the impact on the remaining cost-beneficial SAMAs if SAMA 1 were to be

implemented. Based on the information provided by CP&L In the RAI response,

implementation of SAMA 1 would alter the cost-effectiveness of the remaining SAMAs such

that:

* SAMA 17 would no longer be cost-beneficial when a 7-percent discount rate was used;

however, It could become cost-beneficial when uncertainties were considered.

* SAMAs 19 and 36 would no longer be cost-beneficial when a 7-percent discount rate

was used, nor would they become cost-beneficial when uncertainties were considered.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-32 April 2006
Appendix G

Also, SAMA 13, which was originally identified as potentially cost-beneficial when a 3-percent

discount rate was used, would no longer be cost-beneficial if SAMA 1 is implemented, nor

would it become cost-beneficial when uncertainties are considered.

The balance of the SAMAs that were cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (i.e., Phase II

SAMAs 15, 25, and 29) would remain potentially cost-beneficial after implementation of SAMA

1. Although implementation of SAMA 1 may also impact the net value of some of the SAMAs

that became cost-beneficial at 3 percent (i.e., Phase II SAMA 34) or when uncertainties were

considered (i.e., Phase II SAMAs 6,16,18, 30, 31, and 32), CP&L has not completed its

assessment of this impact. Thus, these SAMAs may also remain potentially cost-beneficial.

CP&L Indicated that a further evaluation of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMA will be

performed (Progress Energy 2005b). This assessment will focus on SAMA 1, and those

baseline case SAMAs that would remain cost-beneficial if SAMA 1 were implemented

(i.e., Phase II SAMAs 15, 25, and 29). In response to the staff's notation that SAMAs other

than those in the baseline case may become cost-beneficial when a 3-percent discount rate is

used, or when uncertainties are considered, CP&L stated that it will include these SAMAs

(i.e., Phase II SAMAs 6, 16, 18, 30, 31,32, and 34) in the assessment that will make

recommendations for the further evaluations of SAMAs (Progress Energy 2005b). Completion

of the evaluations Is being tracked In the BSEP action tracking system.

The staff notes that all of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs Identified in either the baseline

case or the 3-percent discount rate case (see bolded entries In Table G-4) are included within

the set of SAMAs that CP&L plans to further evaluate, with the exception of Phase II SAMAs

13,19, and 36. As discussed in Section G.2.2, SAMAs 13 and 36 could be impacted by

resolution of PSA peer review comments (Phase II SAMAs 6 and 34 would also be impacted

but are already among the set of SAMAs to be further evaluated by CP&L). Also, as discussed

in Section G.5, the cost estimate for SAMA 19 was based on that for SAMA 1. SAMA 19

involves the addition of an engine-driven air compressor capable of supplying the full instrument

air system load. Because the extent of the modifications to accommodate an additional

compressor were not detailed in the ER, actual costs may be higher or lower. (Phase II SAMAs

17 and 34 are similarly affected, but are already among the set of SAMAs to be further

evaluated by CP&L). Finally, if SAMA 1 is not Implemented, these three SAMAs would remain

cost-beneficial. Accordingly, the staff recommends these three SAMAs (i.e., Phase II SAMAs

13, 19, and 36) also be further assessed by CP&L as part of its evaluation.

The staff concludes that, with the exception of the potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs discussed

above, the costs of the SAMAs evaluated would be higher than the associated benefits.

April 2006 G-33 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

G.7 Conclusions

CP&L compiled a list of 43 SAMAs based on a review of the most significant basic events from

the plant-specific PSA, Phase II SAMAs from license renewal activities for other plants, and

insights from the plant-specific IPE and IPEEE. A qualitative screening removed SAMA

candidates that (1) were not applicable at BSEP because of design differences, (2) would

require extensive changes that involve implementation costs known to exceed any possible

benefit, or (3) would cost more than $9.6 million to implement (the MMACR). Seven SAMAs

were eliminated, leaving 36 for evaluation. Further screenings resulting in removal of nine

additional SAMAs, leaving 27 SAMAs for further evaluation.

For each of the remaining 27 SAMA candidates, a more detailed design and cost estimate was

developed as shown In Table G-4. The cost-benefit analyses showed that seven of the SAMA

candidates were potentially cost-beneficial in the baseline analysis (SAMAs 1, 15, 17, 19, 25,

29, and 36). CP&L performed additional analyses to evaluate the impact of parameter choices

and uncertainties on the results of the SAMA assessment. As a result, eight additional SAMAs

were identified as potentially cost-beneficial (SAMAs 6, 13, 16, 18, 30, 31, 32, and 34). CP&L

has committed to further evaluate SAMA 1 and SAMAs that may remain potentially costbeneficial If SAMA 1 is implemented (SAMAs 6, 15, 16, 17, 18,25,29, 30,31, 32, and 34).

The staff concluded all of these SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial. In addition, the staff

concluded that SAMAs 13, 19, and 36 are potentially cost-beneficial and may remain so even if

SAMA 1 is Implemented.

The staff reviewed the CP&L analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs

support the general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by CP&L are reasonable

and sufficient for the license renewal submittal. Although the treatment of SAMAs for external

events was somewhat limited by the unavailability of an external event PSA, the likelihood of

there being cost-beneficial enhancements in this area was minimized by inclusion of several

candidate SAMAs related to dominant fire events, improvements that have been realized as a

result of the IPEEE process, and inclusion of a multiplier to account for external events.

The staff concurs with CP&L's Identification of areas in which risk can be further reduced in a

cost-beneficial manner through the implementation of all or a subset of the identified, potentially

cost-beneficial SAMAs. Given the potential for cost-beneficial risk reduction, the staff agrees

that further evaluation of these SAMAs by CP&L Is warranted. However, none of the potentially

cost-beneficial SAMAs relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of

extended operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license renewal

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25 G-34 April 2006
Appendix G

G.8 References

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, 'Requirements for

Renewal of Operating License for Nuclear Power Plants."

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1988. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Probabilistic

Risk Assessment. Southport, North Carolina.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1992. Letter from R. B. Starkey, Jr., CP&L, to NRC

Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2,

Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324/License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Response to Generic

Letter 88-20 Supplement 1 - Submittal of Individual Plant Examination (IPE) for Brunswick

Units 1 & 2, August 31, 1 992.

Carolina Power & Ught Company (CP&L). 1995. Letter from Roy A. Anderson, CP&L, to NRC

Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324/License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Response to Generic Letter 88-20

Supplement 4 - Submittal of Individual Plant Examination for External Events (IPEEE),

June 30, 1995.

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L). 1996a. Letter from William R. Campbell, CP&L, to

NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,

Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324/License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Response to Generic

Letter 88-20, Supplement 4 - Submittal of Individual Plant Examination for External Events

(IPEEE), June 28,1996.

Carolina Power & Ught Company. (CP&L). 1996b. Letter from William Levis, CP&L, to NRC

Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Docket

Nos. 50-325 and 50-324/U-cense Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Response to Request for

Additional Information, Individual Plant Examination For Extemal Events (IPEEE), Generic

Letter 88-20, - Supplement 4, TAC Nos. M83598 and M83599, August 15,1996.

Carolina Power and Light (CP&L). 2004. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Units No. 1 and 2. Docket Nos.

50-325 and 50-324, Southport, North Carolina.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1991. A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear

Power Plant Seismic Margins, Revision 1. EPRI Report NP-6041 -SL, Palo Alto, California.

April 2006 G-35 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25
Appendix G

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1992. Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation (FIVE).

EPRI Report TR-1 00370, Palo Alto, California.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy). 2005a. Letter from Cornelius J. Gannon,

Progress Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Response

to Request for Additional Information - License Renewal, April 21, 2005.

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Progress Energy). 2005b. Letter from Cornelius J. Gannon,

Progress Energy, to NRC Document Control Desk. Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant

Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62, Further

Response to License Renewal Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Request for Additional

Information SAMA1-8 (NRC TAC Nos. MC4641 and MC4642), June 1, 2005.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). 2000. Application for License Renewal for the

Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. Appendix D, Applicant's Environmental Report -

Operating License Renewal Stage, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) - 100 percent data.

Available online at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/SumFilel.html

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File and

1990 Census. Table I - Counties in Alphabetical Sort within State, 1990 and 2000 Population,

Numeric and Percent Change: 1990 to 2000. April 2, 2001. Available online at

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t4/tabOl.xis

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998. 1997 Census of Agriculture, National

Agriculture Statistics Service, 1998. Available online at:

http://www.nass.usda.gov/censuslcensus97/volumel/vol1 pubs.htm

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989. Review of the Brunswick Steam Electric

Plant Probabilistic Risk Assessment. NUREG/CR-5465, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/1 150, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Regulatory Analysis Technical

Evaluation Handbook. NUREG/BR-01 84, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Individual Plant Examination Program:

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1 560, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 25 G-36 April 2006
Appendix G

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. Letter from David C. Trimble, NRC, to

J. S. Keenan, CP&L. Subject: NRC Staff's Evaluation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,

Units 1 and 2, Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Submittal (TAC

Nos. M83598 and M83599), November 18, 1998.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Letter from Allen Hansen, NRC, to

J. S. Keenan, CP&L. Subject: Completion of Licensing Action and Issuance of Safety

Evaluation Regarding USI A-46 Program Implementation at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46, Supplement No. 1 to

Generic Letter (GL) 87-02 (TAC Nos. M69433169434), August 5, 1999

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Letter from Allen G. Hansen, NRC to

John S. Keenan, CP&L. Subject: NRC Staff's Evaluation of the Brunswick Steam Electric

Plant, Units I and 2, Individual Plant Examination (IPE) Submittal (TAC Nos. M74387 and

M74388), January 21, 2000.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatoty Analysis Guidelines of the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Letter from Richard L. Emch, Jr., NRC, to

Comelius J. Gannon, Progress Energy. Subject: Request for Additional Information (RAI)

Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,

Units 1 and 2, February 24, 2005.

April 2006 G-37 NUREG-1437, Supplement 25

NRC FORM 335 US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(9-2004) (Assiged by NRC. Add Vol.. Supp, Rev,

NRCMD 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, " any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(see .nsitnions on the reverse) NUREG-1 437, Supplement 25

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBUSHED

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Ucense Renewal of Nuclear Plants MONTH YEAR

Supplement 25

Regarding Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 APtil 2006

Final Report 4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

S. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

See Appendix B of report

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inciusive Dates)

B PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS (Il NRC. provkie Divesion. Office or Regiong U. Midacrflegiatory Commission. and fralsn address; f contcfaor.

provi*e name and malhe address.)

Division of Ucense Renewal

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC. Same as abovea'Xf ontuacto provide NRC Daon, Ot orRegron, U.S. NuciearRegulatoy Cornrmisson,

andmafing address.)

Same as 8. above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket Nos. 50-324 and 50-325

11. ABSTRACT g200 words or less)

This Supplement environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared In response to an application submitted to the

NRC by the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) (now doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.) to renew the

OLs for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This SEIS

Includes the NRC staffs analysis that considers and weighs the environmental Impacts of the proposed action, the

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding

adverse impacts. It also includes the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The recommendation of the NRC staff Is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental Impacts of license

renewal for BSEP are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings In the GEIS; (2) the ER submitted by CP&L;

(3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staffs own Independent review; and (5) the staff's

consideration of public comments.

1Z KEY WORDSIDESCRIPTORS (Ustw sorp es hatwilassistresearchersicaticao the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 unlimited

Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

GElS (This Page)

National Environmental Policy Act unclassified

NEPA (This Report)

License Renewal unclassified

BSEP

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FDRM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
v

Federal Recycling Program